So you think it was a question ol' mate, maybe I should type in crayon and leave cryptique where it can't do any harm
Probably should have worded it so the lowest common denominator, which is you, would understand: 'Gee, mummy, if Ch9 was granted the right to put League on the tele, wouldn't they try to make the game look as good as they could. Why did they make an off the cuff statement like that just to finish their sports news. Don't they care that every avenue of investigation should be exhausted to put the game in the most favourable light possible?'
How's that wank . . . even a question mark for the dummies
First things first, ch9 weren't granted the right to show the game, they bought them. This isn't about giving people things and goodwill and feel good stories and crap like that. It's about silver for the NRL and product for nine. Nine don't pay $100 million a year to be the propaganda arm of the NRL or to have them exercise editorial control over the news department. It only costs $10 million a year to show two episodes of The Big Bang Theory each night. Somehow it still rates and you don't get the s***fight with it.
Most mummies would be hoping their kids asked better questions...........Channel nine have been in the news entertainment business longer than the rugby league entertainment game. They probably make more money from it and will be involved with it for longer. The vast majority of people are not rugby league supporters. I don't know the numbers but I'm guessing the 6pm news usually rates better than any footy bar origin and the GF, and therefore has a greater influence on drawing audiences to other shows. Channel nine could be out of footy in two years time if they want to be (or if someone else takes it, which is looking unlikely). They know that any audience they spend time and money building will walk away if they lose the TV rights. And with the deals being so short, it's a risky option for a FTA group. They have to try and make their dough during the life of the current deal.
To put it simply, there is much more in it for Ch9, both in the long term and short term, to look after their news audience ahead of their footy audience. This is the same for all networks. I'm sure you knew that. If running a "footy players are cretins" story is good for ratings, they will do it. Nobody at ch9 is scared of a sooky phone call from Dave Smith. They're more scared of Delta Goodrem.
Your post says that nine should present the footy in a good light because they paid the money. That's basically the opposite of how goods and services work. The responsibility for the quality of the product is on the seller, and ch9 can pretty much treat the product they have bought as they see fit.
