Just why did the Channel Nine Footy Show apologise to Cameron Smith?
SMH 27/05/2016
Peter FitzSimons
What's doing with that weird Channel Nine apology to Cameron Smith on Wednesday night? As you know, out of a clear blue sky and after a year long boycott the Kangaroo captain suddenly appeared on The Footy Show beside Fatty Vautin whereupon Vautin read out, with some discomfort, a prepared statement.
"Before we get started," Fatty said, "we know it's been a difficult relationship between Channel Nine and yourself over the past 12 months. With regards to those issues, on behalf of the Nine Network we want to apologise to you and your family and ..."
And, as had clearly been choreographed, after Smith accepted the apology, they got on with the show, with seeming general relief all round that that unpleasantness was behind them, all good friends and jolly good company.
Sorry, WHAT?
Could someone, starting with Channel Nine, explain what exactly they are apologising for? I know, last year, the lead 60 Minutes reporter Liz Hayes a dear friend, I disclose did a big story on the fate of Newcastle Knight, Alex McKinnon, who was left in a wheelchair for life after a tackle by a Melbourne Storm player.
A small part of the story that gathered a lot of attention was the hurt McKinnon felt at the seeming lack of concern displayed by Smith a hurt McKinnon documented at length in his book which centred on Smith arguing the toss over Melbourne being penalised for the tackle, and telling the ref that McKinnon ducking his head made him in part responsible for the injury he sustained.
At that stage, true, it was not clear that McKinnon would be a quadriplegic, but as he was carefully carried off on a stretcher, there was no doubt that it was desperately serious. All of that was displayed fact. We saw the footage. We heard the words. There was nothing in that for Nine to apologise for.
None of the basic facts of the story are in dispute, even by Smith who, though a great ambassador for rugby league and a very good man, appears to have made a bad error of judgement on this occasion. It happens.
We're still no closer to finding out what Nine was sorry for. Was it then, the fact that Sixty Minutes didn't give Smith a chance to tell his side of the story? Well, SAY that! Tell us that was the reason for the apology. I am frankly not sure what Smith could say which would exculpate the footage we saw.
It spoke for itself. But the upshot was extremely troubling. By making such an apology, Nine cut Liz Hayes off at the knees staggeringly, she was not even told an apology for her story was coming.
The clear implication of the apology, for McKinnon, was that he had no right to the hurt he felt. Don't argue you can't have it both ways.
Last year, Nine was solidly backing McKinnon's hurt. With that apology, they are no longer at his shoulder, but instead lined up right beside Smith, as the cameras roll and the ratings rise once more. Smith's boycott against appearing on Nine has clearly been singularly effective.
Yet Smith made no such boycotts of News Ltd, even though they ran as they had every right to do the excerpts from McKinnon's book where he made exactly the same case. News was not asked to apologise for publishing it.
At the end of it all, we are left with McKinnon in his wheelchair, seemingly just last year's feel-bad-feel-good story, while the Australian captain, this year, has emerged as the real victim of the piece, with everyone feeling good that his name has been cleared!
It is a farce. I get commercial television. My wife is a Channel Nine employee. But I just don't get this.
