Brian Edwards Media

How TVNZ made Kate Lynch a scapegoat and hung her out to dry.

In today’s Herald on Sunday, in a piece headlined ‘Lynch Mob’, the paper’s ‘gossip queen’ Rachel Glucina reveals that Close Up reporter Kate Lynch has been ‘unceremoniously demoted’ by TVNZ from her senior reporting role on the prime-time programme and transferred to the channel’s off-peak, late-night news show Tonight.

The remarkably well-briefed Glucina goes on to reveal that Lynch ‘insisted that producers at Close Up knew what she was doing and approved of it.’

‘However, Spy understands the findings of the [TVNZ] investigation suggest Lynch was found to have acted alone.’

Glucina goes on:

‘Sources say Lynch will be expected to work on Tonight for a period of three to six months before her role is reviewed. It is likely she will make her way back to primetime news, though she will not be offered another position at Close Up.’

And, in case we missed the seriousness of Lynch’s demotion:

‘”It’s like being dumped from Cabinet to the electorate office as secretary,” said one inside mole. “It’s effectively the most junior role you can get. All new reporters cut their teeth on the late-night news shows. It’s a start-in position.”’

This story raises some disturbing questions about TVNZ’s handling of this affair and whether Lynch has been fairly treated.  

First, it is clear from the detailed description of the arrangements between Lynch and TVNZ, so precisely laid out in the story, that formal terms for her continued employment were negotiated with her employer. Such terms will certainly have included a non-disclosure clause binding both parties. Thanks to Glucina’s ‘one inside mole’ – there were apparently several – TVNZ must now be in breach of that agreement. Lynch has now not merely been demoted by TVNZ but humiliated by the release of the terms of that demotion, either by someone in TVNZ’s senior management or, more probably, by one of her former colleagues in Close Up. She has, in a nutshell, been hung out to dry.

Which brings me to the question: has she been made the scapegoat for a failure of oversight by TVNZ  itself?

Let’s deal first with the TVNZ investigation allegedly having concluded that Lynch had ‘acted alone’. Anyone who knows anything about how a magazine programme like Close Up is put together will tell you the idea that a story could be filmed, let alone put to air, without its content and treatment having first been discussed with the programme’s producer, is utterly preposterous. Equally preposterous is the idea that a producer would put to air an item they had not already seen and approved. If Lynch did indeed ‘act alone’, then her producer should have been demoted with her or possibly fired.

That Lynch had not ‘acted alone’ was in any event made patently clear by TVNZ’s initial response to Ana Samways’ revelation that the Close Up item was a virtual clone of an ABC America original:

Close Up has been running a series of investigative stories called Made in NZ after seeing what a huge success our affiliate network, ABC America, has had with Made in the USA.

We have done four stories so far. The editorial concept for the first three originated in Close Up. The idea for the one we ran last night came from ABC America World News. It was a clever concept that illustrated the point visually therefore perfect for television.

However, it would not have worked to run the American story here. It would have been completely irrelevant to a New Zealand audience, which is why we reversioned it. We found a Kiwi family and conducted the same experiment here, as we are perfectly entitled to do under our affiliation agreement.

Like ABC America, Close Up has had an incredible response from viewers on our Made In series and have several other stories planned. [My italics and emphasis]

No suggestion there of Lynch having ‘acted alone’. And no suggestion either of the network (or her) having done anything improper or wrong. TVNZ tells us, ‘… we reversioned it. We found a Kiwi family and conducted the same experiment here, as we are perfectly entitled to do under our affiliation agreement.’

‘Reversioning’ is a well-known term not only at TVNZ but in most television networks. It happens all the time in news and current affairs programmes, most commonly by substituting a local voice-over for the original in an overseas report.

But the key words in TVNZ’s statement were ‘as we are perfectly entitled to do under our affiliation agreement.’ That was the network’s position at the time the Close Up item was broadcast. It follows that no-one at TVNZ – neither management, nor her departmental head, nor her producer –  could have advised Lynch that her understanding of what ‘reversioning’ meant was unacceptable. They cannot have done so, since at the time they clearly did not think it was. Unless, that is, they want us to believe that literally none of Lynch’s superiors in the organisation had seen the item before it went to air. If that were the case, other heads should be rolling.

I don’t believe it for a moment. I would be astonished if the programme’s producer and director were not shown the rough-cut of Lynch’s story, were not sent a detailed rundown of the final cut, and had not received a copy of the to-camera and voice-over script. And not a peep from anyone!

