Seven’s mobile number gaffe getting more coverage
November 15th, 2007 at 03:12pm
It would appear that the story of Seven’s mobile number gaffe is getting more coverage today.
I spotted plenty of online discussion about it last night and haven’t had a chance to check again today, but I have spotted news articles from 2GB’s Livenews.com.au and The Daily Telegraph have apparently run with it in their print version (update: it would appear that they have linked back here from the online article…thanks News Limited journos!). I’ve spotted these two mentions of the rather stupid error from Seven without even trying to find the story…so I can only imagine how many other places have covered it.
I’ll have to make sure I pick up a copy of today’s Daily Telegraph before the day is out.
And as I said to Stuart Bocking last night, I hope the Seven Network are footing the bill for changing the mobile numbers of the people affected by their error.
Update: An interesting point from Valkyrie on the Media Spy forums. Channel Seven sought an injunction against The Chaser’s War On Everything screening the footage of:
the layout of the production premises (described by the Chaser team on the film as “the temple of mediocrity”) and the planning of the “Today Tonight” program displayed on boards on the wall of the work area.
The injunction was granted by the judge because:
From the Channel 7 perspective, if the interlocutory restraint is not imposed its confidentiality will arguably have been invaded
And yet Seven broadcast and hand out “confidentiality invading” footage to other media outlets.
I probably can’t accuse Seven of hypocrisy when it comes to an injunction, but I do have to wonder. End Update
Samuel
Entry Filed under: TV/Radio/Media
11 Comments
1. Barry Oaktree | November 15th, 2007 at 4:37 pm
Call me old fashioned, but why were those numbers on a white board instead of in a rolodex? Surely after the Ros Kelly debacle, people would learn that white boards spell trouble.
2. Barry Oaktree | November 15th, 2007 at 5:03 pm
The Daily Telegraph! Good work Samuel.
3. Samuel | November 15th, 2007 at 5:06 pm
It’s a good question. I think many places like that store details on a common whiteboard, possible because the details can be changed very quickly and can be easily accessed…but you’re right, a rolodex for contact information, especially of people who you only use occasionally, would be a much better system.
4. Barry Oaktree | November 15th, 2007 at 6:29 pm
Your story is still on the front page Samuel.
5. Samuel | November 15th, 2007 at 6:43 pm
Thanks Barry. I was pleasantly surprised when they mentioned me, and it’s nice to see that the story is getting the run it deserves.
6. Pen 15 | November 15th, 2007 at 6:44 pm
How come you didnt blur the numbers when you wrote about it, Sam? Youre not really assisting those poor Channel 7 staffers.
7. John999555 | November 15th, 2007 at 6:54 pm
” An eagle-eyes blogger spotted the blue and alerted Sydney radio station 2UE who rang a few of the people listed on the whiteboard to alert them to their names and numbers being broadcast on national television. ”
Well spotted Samuel !
8. Samuel | November 15th, 2007 at 7:00 pm
I considered blurring the numbers Pen, but at the time of publication there really wasn’t anything else online that showed how badly Today Tonight had slipped up.
I feel sorry for the people involved, and if one of them legitimately requests that their details be removed I will oblige, however at the time I had my duty to perform.
John, thank you.
9. Barry Oaktree | November 15th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
This is the story of the year!
And yet Seven broadcast and hand out “confidentiality invading” footage to other media outlets.
I probably can’t accuse Seven of hypocrisy when it comes to an injunction, but I do have to wonder.
We all have to wonder.
10. act | November 18th, 2007 at 10:15 am
What will you do if Channel Seven lawyers decide to sue you for contributory breech of injunction by a third party?
11. Samuel | November 18th, 2007 at 7:18 pm
It wouldn’t be the first time a bunch of lawyers have come after me…I don’t know, I’ll wait and see what their claim is if they come after me, and then consult my lawyer.