Thrice-married billionaire Kerry Stokes has been in control of Channel Seven for 15 years. Twice in that time a state premier has contacted him attempting to stop a potentially career-ending story from going to air.
Way back in 1996, Stokes was involved in the last-minute decision to pull a damaging Today Tonight story on Jeff Kennett and pokies baron Bruce Mathieson.
Today Tonight Victorian presenter Jill Singer ended up collapsing moments after telling viewers management had pulled the story and it was broadcast the next night introduced by fill-in host Naomi Robson after a public uproar that ended up causing Kennett quite substantial damage.
I was one of Today Tonight’s sources, having supplied a confidential statutory declaration about the Premier’s dealings and discussions with Mathieson, but the full story didn’t come out until two years later when ABC Television’s 4 Corners trawled over the whole saga.
The issue arose again at the 2008 WA News EGM when Stokes failed to win a seat on the board and responded angrily to suggestions he would ever interfere editorially.
Stokes called me in quite a rage the next day claiming that ever since the Mathieson story, he has stuck by a firm policy of leaving all editorial decisions to Seven’s news and current affairs boss Peter Meakin. This is no doubt what Stokes would have told James Packer during the Today Tonight attack-fest over Scientology and the lost casino billions.
This policy appears to have held up well when Mike Rann contacted Stokes last week to attempt to stop Sunday Night’s story about his affair with Michelle Chantelois from going to air. Seven’s reporter Mark Riley twice declined to comment this morning when asked on 891 ABC Adelaide whether Rann had called Stokes, but the presenters insisted that he had.
At the end of the day, if Chantelois wanted to tell her story, Seven and New Idea would have been mad not to take it.
As with most scandals, the major political damage comes from the cover-up rather than the original sin.
Rann’s credibility with women has been shot and it will be interesting to see how long the blokey factional heavies in South Australia stand by their man.
In this situation, it is important to discount the credibility of other political or media figures with strong records in the pantsman department. As Premier of the state, Rann has a duty to all current and former public servants. In this case, his behaviour has caused enormous damage.
When Rann was assaulted by Chantelois’ estranged husband Rick Phillips a few weeks back, he should have come straight out with his version of events and expressed his regret.
Instead, we’ve seen all the grubby elements of denial, legal smoke-screens, obfuscation and now attempts to imply improper financial motivation.
Chantelois has now even been sacked from her job as a public servant at a high school in the Premier’s own seat.
Why is it all too often the woman who loses her job and the powerful bloke who survives unscathed? It’s time for the South Australian Labor caucus to step in and select a new premier.
Although on the face of it, the affair may be true, isn’t it best practice to insert ‘alledged affair’ when talking about it?
But yeah, too true about the last paragraph.
Why on earth should Mike Rann resign? What he did in his private life is his own affair. We should not import the United States’ puritanical and hypocritical moralising. The whole media beat up on this has also damaged Ms Chantelois and her marriage.
Yeah, yeah, what ever … But don’t you just hate kiss and tellers??!!
Whether it’s true or untrue, it is an abject betrayal of trust’
Whatever it was, it was between consenting adults
I’m sick to death of women becoming the victim – hell hath no fury and all that but pleeeeze!! You want to have a sexual relationship with a man – powerful or otherwise – accept the consequences and don’t give me that luddy guff about about inequality!!
Outside of domestic violence or rape, sexual exploitation cannot occur if the woman says no – not only says no but behaves no!!
I wouldn’t want to work with Chantelois either – she has demonstrated that she will, when it suits her, betray your trust.
Affairs cannot happen if both men AND women say no – so don’t come this ‘poor me, come clean’ crap.
I’m a woman and I say yes or no – and I accept the consequences. In my view that’s what all women must do.
And further, what’s this sanctimonious rubbish the press just cannot wait to get their grubby little paws on? All of you beyond reproach? We know the answer to that question!!
Mind your own business all of you and keep your interest in things sexual for enhancing your own relationships – what this woman has done is exploit a relatonship!
We all have ‘issues and frailties’ Chantelois and Mike being no exception – personal responsibility is our only saviour.
Stephen is right that it shouldn’t always be the woman who loses their job in these situations – but he doesn’t really convince me that ANYBODY lose their job over this. Sure, he is almost certainly guilty of some obfuscation – but why should he have to give a detailed account of consensual sex he had years ago? We are all entitled to obfuscate about our sex lives, unless we have broken the law in some way. That’s what privacy is all about. There is preci0us little public interest in knowing who Mike Rann has slept with, and the media’s collective sense of entitlement over cases like this is getting a little hard to stomach.
And I don’t see why Rann’s credibility with women has necessarily been shot – although as usual, nice to see that Crikey is willing to get a man to argue the point. Women, no less than men, are capable of deciding a case on the merits, and the merits of this particular beatup seem decidedly lacking.
| When Rann was assaulted by Chantelois’ estranged husband Rick Phillips a few weeks back, he
| should have come straight out with his version of events and expressed his regret.
Why on earth should he have done that? It’s not a matter of public relevance. Only someone obsessed with sexual details would ask the question or be interested in answer. Most reasonable thinking Australians would suggest that this event does not impact Rann’s ability to govern the state.
Very poor article Stephen Mayne.