What’s clear from all of this is that Close Up and TVNZ both thought the idea of ‘reversioning’ the ABC America concept was great. And both Close Up and TVNZ were delighted with their audience’s ‘incredible response’ to the series. But after Samways’ exposure the picture changed. There was flak from the public. The ‘P-word’ was mentioned. As we’ve seen, TVNZ at first decided it had done nothing wrong and issued a media release saying so. But later it changed its mind. That in itself raises some interesting possibilities – that ABC America had expressed some displeasure about one of its items being ‘cloned’, that the Corporation’s dozy lawyers had started biting their nails or that widespread public and media disapproval of what had been done – much of it ill-informed and unfounded – was raising the temperature in Hobson Street to unbearable levels.

What to do? Why, follow Rule One of New Zealand broadcasting PR – ‘When in the poo, find a scapegoat.’

In this matter, it’s extremely hard to see Kate Lynch in any other role. What this entire debacle reveals is an appalling lack of oversight at all levels in the organisation. Lynch may have made an error of judgement, but against a background where her employer and her immediate superiors considered what she had done was something she and they were ‘perfectly entitled to do’. And no one, either in management or in the Close Up office, expressed any reservation to her, either before or immediately after the item went to air. TVNZ’s handling of this affair, from go to wo, has been an absolute scandal. And only Lynch has paid the price.

I should reveal that Judy and I know Kate Lynch well. She is one of a number of reporters who received training from us when she was at TV3. On this matter her editorial judgement failed her. But she can hold her head considerably higher than her faceless lowlife former colleague/s who seized  an opportunity to hurt her further by talking to the tabloid press.


  1. That Glucina story was a disgrace. As you note, her anonymously-sourced tittle-tattle doesn’t even acknowledge TVNZ’s own statements about editorial responsibility for the programme, and it’s completely at odds with the story as presented by the Herald’s media columnist, John Drinnan.

    This doesn’t meet basic news standards and, like most of what Glucina turns out, it’s not even good gossip.

    The Herald on Sunday’s editor, Bryce Johns, needs to take some responsibility for this rubbish, which may yet damage the career of a young journalist.

  2. I agree with you , Brian…Kate Lynch is being hung out to dry and if I was her I would be launching a massive grievance claim against TVNZ for humiliation, embarrasment ,loss of earnings and future career damage.

    Over the last fortnight the general impression, via media drip, has been that Closeup stuffed up on a low interest story and it was not of major interest to viewers either way.

    Now , with the publics thirst for titillation whetted we have a personal focus in the shape of Kate Lynch being singled out as the person responsible for the whole thing.
    In the dark of the night and unbeknownst to everyone in Fortress TVNZ she compiled, edited and readied an entire segment and then single-handedly put it to air on Closeup…shock,horror !..and unlikely!

    To quote from your blog above:
    ” Anyone who knows anything about how a magazine programme like Close Up is put together will tell you the idea that a story could be filmed, let alone put to air, without its content and treatment having first been discussed with the programme’s producer, is utterly preposterous. Equally preposterous is the idea that a producer would put to air an item they had not already seen and approved. If Lynch did indeed ‘act alone’, then her producer should have been demoted with her or possibly fired.”

    Kate to your lawyer…!

  3. It’s quite conceivable that one associate producer commissioned the story based on a story he/she saw on ABC, and two other senior producers viewed the finished product, not knowing that the finished product mirrored the original so closely.

    BE: Well, anything’s possible, I suppose. But this scenario would not explain TVNZ’s claim that it was entitled to do precisely what Kate had done.

  4. “But this scenario would not explain TVNZ’s claim that it was entitled to do precisely what Kate had done.”

    Flannery talked about this on Mediawatch, and implied that the initial response was not well thought through, but a reflexive push back at another swipe from the Herald.

    I think it was the overwhelming and unanimous reaction of the rank-and-file on the newsroom that might have also helped change some minds.

    BE: Any literate and informed viewer would have serious doubts about the stone-throwing qualifications of the journos in the TV1 newsroom. There are very few sins against journalistic standards that they do not commit in a single bulletin.

