The company you keep: What the Bruce Lehrmann affair says about Seven's culture
Welcome to a Tuesday update from Unmade. Today: The Bruce Lehrmann verdict; and the trapdoor opens on the Unmade Index.
If you’ve been thinking about upgrading to an Unmade membership, this is the perfect time. Your membership includes:
Member-only pricing for our HumAIn (May 28) and REmade (October 1) conferences;
A complimentary invitation to Unmade’s Compass event (November);
Member-only content and our paywalled archives;
Your own copy of Media Unmade
How will you future proof your digital marketing strategy?
Outdated audience targeting methods are a thing of the past. In today’s landscape, addressing signal loss and achieving signal gain demands new innovative approaches.
Discover how to drive signal gain and deliver tangible results for your brand with News Australia. Unlock high fidelity signals to capture your target audience’s attention, turning ads into outcomes.
Stay ahead of the curve – join us at D_CODED 2024 this May. Speak to your News representative to register today!
If a TV network puts a roof over a rapist’s head, employs a war criminal and pays a creep it might just have a culture problem
It was Australia’s most widely watched legal judgement of all time. Even two hours into Justice Michael Lee’s summary, 66,000 were watching online.
That’s no bad thing. There were many subtleties to yesterday’s ruling which will be lost on those who didn’t watch and will never read the full judgement.
The judge ruled that based on all available evidence and testimony, he was persuaded that on that infamous 2019 night in Canberra, Bruce Lehrmann raped Brittany Higgins. Unlike a criminal trial where the finding must be beyond any reasonable doubt, the judge needed to be persuaded only that this was the most likely thing to have happened.
Among the subtleties that risk being lost are that none of the media players, including Lisa Wilkinson whose reporting for The Project was the subject of the case, escaped with their reputations intact. Ten may have escaped the lion’s den, but they lost their hat.
Wilkinson, who demonstrated when she walked out on Nine for a bigger pay packet in 2017 that getting your story in first sets the narrative, did exactly that again last night, posted a beaming, victorious family photograph on Instagram with the message: “I sincerely hope that today’s judgement gives strength to women around the country”.
Her followers jumped on board with dozens of congratulatory comments lauding her for being “a voice for all women”.
In reality, the judge was critical of Wilkinson in his verdict. Wilkinson’s Logies speech derailed Lehrmann’s first criminal trial, and the judge was unimpressed by her refusal to accept that she made a mistake. As Justice Lee put it politely, Wilkinson had a tendency “to make assertions that she thought supported her case but lacked a factual foundation”.
The judge was even more critical of the wider Ten apparatus including company lawyer Tasha Smithies for giving Wilkinson the advice that her Logies speech was safe, and of the way The Project went about the reporting which Lehrmann sued over.
In damaging words for a lawyer’s career, he said: “I regret to say the continuing lack of insight of Ms Smithies is that the inappropriateness of her conduct related to the speech reflects, in my view, a lack of proper appreciation of her professional obligations as a solicitor and her paramount duty to the court and the administration of justice.” Ouch.
Wilkinson and The Project went into their reporting with a pre-determined angle that there had been a cover up, the judge said. “The contemporaneous documents and the broadcast itself demonstrate the allegation of rape was the minor theme, and the allegation of cover-up was the major motif.”
Ten was fortunate that the judge found the key allegation against Lehrmann was true. Its qualified privilege defence that it reasonably reported a matter in the public interest, failed. The judge said Wilkinson and her producers had not done enough to investigate Higgins’ claims, including not taking all reasonable steps to give Lehrmann a chance to issue a denial.
It seems likely Ten will now need to quickly reach a settlement with Fiona Brown, the chief of staff to minister Linda Reynolds. Having been accused of a cover up of the rape, Brown was one of the few key players who came out of the affair with her reputation fully intact. After detailing all the steps Brown had taken, the judge pointed out: “To be later vilified as an unfeeling apparatchik willing to throw up roadblocks in covering up criminal conduct at the behest of one’s political overlords must be worse than galling.”
