Network Ten has successfully landed a court order that would prevent Peter van Onselen, its former political editor, from airing criticism of it after he asked questions in a recent newspaper column about the network’s corporate viability.
Ten moved to expedite proceedings in the NSW Supreme Court on Monday, in response to a column written by van Onselen late last month in The Australian. The network argues the column put the political commentator in breach of his contract.
In the column, which carried the headline “Paramount woes raise questions about the long term viability of Network 10”, van Onselen called into doubt the network’s commercial prospects after its US-based parent company, Paramount, saw its share price tumble in the face of streaming headwinds.
The legal order, granted by Supreme Court Justice David Hammerschlag, will gag van Onselen and his “servants or agents” on issues related to the network that may bring it or its parent company “into disrepute or ridicule” until at least the end of the proceedings.
The case will be heard again on 29 June, when van Onselen is expected to be on holiday in Italy.
Van Onselen, known as “PVO”, left the “limping” Network Ten in March to return to academia, telling The Australian in an interview at the time that his stint as a daily news journalist had “run its course”. He is a professor of politics and public policy at the University of Western Australia.
His career in television started around 2009 with appearances on Sky News as a commentator, before landing a job with the 10 Network as political editor. He writes a weekly column in The Australian since leaving the network, which have invariably included musings on news of the day both locally and abroad.
In the weeks leading up to his critique of the 10 Network’s waning ratings performance, van Onselen wrote about the need for tax reform, a defence of Stan Grant’s media critics, and a column headlined: “Florida governor Ron DeSantis may be Republicans’ lesser evil”.
The following week, he wrote that the network accounts for “such a small part” of Paramount that “losses or gains” at Network Ten “matter little to its American owners”.
“But even big companies that are struggling tend to cut their losses, dumping unprofitable parts of their businesses,” he wrote. “There certainly won’t be the sort of investments in the brand once thought likely when the CBS takeover was announced. Since that time the network’s ratings have slowly ebbed lower and lower, elongating the divide between it and its more successful commercial rivals in Australia.
“In Sydney just this month 10’s news share dropped to a meagre 6%, a new low that one rival news executive told me he’d ‘never seen in 30 years in the business’.”
Fancy PVO being a professor at a university. Amazing. I wonder how his extreme right politics is accommodated in the open minded environment of a university?
There’s no shortage of right wing academics, and I fear the days of universities being ‘open minded environments’ are long gone in the wake of corporatisation.
Van Onselen’s comments regarding Ten’s low news ratings are warranted. In Queensland we receive a bulletin produced in Sydney. It appears to be on delay as the recent former hat factory fire near SYD’s Central Station was not mentioned in the first hour prior to 6pm – whereas ABC24 were streaming it live from just after 4pm. This was a perfect example of the audience disconnect when news bulletins originate outside the state.
correction: not on delay but pre-recorded.
van Insolent is the most memorable name I have found.
for years.
back to the very earliest daze.
cannot bear arrogance, particularly from journalists.
When ch10’s current owners bought the network, their main competitor was Lachlan Murdoch. Van Onselen was a NewsCorp commentator then. On van Onselen’s last appearance on ABC’s Insiders he wore Succession merch, what was that about? If PvO is playing silly buggers with ch10’s current owners, they may have good grounds to go him.
Will Lachlan Murdoch back PvO in such an action, and what can he expect in return? Is NewsCorp biding its time for ch10? So many unanswered questions John
I’m guessing that Murdoch see an opportunity to go terrestrial with Ch10. I found the following extract from the “Network 10” Wikipedia page.
“Gordon and Murdoch had also placed their own joint bid for the company, which was not endorsed by the administrators. At a meeting held on 12 September, Ten’s creditors overwhelmingly voted in support of CBS’ bid, citing concerns over Murdoch’s previous management of Ten and talk of mass job cuts in the news department under Murdoch/Gordon ownership.”
The subject of this discussion being a current employee of the Murdoch mob maybe sees someting fir hisself ?
One finds it difficult to believe that van O’s article was inspired purely by himself…..
How can you sue for breach of contract after you’ve left unless you’ve been paid specifically not to disparage?