  5. Brian I take your point about TVNZ’s intial denial, and you are right that there is a broader responsibility here that has not been dealt with appropriately.
    However, Ms Lynch is not a delicate flower of an individual. She promotes herself as a ‘ballsy’ stroppy butt-kicker of a journo who is hunting for the next big scoop. She is not a person to placidly accept direction without challenging something she would percieve as wrong/inappropriate.
    Giving her the benefit of the doubt that it was not her idea, there has still been no suggestion that, having been told to ‘copy’ the item word-for-word, shot-for-shot, Ms Lynch said “No I am not comfortable with doing that”.
    Instead she appears to have gone along with it happily enough until the point at which she drew criticism, when she effectively said “They made me do it”.
    Yes she has been a ‘fall guy’ to some extent, and she should not have been the only person singled out.
    Yes the senior producer is at fault and should take his share of the punishment, but Kate Lynch drove that story and she knew exactly what she was doing.

    BE: Several of the assertions you refer to in this comment were not made in my post nor by Kate Lynch who, as far as I know, has kept her counsel on the whole affair. It’s TVNZ and members of its staff who have done all the talking, both on and, it now appears, off the record.

    I’ve removed one sentence which I considered actionable.

  6. I would have thought there should be some collective responsibility for the story as it wasn’t just one reporter rocking up to Jo Average’s house and noting all items that were not Kiwi made. It involved a furniture van, furniture removers, the family being temporarily relocated and a household of goods being removed. What surprised me was not so much that it was an exact copy of the ABC story that I viewed on TVNZ7, but the size of the budget that had to found to make the story work. I’m sure the reporter must have had someone’s say so to sign off the budget …. and therefore someone else’s knowledge as to how the piece to air was to be played.

  7. 7

    Adolf Fiinkensein

    What a putrid, shabby outfit. They do have form.

    This episode has the same odour about it as did the hanging out to dry of Paul Henry who was encouraged to be controversial because his antics upped the ratings.

    A hint of trouble and the big brave executives ran for their lives.

  8. Why on earth do we expect high standards from TVNZ, their news is I’ll informed rubbish generally and close up is truly appalling.
    sell the blasted thing to Murdoch and be done with it.

    BE: Well, since they’re generally regarded as the national broadcaster, we should expect high standards from them. As for Murdoch, you should perhaps be careful what you wish for.

  9. It remains worth noting that on the basis of Glucina’s story, this can’t be attributed to TVNZ as such. It actually seems more likely to be sourced from a colleague.

  10. Close Up has always been a showcase for a shameless bunch of rating chasing whores.

    Tomorrow’s “shock, horror, probe” will have obliterated any memory of Lynch’s alleged reprehensible behaviour, that no one else, in televisionland, knew anything about.

    Yeah Right!

    Something smells.

    Normally Close Up would ignore the issue, after “apologizing”.

    Why sacrifice a reporter for a suspect telecast on a dodgy programme?

    If Close Up had ignored it, no on would have remembered it.

    It looks like some very senior TV types have it in for Lynch, for undisclosed reasons.

    Lynch should be talking to good employment relations practitioners.

  11. Surely Brian, you just need to make a few calls to some of your friends and acquaintances at TVNZ and you could find out the answer to a few questions rather than just speculating.

    Have you ever seen anything like this before? Is plagiarism the right description?

    Is there any evidence that there was a non-disclosure clause? Especially when there would be obvious evidence in a newsroom that someone had moved from one programme to another. Wouldn’t a company explain the shift to all that it would impact on, which in this case would probably be more than 20 colleagues from the two respective shows. A company could also be expected to outline to all news staff the results of their investigation and expectations of journalism ethics, given the obvious changes that had seen one person involved be moved from one programme to another.

    “Well, since they’re generally regarded as the national broadcaster, we should expect high standards from them.” And they’ve cut the person loose who they say is responsible for what is a huge error. If you have any evidence to the contrary, perhaps you should produce it.

    BE: Well Tim, what do you think the chances are of my ringing Rick Ellis or Anthony Flannery and being told just what conditions were attached to Lynch remaining with TVNZ? So trust me, Glucina’s mole may be a total scumbag, but his story was accurate and it represents only part of the humiliation which Lynch was subjected to in order to keep her job. There are, you see, some decent moles inside TVNZ who aren’t rejoicing about how a fellow journalist was treated and who really would like the full story to be out there.

  12. “You’ve made your bed now lie in it”, comes to mind.

    Call it “cloning”, imitating, borrowing, copying etc, and read the Close-Up’s transcript which smacks of “Cut’n’Paste”, flogged straight off the American show. Which makes it not only the height of journalistic laziness but also dishonest. Kate Lynch was in a senior role in current affairs, so she shouldn’t need to be moddle-coddled by the producer’s supervision, to ensure the bona fides of her report.