But of course, the person whose reputation was rightly annihilated was the rapist Bruce Lehrmann.
Which brings us to the poor decision of the Seven Network to place itself in Lehrmann’s camp. It was a fight Seven had no need to be part of. But culturally, it runs towards fights, particularly where a media rival is involved.
There was only one cover up, and that was the depth of Seven’s involvement with Lehrmann. Lehrmann’s criminal trial was abandoned because of juror misconduct, not because he was found to be innocent. Yet that didn’t stop Seven going all out to get its Spotlight interview with Lehrmann afterwards.
It would have been clear to many involved in making that decision - including those at the top levels of the company - that regardless of the lack of a criminal verdict, Lehrmann was a wrong ‘un.
Nonetheless they figured out a way of funnelling a six figure sum in Lehrmann’s direction by paying his $4,000 per fortnight rent for a year. As a result, Seven funded this rapist’s lifestyle to a standard that few of its viewers enjoy. Their contract with Lehrmann also involved him supplying documents which the judge found were legally privileged. I suspect we’re yet to hear the last of that aspect, especially as the network denied to the court having done so.
If you want some evidence that the company knew its relationship with Lehrmann was morally compromised, it comes in the cover up around his accommodation. When it was asked about paying Lehrmann, Seven used weasel words: “Spotlight made no payment to Bruce Lehrmann for the interview, however the program assisted with accommodation as part of the filming of the report.”
You’d have assumed that meant putting him up for a couple of nights. It was lying by omission. The network even tried to win a Walkley Awards for its reporting on that basis.
The old guard at Seven still seem to genuinely think they’ve done nothing untoward. As recently as last week they were still claiming they were merely doing a “topical story” and those that criticise are being “sanctimonious”.
Everyone deserves the benefit of the doubt, and Seven’s management has enjoyed that for a long time.
Back in 2017, Seven West Media’s share price barely moved during the scandal of former CEO Tim Worner’s affair with an executive assistant, even when allegations of company credit card misuse made it into the press and proprietor Kerry Stokes chose to keep him in the job. Good old Kerry, being loyal to his people, was the justification.
Then there was former soldier Ben Roberts-Smith. Even when the Sydney Morning Herald accused him of war crimes in 2018, he remained as general manager of SWM Queensland. Stokes underwrote Roberts-Smith’s failed defamation action against Nine and the “scumbag” journalists working for his rivals, as he labelled them at the company’s annual general meeting.
The actor Craig McLachlan was cleared in 2020 of indecently assaulting his co-stars although the magistrate pointed out that if his actions had occurred after laws changed around an accused’s belief in consent needing to be reasonably held, it could have been a different outcome. Regardless of legalities there was enough evidence in the case to form the view that he was an utter creep. He dropped a defamation case against the ABC and the Sydney Morning Herald.
Soon after his acquittal, McLachlan was on Seven Spotlight, for a reported $200,000, and later SAS Australia.
The view of some Seven execs is that all of this is just noise from squeamish people who don’t want to see the ratings sausage being made. They think they’re Jack Nicholson in A Few Good Men bellowing at Tom Cruise that he can’t stand the truth.
And maybe they’re right, if the shows keep rating and the advertisers keep advertising.
Off the record, agency bosses have strong views. “Disgusting” was the first word out of one CEO I spoke to last week before I’d got even half way through asking what he thought. On the record, they struggle to be as candid about one of their biggest trading partners.
However, Mat Baxter, one of the most experienced media agency bosses locally and globally, is currently between jobs so free to speak. As he warned on LinkedIn last week, Seven is no longer brand safe:
“Sadly, the network doesn’t currently exemplify the qualities (or safety) marketers are looking for. Would you really want your company associated with them in the current circumstances? My guess is most people would say “no”.
