New bulletin alert? ![]()
![]()
![]()
According to news.com.au Deb Knight said, “No names have been passed on and so and now, if you want any action taken against individuals, you have to go through that process again. And a lot of people are just saying, Well, what was the point of this? Right? You know? What was the point of the whole exercise? We’ve been sold a pup.”
60 Minutes reporter Dimity Clancey also told a staff meeting that “people poured their hearts out, and so they were in tears for two hours.”
Did they really expect them to individually publicly name people?
That’s just asking for many lawsuits.
The issue was addressed on Today. Karl gave a monologue and mentioned that here were still ongoing investigations.
They’re not talking about them publically being named, the issue is there is no follow-up internally for any issues raised with specific people which were brought up during the process as the names and specifics are not being handed over to Nine from Intersection.
If people want to pursue things further, they’ll have to go through the whole process again, which goes against what people were led to believe was happening.
It’s a massive failure in the whole process.
Yes they are. Deb literally says “no names have been passed on. What’s the point of this?”
Pretty clear she was expecting heads to roll and names to be made public.
I don’t think that’s what she meant, or believe it is clear at all.
People did not expect individual names to be specifically mentioned in the publically released report, that was undoubtedly be wrong until any actual investigation, interviews etc happened.
The issue now is, the specifics around incidents and names provided by people that spoke up during the investigation by Intersection are not being passed on to Nine to be further investigated - which goes against what people were led to believe.
Deb says: “if you want any action taken against individuals, you have to go through that process again” whereby if anyone wanted to take things further they would need to approach Nine again.
If names were released after investigations happened and action was taken, that is very different.
I disagree. I’m not sure there’s any other way to take “no names have been passed on”. It’s pretty clear to me what that means.
She wanted names passed on to Nine management and not just “I’ve heard this and that”. She wanted them to know actual names.
The staff at Nine would have been expecting names and firings from this and Deb makes that very clear to me.
Passed on to where, the media? People named in a report without further investigation, interview, consultation? The report was entirely independent, releasing names would have been unethical and wrong, ripe for lawsuits.
As i’ve said twice, Intersection are not passing on names of individuals to Nine who were mentioned by people interviewed for the report to further investigate - I know this for fact.
People expected follow-up and action from what they spoke up about and went through to talk about these things, not when the report was released but after further investigation happened but that is not happening and that is the issue.
People were not expecting to have to re-live their experiences and report these things again to Nine to be heard and for action.
I’m not sure how much clearer I can make this.
Passed on to Nine management, passed on to staff. Take your pick.
What was the point of all this including the report if actual names and people weren’t going to be held accountable?
It’s all well and good to say “this and this happened to me”. “I was made to cry daily”. What’s the point without names being said?
These people effectively get away with it.
I would have expected names and consequences if I was at Nine.
If names weren’t being passed on then this was a giant waste of time and that’s what Deb and Dimity are saying. They expected names.
Karl this morning:
They feel like what was the point of speaking out if perpetrators were not called out?
My understanding is that several investigations are underway and we have to be patient for the process.
Exactly. Thanks TVCynic.
They expected names. Otherwise, what’s the point?
This I agree with, seems at odds with what you first wrote above about whether people expected them to individually publicly name people and asking for lawsuits.
Though I may have misinterpreted your use of publicly which I tried to clarify, the report was always intended to be released publicly by Nine as soon as it was received, and having individuals named would have been fraught with legal issues if this happened.
Yes, people did expect their stories and situations to be passed on to Nine to be further investigated - I have not disputed that. And this is solely where the issue lies now, having to speak up again to have any further action taken.
But that would have been confidential and not publically released until properly investigated.
Yes that’s what I first said. Did they really expect the names to be made public?
And the answer is yes. Yes they did. It was a rhetorical question though really.
I’m saying, why did they expect that? Of course any names released would be opened to a law suit which is too bad really cause the names should be known.
Also see (for a longer transcript):
Communications Minister Michelle Rowland says a “very serious cultural issue” had been exposed within Nine Entertainment after an independent report found bosses had bullied, harassed and belittled staff as part of a toxic culture.
The minister said the media company now had to act on the promises made in response to the bombshell report while also taking aim at the ABC, which she said has also been “infected by bad behaviours”.
I just find it so comical the way 7 are behaving, they shouldn’t be the one to throw stones. It’s not like they have done an external review and released the findings publicly…. Despite all the attention they had a few months back.
I wouldn’t be surprised if ABC does a Four Corners investigation on Nine’s dramas.
Is that Annie Pullar? She was former Nine before coming to Seven