    The demotion is unfortunate, but to be expected. Kate’s been relegated to the graveyard shift, as deserved punishment. If she doesn’t want her TV career to get truly buried, best, she not hand out shovels by running to the lawyers.

    BE: I personally don’t think you go far enough. The punishment for ‘reversioning’ a minor, light-hearted item from an affiliate with the tacit or perhaps even explicit approval of your employer really should be public stoning. I’m sure you’d have no trouble tracking down other judgemental ignoramuses to assist.

  13. Dubious, the point Brian is making is that its rubbish to suggest that Kate bears all responsibility for the story. And that, aside from the mechanics of journalism in NZ making that virtually impossible, TVNZ have effectively admitted she didn’t. Its not relevant whether she came up with the idea, or failed to fight against it if it was someone else’s. No one is painting her as a saint. That is not the point.

  14. Kate Lynch managed to make and air a TV segment on Close Up without anyone else knowing?

    Yeah right!

    Close Up is a brothel full of whores chasing ratings.

    The presenters will do, and say anything to get ratings.

    The presenters are not accountable to the brothel rating owners or brothel rating management?

    Yeah right!

    Kate needs to talk to experienced employment relation practitioners.

    Close Up “apologized”.

    The next night everyone would have forgotten about it.

    Remember the old talk about yesterday’s news being today’s fish and chip paper?

    Rather than continue on as if nothing had happened the ratings brothel owners and management continue feeding an inconsequential “story” by publicly humiliating one of its employees.

    Very kinky, and disturbing.

  15. @David: would you like phone hacking and police bribery with that?

    Seriously though, TVNZ needs a BBC man in charge.

  16. PhilC above has a good point.

    How could anyone working for a company “act alone” and not be noticed?

    Furthermore, if, as TVNZ insists, Ms Lynch “acted alone” – what does this say about that company;

    1. Managerial over-sight? Who was in charge? Who was paid the big bucks to take responsibilty for staff actions?

    2. TVNZ’s culture that would permit/encourage it’s staff to “act alone”.

    3. Are there no such things as “staff meetings” at TVNZ?

    4. Do people at TVNZ not talk to each other? (If so, it must be an errily silent place to work in… )

    Whenever I hear the phrase, “acted alone”, my first inclination is to look toward the grassy knoll and see who else was involved… I’m sure there must’ve been a manager or two mixed up with this crazy situation.

  17. Furthermore, if, as TVNZ insists, Ms Lynch “acted alone” – what does this say about that company;

    Again, that rather oddly-phrased claim appears in Glucina’s story, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that’s what the report actually says.

    BE: You’re correct, Russell, it is based on an anonymous report and therefore unreliable. However, I have very reliable information that the nub of the matter was whether Lynch had made the item in the way that she did with the full knowledge and approval of her producer. Her position that this was indeed the case was not accepted by management. Hence her demotion and other demeaning requirements of her including, according to my source, the requirement to apologise to the Close Up team and to accept a warning which, I assume, would appear on her work record.

  18. I’m sure you’d have no trouble tracking down other judgemental ignoramuses to assist.

    Unkind and unwarranted. And — it appears you’ve done an about-face on your own critical posting, which you described as an “exact facsimile”. And does this ring a bell?
    But does ‘conducting the same experiment’ include making an almost exact copy of the original – same idea, same storyline, same direction, same graphics, same commentary? And all of that without attribution? I would have thought not. Exactly!

    “Reversioning” is perfectly acceptable, provided it’s referenced. But Kate Lynch lifted much of ABC’s transcript, almost verbatim — and that’s just plain laziness. The aftermath has produced much incredulous mirth amongst us viewers. Even more galling for TVNZ bosses, was the loud guffawing they heard coming from the direction of Flower Street, rankling them no end.

    Factor in: that much viewer scorn has been heaped upon Close Up, and then you’d have to agree that the sanction imposed upon Kate is eminently fair and commensurate with her violation of trust.

    It will be a blunt lesson to her: that you can’t build your journalistic credentials and, seemingly, tout your ‘innovativeness’ on the backs of others, without first tipping your hat in the direction of those who gave you the inspiration for ‘your’ story. It’s like entering a talent contest, where you not only lip-sync your way through the song but also use the soundtrack of the original artist’s vocals. A big no-no in the integrity stakes, drumming up that dreaded 5-letter c-word amongst not only your rivals but also your colleagues.

