Plane disaster censored from Nine News because of Qantas link

I’m not sure that I see the big deal here. Airlines have long had this practice and the Qantas deal with Channel 9 is not new.

I’m sure it wasn’t even a decision in the newsroom, just a procedure. Similar to the general rule of not reporting suicides.

At least Tory McGuire kept it to a twitter post.

Selective news, eh? Now, that’s integrity…

I’d appreciate that if I was on a Qantas flight today.

the issue is that the news was censored for those not on the flight…

I can watch a plane crash doco then get on a plane, doesn’t bother me… bad fliers yes it would…

so cut two different news’ if you have to… but don’t be lazy and have only one news that has misses the big story just to appease qantas.

So would that be the first missed scoop from The Punch then?

Remember the big deal when Qantas edited Rain Man to delete the ‘QANTAS never crashes’ line.

This news is so old Tom Cruise was still popular last time it came up.

It wouldn’t be commercially viable for Nine to staff a roster for a full production 5am news bulletin if it wasn’t for the support of Qantas. So the alternative would be no bulletin at all.

It’s worth missing out on a single story once in a while in order to be able to enjoy an early news programme all the year round? Nine is not a charity.

God help us if that naughty QANTAS runs an edited movie AT THE SAME time the unedited movie is still playing at cinemas.

Stop the Presses.

its the Channel 9 5am bulletin at 5am. I’m sure that its not exactly put there for general news consumption or advertising dollars.

I’m sure the main reason its there at all is the Qantas news contract.

It was still news, and I think you are holding up television stations to standards which simply do not present a business case, especially in the face of declining revenues.

personally I would prefer a 5am news bulletin sans plane crash stories than none at all.

wonder willemrt what else nine doesn’t need to cover because they are doing the news only for businesses not actually covering the news….

and how much would it really cost to do another run through of the bulletin anyway.. what add another even say 20min to redo it for qantas… they could even charge them more for doing it 🙂

Needless to say it was top billing on both of their other news bulletins thus far today.

They launched the Early News as a cheap way of competing with Seven, who were doing the same thing – the only trouble was the Qantas branding.

Wolfcat, are you being serious? I think not.

Most news is done for its ‘news value’ that’s why third world conflicts killing 1000’s of people get pushed down because we need to talk about petrol prices.

It’s akin to stepping back aghast when today tonight does another ‘dodgy builder’ story, ignoring the actual current affairs of the day.

They can report what they want….? Do you blame them? lol

Fuck me. Is this what we’ve come to? Feeling grateful to get any sort of news bulletin at all, even if it’s one that gets sanitised for the sponsors.

How far until this isn’t okay by you guys? 6am? 6.30? 7am? The 7pm bulletin sponsored by Telstra (no mention of the NBN plans then)? What wouldn’t be alright for you?

Most countries’ broadcast regulators don’t allow news bulletins to be sponsored for exactly this reason.

Let me spell it out for the idiots who don’t get it.

If you tell the readers you’re giving them the news, then GIVE THEM THE NEWS. If it’s sanitised for Qantas, don’t broadcast it.

How would they have covered 9-11 without mentioning planes?

Ability to produce multiple versions of one broadcast FAIL

I think Qantas passangers have just as much right to know about a plane crash as the rest of the world. If I was on a Qantas plane, I’d like to think that I am getting the real news, not the sanitised version.

Qantas didn’t seem to have a problem with showing “Snakes on a Plane” on my flight to LA when that movie was screening.

I remember I was in Toronto when an AirFrance plane crashed on the runway in 2005… plane exploded and everyone survived… The only way we at the terminal knew what was going on was through the local news on the tele. It’s a bit of an odd feeling when you realise the plane disaster on the news is happening out the window…

Certainly an interesting one that’s for sure.

Just a note on the first comment. There is no general rule not to report suicides. There has been a lot of effort in working with newsrooms and media outlets for years to educate them on the ‘sensitive’ way to report suicides (with no impact on the ‘news’ aspect of each story), however, most mental health experts will tell you they’re probably not reported enough. The only ‘rule’ is to offer a help-seeking phone number or website with each report.

But I digress…

I can see both sides of the argument about this apparent censorship. But I am a nervous flyer, who flies fortnightly.. if I saw that story on Qantas I would have an issue with it. Particularly given that every time I tend to fly with our National carrier now, there are no ‘sick bags’ to be seen to prevent hyperventilation with.

For this and a few other reasons, I don’t watch the inflight news because it feels like I’m in my own episode of Groundhog Day. It’s not news, it’s infotainment.

Does that mean that if the news was sponsored by a car company, no car crashes, stolen vehicles or accidents involving vehicles would be reported on?

Seriously, who here gets their news on TV anymore anyway?

: P

Thank god for the ABC – that’s why they’re there right?

In an ideal world news programmes – like schools and unis – would be exempt from commercial pressure. But they’re not.

Does it matter so much any more? Bloggers, Twitter, mobile phone cameras, UGC have democratised the news. So omissions like this get picked up on and we all trust the Channel 9 news source a little less.