“The good news is the remedy is relatively simple. Seven needs to move swiftly and decisively to demonstrate their historical core values and prove they won’t tolerate the sort of drama that’s presently playing out.
“Without these actions, I think they run the risk of scaring brands away.”
All the signs so far though are that some senior people at Seven refuse to accept they have a problem. The same cynical behaviour was on display yesterday, sneaking out news of the exit of Spotlight executive producer Mark Llewellyn as the judge was speaking.
Parts of the company still have an out-of-date, war-on-everything culture. That’s why Stokes bankrolled the Ben Roberts-Smith case against Nine. It explains its Spotlight takedown of The Project’s reporting.
Even as the TV industry is at its most challenged, the urge for Seven to go out of its way to publicly attack its immediate competitors as “all over the shop” is stronger than the more strategically sensible approach of a united front.
Epitomised by departed legal chief Bruce McWilliam and outsourced communications chief Neil Shoebridge, Seven has by far the most combative and aggressive communications setups of any of the major media companies.
Yesterday afternoon, chief marketing and audience officer Mel Hopkins, a new arrival from the frying pan of Optus into the fire at Seven, posted a LinkedIn response to Mat Baxter which was less punchy than old Seven. She used the word “proud” ten times, and added:
“Some might critique this post and make assertions, but I am proud that those who know me will understand all of the above is true. I believe that the strongest leaders know how to lead through challenges and imperfections and never shirk from their responsibilities or the heavy criticism. I am proud to work for Seven and proud to be part of shaping sustainable change in our industry.”
Soon we’ll see a change at Seven at CEO level. Maybe as early as tomorrow. The Australian reported yesterday that the Seven West Media board will be meeting. Last week, the AFR said tomorrow will be the date when James Warburton steps down - he’d previously said it would be before the end of June, and then May-ish.
A symbolic early exit may be helpful if he owns it, indeed I suggested as much a few days ago.
But one of the issues Seven really faces is that the culture was created by Stokes, who remains in control as chairman.
We’ll see whether Warburton’s successor Jeff Howard, alongside Hopkins and the well liked sales chief Kurt Burnette, have the mandate and ability to make cultural changes. Howard has only been with the company since 2020 after coming across as chief financial officer from what is now known as ARN Media.
I suspect Howard’s main job will be to get a deal done, perhaps with a sale to, or merger with, ARN. If that happens it will be fascinating to see which company’s culture prevails.
Seven is a much diminished company, now merely Australia’s sixth largest listed media stock. Its market capitalisation is just $285m, a tenth that of Nine. It doesn’t necessarily act its size.
Nine took its licking in 2012 and came out a more humble company to do business with. Seven has never had a similar reckoning.
The first step of changing is to admit there’s a problem. I wonder whether they’ll be able to bear it.
*Declaration of interest: Through my super fund, I own a small number of Seven West Media shares, as I do most ASX-listed media stocks. Since buying them last year, they’ve lost 52% of their value.
Don’t forget your HumAIn earlybird deadline
Last week we revealed the program for HumAIn, our conference focusing on how AI will change marketing and media.
That’s all the information you need to decide whether to join us on May 28. The 20% earlybird discount expires at the end of today.
Unmade Index rout continues
The downwards trajectory of the Unmade Index moved into a fifth straight day on Monday, with the loss of another 2.12% taking the index of locally listed media and marketing stocks to 538.9 points. The fall was far worse than the wider ASX All Ords which lost 0.51% yesterday.
The only stock to see positive movement was Domain, which rose by 0.99%.
However that didn’t help Domain’s majority owner Nine which lost 2.5% yesterday. Fellow TV business Seven West Media lost 2.63%.
Southern Cross Austereo took the biggest hit of the day, losing 4.21%. Rival audio company ARN Media lost 1.73%.
The dual listed News Corp lost 2.37%.
Time to leave you to your Tuesday. We’ll be back with more tomorrow.
Have a great day.
Toodlepip…
Tim Burrowes
Publisher - Unmade
tim@unmade.media