    BE: I’ll agree with only one part of what you’ve written, that my response to your earlier comment was indeed unkind and unwarranted. I have a tendency to take the verbal cane to people who take the verbal cane to others. So Sorry.

    However, I’ve given a lot of thought to what I said in my earlier post which you quite rightly point out seems rather at odds with what I’m saying now.

    I don’t think this qualifies as ‘plagiarism’ in the commonly held sense. Generally speaking plagiarism involves stealing someone else’s work and either explicitly or implicitly claiming it as your own. The context is usually reasonably serious: an author publishes part of another author’s work without acknowledgement or attribution and portrays it as his/her own; an academic presents someone else’s research as his/her own. There are other examples in the field of entertainment, film-making, television etc. With television programmes it’s generally formats which are protected by copyright. Ideas can be a different matter, especially if the idea is so wide that it could have been thought of by anyone. Even then, a wide idea might be subject to copyright if someone intended to make a series based on that idea which had never been made before. I suppose that what all this boils down to is that there must be something unique about the programme or idea for someone to say, “Hey, that’s my original idea and copying it constitutes plagiarism.” I don’t see that as being the case here. We’re not talking about a programme format or even a programme; we’re talking about one item in a regular magazine programme series, one of possibly hundreds of such items in that programme over a year. And the idea is really a one-off idea. “Hey, our affiliate had this great idea for demonstrating how few locally made products are in people’s homes. We could do that here as well.” I don’t know whose suggestion that was – the Close Up producer’s, someone else’s in the Close Up team or Kate herself. TVNZ’s statement that it was “entitled” to “reversion” the item because Air America was an affiliate, at any rate suggests that the reversioning was given the OK. They were, after all, not depriving their affiliate of anything since they are not in competition in the same market. In essence what I’m saying is that, given the relatively trivial and one-off nature of the item and TVNZ’s position that it had an arrangement with Air America to do this sort of thing, it’s extremely doubtful whether what happened here could be described as or ever have attracted a legal action for plagiarism. As to whether Kate did all of this off her own bat and without any of her superiors knowing, I stick by my opinion that that suggestion is preposterous and that TVNZ’s subsequent treatment of Kate Lynch has been an outrage. Finally, I agree that using virtually the same to camera and voice-over script wasn’t a good look. But plagiarism? No

  19. While Lynch does seem to have been treated harshly, we don’t know how she reacted after this matter was brought to her attention. The following comes from a Herald report.

    “I’ve never seen so many people upset. They’re pissed off. It’s a unilateral response across the newsroom. It’s not our practice to copy other people’s work. We don’t approve of it.”

    What was Lynch’s response to this and to the accusation of plagiarism? This is much as anything else may have contributed to her plagiarism.

  20. Well, the Herald did report that staff at TVNZ were “pissed off” with Lynch for not taking any responsibility. If true, it might help to explain her demotion. We don’t know how she reacted to a “please explain”. She may have been unprofessional and unreasonable. Certainly that’s what I took from the Herald (not Glucina) article.

  21. should read: “This as much as anything else may have contributed to her demotion.”

  22. Shock horror! A TV journalist is caught cheating, and the bosses cover it up. Stop the presses. What some years back might have been a serious slight on television journalism, is now just another issue to be managed, with the pseudo-sorry and a scapegoat. Meanwhile, business as usual.

  23. Not sure I’d put training Kate Lynch on my CV, Brian. She’s never really bothered the scorers when it comes to journalism awards or exclusives and seems more interested in being in Rachel Glucina’s column or flogging her wedding to the woman’s mags. I’m also not sure if you get the difference between taking an idea and adding your own spin to it and copying something word for word, shot for shot. One happens all the time the other should never. But you make a very good point about her being hung out to dry. Someone must’ve viewed it before it went to air and someone must’ve talked to Rachel Glucina. So here’s a “guess who don’t sue” for you, which senior TVNZ news executives and producers wined and dined with Paul Henry and Ms Glucina last Friday?

  24. The whole thing is very odd.

  25. 25

    Hey Bri. Perhaps the problem with Kate is that she was trained by you, as you point out, and therefore her hubris and ego got in the way. Sounds familiar. Kindest Regards from Beautiful Phuket. Alastair

    BE: Perhaps the problem with you, Alastair, is that you’ve forgotten your manners.

  26. I simply can’t imagine that TVNZ would have embarked on this series of stories without having viewed the original ABC series first. Especially the big feature piece in question.