If you lay down with dogs you’ll get flees.

It isn’t called commercial television for nothing.

The Qantas lounge in Perth did not have the latest edition of the West Australian newspaper on display because it showed the Air France crash on the front page

Good post Tim. The fact that Nine airs a new bulletin which is constrained by a commercial arrangement is indeed news worthy.

Slow news day is it – this is hardly news for anyone

So why do they show house fire stories on the news when I’m sitting in a house watching the news?

Anyone who thinks they are getting independent journalism on any of the commercial networks should have their heads checked – if you want some integrity in news reporting stick with the ABC or SBS. I think its a disgrace that Channel 9 even allows anyone to sponsor the news and dictate what is ‘news’. Its tantamount to Channel 9 sticking their heads in the sand and saying: “Plane crash, what plane crash?” How pathetic! I assume this means they can’t report anything critical of the airline either.

It’s been a long term practice of TV stations to be careful of what goes on air, immediately after a disaster.
Back in the days when movies were often on tv, if a plane disaster movie was scheduled to air, the network would have a spare film ready to go in case of a real-life disaster. In other words, it’s seen as tasteless.
I think it’s a good thing that Nine didn’t show the AirFrance story. And I don’t see what the big deal is…
Now if the biggest story of the day was “Qantas responsible for (insert terrible thing here)” and Nine didn’t air it, then I’d be worried.
But a plane crash could frighten some passengers, so why bother?

This policy hasn’t always been the case …. I have fond memories circa 2002 of being on a Qantas flight taxing out to the runway at Heathrow and the Ch9 Bulletin running a lead storey on the threat of rockets being fired at planes from the streets of London…….. must say it caused quite a stir amongst the Contiki tour types on board

Typical Nine arrogance.
Typical near sightedness.

Like Brian henderson used to say “…and that’s the way it is”
or maybe more like it isn’t…..
trust and media???

So this week we have carefully edited sponsored ‘news’ bulletins, and last week we have people making stuff up. mmhh no wonder there’s a credibility concern in ‘news’, and whats real or not. And as you knew damn well, this is the more significant debate, you clever man you Tim. Dovetails nicely with your dapper appearance on telly yesterday. or did you make that up?!

I dont want to see air crash news when I am in-flight any more than I would chose to watch ‘Final Destination’. But the broadcast bulletin should have included it. As it didnt, this bulletin must be regarded as made for Qantas commercial purposes only.

What they may have been trying to censor: Qantas have more than 20 Airbus A330s and the new A380 uses similar electrical systems.

Come on people … what’s all the fuss about?
Want real news – watch ABC or SBS.

I think its fine to treat issues with sensitivity, but if the issue is that Nine didnt run the story because of commercial implications that is a different story all together.

Essentially, this amounts to sponsored content and the level of input that a commercial relationship can impact on what should be objective coverage of stories that are of relevance and perceived importance to a viewer.

Agree that for some QANTAS passengers the reporting of an air crash may have been disturbing whilst in flight but for others they may feel it appropriate to be kept informed. The issue is the person who made this decision wasnt on a plane they were in an edit suite being told cut-it we dont want to upset the client.

Sounds like everyone heard the news regardless of ch 9 showing it or not!

I think there’s a difference between the crash of the Air France plane and the rockets at Heathrow airport. One is about something that happened to a plane and no one yet knows why, and the other is about terrorism. Of course you would expect Q-inflight news to broadcast reports of 9/11… It’s the sort of story that will impact the world, similarly with the anti-terror measures at Heathrow at the time.
But this story on a flight would scare passengers, so why do it?

Having worked as a producer of the Qantas inflight news at TCN 9 when the daily service first began in the early 90s – the instructions were to cut out all references to plane crashes because they could cause distress for passengers who were already nervous about flying. That seemed sensible, although perhaps the censorship has since been extended to include anything that reflects badly on Qantas. As young journalists who were rather excited about dramatic news like plane crashes we would sometimes forget the rule… a few times this meant going back to the start and taping the news all over again.

To all those who oppose the ‘censorship’ of the in-flight, consider how your client’s brand would like it if its banner-ad appeared on a hard-core porn site. The client would demand its removal. Or what if an FPC ad for a high-speed sports car was opposite a story of a massive fatal car crash – there would be a song and dance as to how insensitive it was. Nine and Qantas are showing sensitivity to their audience – sounds logical to me. There would be a PR uproar if just a single flier took offense.

It’s a real blow to quality journalism when commercial objectives censor news value and a person’s right to know.
Nine needs to take stock of the decision to avoid reporting on a major news story purely to appease a commercial brand.
It also denotes the wider issue that commercial realities are constantly setting the news agenda for commercial TV news. It is hard to watch the news without viewing something appearing on ACA of 60 Minutes later in the evening. (Note to producers: Jana Rawlingson’s supposed boob job wasn’t a top news story when I studied journalism. )
Commercial free-to-air network news is showing a good case for never letting the truth come in the way of a good story – which is why I can’t bear to watch it anymore.

