Disgruntled ex employee says what… ?? 
And in the Daily Mail
Chicken Little strikes again. Get over it, mate.
He really bumped their numbers! What a loss.
[I’m joking]
Who’s going to read his crap I read the title and thought about the paradox of his own misdemeanour that saw him out at Network 10.
I think he originally wrote the piece for The Australian then that got appropriated by DM. So that reduces its credibility even more.
There was a News corp article on this that explains what he was on about. It was just referring to the fact that the share price of Paramount the owner of ten has plummeted over the last 12 months from 97 down to 15 dollars.
This took a turn. PVO really wasn’t worth what he provided.
Seems quite sour and dour ever since he left. I wonder if his decision to go back to academia was really 10 letting him go without the fanfare?
He had some big scoops but considering the fact that he’s burnt bridges within the network and now this demonstrates he’s far from credible anymore.
Just need to look at where he came from.
Regardless of why he left, it does seem to be a massive conflict of interest for a former employee, who has substantial reach, to pen an article critical of his former employer.
It could be seen as divulging inside information about the workings of the company and attempting to influence the future trading of shares (however large or small the risk may be.)
I did like the mention in the article of him becoming the headlines himself…
…the matter was expedited to June 29, but of the big names in the courtroom that day, Van Onselen won’t be one of them – the court heard that he will be in Italy’s Amalfi Coast at the time.
For now, Van Onselen has agreed to the court order to “refrain, by himself, his servants or agents, from disparaging or making any statement or publication, or authorising any other person to disparage or make any statement or publication, whether oral or in writing, which may or which does in fact bring into disrepute or ridicule, or which may otherwise adversely affect the respective reputations of [the network, related bodies, and officers and employees]”.
The court order lasts until the court case is over, however if Network 10 is successful, they aim to hand down a permanent ban on Van Onselen making any ‘disparaging’ comments about 10 or Paramount.
Don’t know if that’s fair. He is a journalist at the end of the day, and a permanent ban goes a bit far, he should be able to pass comment after the relevance of his inside perspective has past.
there’s a difference between reporting as a journalist and making disparaging comments
There could also be some sort of contractual agreement relating to his leaving channel 10. And that might include clauses around what he can and can’t say about 10 publically - and also put $$ at risk if he does talk.
Opinion pieces are often critical and disparaging; journalists should be free to write them.
In this case, he shouldn’t have written the piece and should have had the decency not to publish it. However, to say that he’s never allowed to voice a negative opinion on the running of the network is another.
The court order lasts until the court case is over, however if Network 10 is successful, they aim to hand down a permanent ban on Van Onselen making any ‘disparaging’ comments about 10 or Paramount.
This seems to suggest he knows things that 10/Paramount doesn’t want to be made public
Doesnt seem to stop Joe Aston
Network Ten wants Peter van Onselen to stop talking about it (msn.com)
As the parties discussed when a hearing on the dispute should be held, Chrysanthou said her client would soon be travelling overseas but did not know where. That prompted van Onselen, who was in court, to say he was heading to the Amalfi Coast. NSW Supreme Court judge Justice David Hammerschlag quipped he presumed van Onselen could access an audiovisual link if he needed to dial in for the hearing on June 29, even in such a challenging locale, to laughter in the courtroom.
Also, the number of tv personalities and journalists who are former 10 employees who make “disparaging comments” elsewhere sets a dangerous double standard - how far back do you go?