    It is similarly unimaginable then that the Producers of the show were not aware of the striking similarities between the script of the US version and that of Lynch’s story.

    Presumably it was her idea to simply reshoot the same script, as surely she’d have stood up for herself if she’d been instructed to do just that. However it seems certain that the script was available to producers through the department’s iNews system and that the same producers would have viewed the finished story.

    Given that it wasn’t a breaking news story it is also hard to imagine that it wasn’t finished early enough to allow for changes had the producers decided to call Lynch on her scripting decision. Instead they decided it was good enough and aired it anyway, assuming no one would notice it was practically a shot-for-shot remake (as is so common in NZ advertising)

  27. Janet Wilson reckons that Lynch was lucky to keep her job.

  28. 28

    “The whole thing is very odd.”

    John, as a Herald media commentator, the only thing that is “very odd” is why you’d bother making an absolutely meaningless one-sentence post.

    Hedging your bets by having a bob-each-way, are we?

    BE: That seems rather unfair. I think John’s comment sums it up very neatly. It is distinctly odd.

  29. Did anyone expect anything other than Ms Lynch to cop the blame when this “story” was broken (by Sideswipe, no less)?

    When has poo ever rolled uphill?

  30. 30

    Odd, that knowing the inevitable repercussions of being exposed, Kate Lynch would pull a stunt like that?

    Odd, that in the age Internet streaming, someone wouldn’t notice and bring it to the public’s attention?

    Odd, that you feel she’s been “hung out to dry”, when she’s the author of her own fall from grace. (Solely, I might add).

    Odd, that you believe she’s been treated, harshly?

    Odd, that some of you think the producer would’ve green-lighted the story, knowing what Kate Lynch knew?

    Odd, that you say, “…after the similarities were made public that the Close Up story was a frame-for frame, word-for-word duplicate and “at best, it’s lazy journalism” and you describe it as “an exact facsimile”? But it’s not plagiarism?

    Don’t you think, Drinnan, could be a little more precise? Or, is he as befuddled as Tully?

    Very odd, indeed.

  31. Close Up has been disfunctional for years. Their EP used to be a reporter on Holmes. Was considered lazy then, and from what I know is still classed as lazy now.

  32. [Lynch is] the author of her own fall from grace. (Solely, I might add).

    You might add it, but it’s a specious addition.

    Odd, that some of you think the producer would’ve green-lighted the story, knowing what Kate Lynch knew?

    The producer (and possibly others) either knew, and gave it the greenlight anyway (and is therefore equally culpable), or somehow didn’t know, and therefore manifestly failed in her job.

  33. Or Steve, the producer knew the essence of the story, which was fine, but didn’t know it was a replica of another item, which wasn’t fine. Either way, the producer may have copped it on the chin and admitted fault, but Kate may have acted like she was blameless. Similar to the Tanya Katterns case. Katterns, a journalist, was sacked by Fairfax last year for plagiarism. She ripped off a Debra Coddington article, though not word for word.

    BE: There is actually a difference between a literary work and an idea for a clever way of presenting an item on a TV magazine show. And we still have no denial of TVNZ’s assertion that they were entitled to reversion the ABC America story. Where I think we all agree is that it was kinda lazy to effectively copy the original. Except that the effort involved in shotlisting the original and writing up the script was probably far more time-consuming and onerous than just going out and more or less doing the same thing as they’d done.

  34. I am always astounded by young journalists comments when I see them on t.v – because I always think – “What amazing ethical standards they have – it seems journalism school is the last bastion of real professionalism, and I’m glad that these people are leading us into the future”.

    It all seems so head-smackingly obvious what you shouldn’t do, but as a non-media person of course it’s only obvious to me once I’ve heard it.

    THe current fracas with Close-up beggars belief…

    Even I know (without a slightest shadow of doubt)that I must never write or say or print or use in anyway in any form,anything I haven’t thought of completely by myself without acknowledging this to be the case.

    How on earth can this even happen? This is not about a Journalists’s integrity, or a producer’s or editors, or a whole team….this can only happen where the organisation’s culture allows it to happen vis a vis Newscorp.

    Murdock type Heads must be delivered to us on silver platters, because there is something very rotten in the State of Denmark.

  35. 35

    Close Up has been dysfunctional, for years. Lillybird, you win the cigar for Clutching at Straws.

    BE: Potentially actionable sentence deleted by me.

  36. 36

    Huh? What you deleted was Lillybing’s post. Maybe, if I had put speech-marks….

  37. will not be watching close up or tv1