There’s a strange assumption here that Qantas / Nine have a monopoly on news services, and that in cutting out the reference to the crash, the population of Australia are somehow being robbed of their right to an impartial, frank and honest fourth estate. Any thought that it might distress those nervous travellers be discounted…

PLEASE.

OK, it’s not ideal, it ultimately should be up to the viewer to decide if they want to watch the news coverage of the crash, but if you’re so upset about censored news, go and find news by scouring any one of about 10,000 other readily available information sources available.

If I’m catching a flight, by the time I’ve woken up at 5:30am (radio on), jumped online while I’m having my morning coffee (400+ news and RSS feeds), jumped into a taxi (radio), checked into the airport / lounge (TV / newspapers), and got onto the plane – I’m covered. Plane time = sleep time!

However, if I am one of those nervous travellers who is sitting there in the plane, bolt upright, sweating and fidgeting about whether I’m going to reach my destination alive, then I’d prefer not to be reminded that the somewhat irrational cause of my fears has bean realised on the other side of the world.

Get your hand off it Con.

It’s clearly poor journalism to skip a story of interest to your audience because of the influence of an advertiser.

And editing news because irrational people might find it disturbing is no defence either. Wishful thinking and rose coloured glasses is no way to approach news.

Qantas is just a big baby, with some control issues. It’s impossible to control the corporate message nowadays, and doing it just makes the brand look stupid and petulant. I think Qantas looks just that: stupid and petulant. I think the blame should be fairly and squarely on the brand. However I also think that consuming television news programs as “news” is a naive and old fashioned habit. This situation shows that audiences need to seek news that is democratic, independent (not necessarily commercial or not commercial, as I don’t think this is the issue) and not influenced by brands who are still stuck in communications strategies from last century.

If you did a poll of everyone sitting on a plane and asked them about their level of nervousness from a scale of one to ten, you’d find a decent proportion hitting 3 or more, and some people sitting at 5 or above – i.e., nervous. I think it’s absolutely legitimate to not agitate them further.

Why should people expect to get news when they fly anyway? I’m sure in 5 years we’ll all have constant info access at all times, so when that’s the case I’ll sit in J4 watching Nick Cave videos, and you can watch the flight in front of us plough into the sea in real time. Stuff provided by airlines doesn’t have to comply to any standards – so stop grizzling about it.

Great piece Tim. Delightfully ironic for Nine given their recent low-level pot-shots at Seven with those annoying “Get the news first” ads bashing Channel Seven over certain stories that Nine aired the day before.

Perhaps herein lies the counter-punch for Seven execs if they decide to stoop to their rival’s level.

My apologies Mumbrella, I had jumped into the debate after only a hasty read. I agree wholeheartedly that a news service on the telly or other media should show all news, even though I stand by my argument that a news service in the pointy metal thingie can legitimately be edited.

As an airline employee for over 20 years I’ve seen / heard of plenty of panic stricken passengers getting very edgy before departure and in flight.
The last thing these folks need is an air crash story at 30,000 ft and crapping themselves and doing something foolish endangering themselves and others.It is not uncommon.
Forget conspiracy theories.
For the sake of safety in air this kind of editing IS a good idea.

as a further comment..
All news presented by any network is edited in some way .There are too many stories to publish at any one time to cover,some too big so they are glossed over in no detail.
So in that sense they only read/print /publish etc what they feel in newsworthy.

I’ve known passengers to panic and run for the door AFTER departure.Had aircraft come back to the gate with scared passengers .
There is a real terror for some flyers.They dont need any help being scared witless and stand by my comments earlier.

thanks Tim.
My comments were toward those that are anti qantas no matter what and also those that have a conspiracy mindset for seemingly everthing.
As an aviation veteran of over 30 years I do get a bit tetchy about the amount of utter bollocks that is published at times.

The forum is appreciated.

Peter.

it’s the news they send to Qantas to be played on their flights, and is just replayed at 5am so mums with restless bubs and early starting (or late finishing!) workers have something stimulating to watch, instead of shitty infomercials selling useless appliances…

It doesn’t have plane incident related stories because of that very reason, it is made FOR plane passengers… it’d freak people out if they saw other planes falling out of the sky whilst they are in that very same sky. get it?

heres a tip, don’t like it? flick over to test pattern or buy the ‘magic bullet food whizz’ for another network… no ones forcing you to watch…

Smoking gun,

Perhaps unlike you I don’t jave Foxtel so don’t get Sky News. I also get up early, and Nine’s is pretty much the only choice (if I want TV news instead of Radio National).

This may sound naive, but the way I see it is that the airwaves belong to the Australian people. The TV networks get to use them, and make a lot of money from it. In return they should give us the news, unedited, unbiased and unsanitised for their advertisers.

But actually I don’t blame the TV stations – they’ll make a buck where they can. It’s the regulators’ fault. News should be the one thing that can’t be sponsored.

is this another example of Mumbrella living off News Ltd (a twitter from Punch). Maybe Hartigan is right?