lifestyle

Kochie slams his own network for buying the Schapelle Corby interview. Bam.

 

 

In one of the most expensive deals in Australian TV history, the Seven Network have apparently signed a contract with convicted drug smuggler Schappelle Corby, 36, that is said to be worth between $1m-$3m.

The deal will include Corby’s first interview since her paroled release from Kerobokan prison yesterday, which will air on Seven’s Sunday Night program and be conducted by veteran journalist Mike Willesee who is currently holed up in a five start Balinese resort with Corby, her family and a TV crew.

But at least one person at Channel 7 is less than impressed by the network’s big spending ways.

Host of Seven’s breakfast show Sunrise, David Koch, 57, has boldly spoken out against his employer’s decision to make a financial deal with Corby.

Koch said this morning: “I reckon we should have nothing to do with her as a network… I totally disagree with paying a convicted drug smuggler $2 million. I know Indonesia is corrupt and all that sort of stuff, but she is convicted”.

Koch referred to the controversial payment again during a cash give-away segment on Sunrise. “How would you like to win some Mega Cool cash without spending time in an overseas jail?,” he rhetorically asked the audience.

 

It’s unusual and can potentially career-endangering for journalists to criticise the decisions of their media owners. But when it happens, it’s generally because it’s something the journalist feels pretty damn passionate about.

And in this case, I don’t think Koch is alone.

My Story

Now, many of you will disagree about whether or not Corby should be allowed to profit from her criminal activity. Many will disagree about whether or not Corby is in fact, guilty or innocent. And you may have differing views to Koch about whether drug related crimes are deserving of jail time or not.

But. Regardless of where you stand on these questions, I suspect we’re all in agreement that $2 million could be better spent.

And just in case there’s a loophole in this agreement with the Corby Clan, here are a few alternative suggestions for Channel 7 on where they could invest their cash:

1. Investing in more original home grown Australian drama. Australian has some of the best script-writers and actors in the world and a whole bunch of them are desperately looking for work.

2. Buying and fast-tracking some quality overseas programming, like Girls, House of Cards, Breaking Bad or Game of Thrones, and playing it on free-to-air television.

3. Putting the brain-power, energy, scoping and production efforts needed into creating a successful women’s panel discussion show; something that Australian television networks have found notoriously difficult to do for decades.

4. Renovating the Pier Diner on Home and Away. That place could use a serious sprucing up.

5. Interviewing an Australian who has been jailed overseas and who genuinely deserves our attention. Peabody Award Winning Al Jazeera reporter and Australian national Peter Greste is currently imprisoned in Cairo. Why? For trying to broadcast the truth about what was happening in Egypt. President Obama and the Whitehouse have been calling for Greste and his colleagues to be released. Theirs would certainly be a story worth hearing.

Any other suggestions for Channel 7 on where they could better spend their $2 million?

 

 

Follow Mamamia on Facebook

At Mamamia absolutely everything is up for discussion: from pop culture to politics, body image to motherhood, feminism to fashion. We unashamedly cover what everyone is talking about today: whether that’s stories which will make you laugh out loud, cover your mouth in shock, help you get informed or start you thinking about an issue in a different way and sometimes, we help you to just switch off the brain power from a few sweet minutes and kick back.

Related Stories

Recommended

Top Comments

WOMBAT 11 years ago

My thoughts are that it's 2m well invested. Lots of people saying the 2m would be better spent elsewhere, but this interview will generate a lot more than 2m I'm guessing and a lot more to spend elswhere. Besides I think she should be given the chance to explain her story without Indonesian police looking over her shoulder. I, for one, am looking forward to hear her story.


Sylvia 11 years ago

Just a few thoughts…

Re: Koskie… Obviously ‘he’ didn’t get the interview
priority status…

The legality in Australia IS... profiting from the proceeds of crime - surely from
convictions of crimes in AUSTRALIA! This first was overseas in another country
with their own secular laws. 2nd If this type of legal case occurred in
Australia... how many of you would believe ANY person would be convicted of a
similar amount of drugs in AN UNLOCKED BOOGIE BOARD CASE? Given ANYONE has unvetted access to any case that's unlocked?

Otherwise HOW many people in Australia have committed crimes IE building contracts and underperforming while refusing to rectify or refund 'scammers' - then profited from later acts that either relate to the original crime - by then having 'pleaded down' to cop a far lesser charge and conviction only to start up another company in a new name or relatives name to continue such scams?

Does anyone recall the baggage handlers at Sydney airport caught
doing something similar? As well as Indonesia being the CLIMATE to grow
marijuana nevermind via hydroponics... What about any Aussie ex-pats
overstaying their Visas in other countries and deported thus a crime in another
country... would this be included as a crime given the large number of persons
that do do this, and working illegally overseas while travelling? Crimes are
committed by Aussie people while overseas and should they ever be asked for
paid interviews do you suspect the Federal Australian and State Police would
allocate resources towards investigating this?

What about the Storm investment scheme debacle that ultimately went
bankrupt including many bank loans that were deliberately targeted to being
specifically misrepresented in order to get then loan to invest... should these
banking companies - that in not performing their due diligence NOT be allowed
to profit from the proceeds of crime thus ALSO not continue to being allowed
legally to conducting their business function - offering bank loans etc for
profit?