Channel Nine has sensationally backed away from airing its controversial A Current Affair interview of a former prostitute who claimed to have had sex with Craig Thomson seven years ago. They have also decided not to pay her one penny for the information she “exclusively” gave them.
Citing a willingness to assist the Victoria Police Fraud and Extortion Squad with its investigation into the Thomson allegations of misuse of union funds they have handed “evidentiary material in our possession” to them.
In a statement last night, executive producer Grant Williams said:
“Our investigation is now complete. We now await the outcome of the police investigation before pursuing the story any further.”
Last week Williams told 3AW’s Neil Mitchell that “I do believe the woman” and that ACA would pay her $60,000 or “thereabouts” for her story. They covertly whisked her off to an undefined overseas location to interview her amidst a whirlwind of publicity.
Crikey asked Williams this morning whether it was safe to assume the prostitute had not received the payment. “Correct,” was his response.
So is this the action of a noble TV station with high journalistic standards interested only in natural justice, or did they buckle to pressure from the media, the general public, politicians and Thomson himself? Or is it simply a case that the prostitute’s story was, in the end, just so unbelievable?
There was a general feeling that the word of someone who lived on the edge of society as a prostitute, who wanted to have her face pixelated and voice distorted, and paid a bag of money to help her memory of having sex with someone seven years ago despite having hundreds and hundreds of clients over the years, was beyond belief.
Last week I told Crikey readers that among the doubters, Sydney’s brothel barons also found the pr-stitute’s story unbelievable.
If the “evidentiary material in our possession” was of such good quality why didn’t ACA pay the prostitute as they promised and why wouldn’t they air the interview? Surely it would have boosted their ratings.
In the end I think the whole thing was a fizzer.
I’m really unhappy with the “she’s a hooker, of course she must be unreliable” angle that’s been pushed around the place. It’s a standard line, trotted out pretty much any time a sex worker winds up in the public eye. David Marr on Q&A this week was quite appalling.
That said. Unless Thomson was amazingly memorable, it just seems unlikely that she’d recall details after all this time. Maybe she’d known him previously, so he stuck in her mind? Or he was a really frequent client with quite the reputation? If they had anything like that I’d expect ACA to have been plugging it for all it was worth.
But otherwise, as a one-off, seven years ago? I sure wouldn’t trust my own memory in that circumstance…
ACA has trolled everyone in exchange for plenty of free publicity. High-fives all ’round.
Matt, I generally agree. But remember, in this case there is no prostitute. There is a TV producer claiming to have an interview with a person, who the TV producer claims is a prostitute and who the TV producer claims knows something.
If the interview ever went to air, then we would have the right to (a) know the person’s identity, (b) be able to prove that they were/are in fact a prositute and (c) were working as a prostitute on the dates and in the locations under question.
For now, none of us actually know whether this person actually existed. But of course, the story has done its work – Thomson is permanently smeared.
Thomson was not shown to have used any prostitutes and the point of the
FWA statement had zero in fact to do with the fact of using prostitutes.
Thomson and the others were only going to be charged with breaking the rules that did not exist.
Looks like self regulation of the media is a joke.