 |
||||
|
HOME PICTURES | JOHN SAFRAN vs. RAY MARTIN  Okay so this is all exceptionally old, but I thought I’d just include it as an archive feature for future generations who might be interested… Anyway, the story goes a bit like this. John Safran (of Race Around The World fame) was making a couple of comedy/ satire shows for the ABC and for one he staked out Ray Martin’s house in Sydney and tried to find out what time he went to work in the morning. In much the same fashion as the show Martin hosted, A Current Affair. The whole foot in the door, camera in the face, ‘we just want to ask a couple of questions’, deal. Safran was joined by one of ACA’s former victims, Shane Paxton, acting as a time-keeper. John donned his Mike Munroe mask and stood out the front of Martin’s house yelling questions like, ‘ordinary Aussie battlers at already at work, what are YOU doing?’ etc. Martin then drove up in his car with his wife, and much shouting and placing of hands over the camera by Martin followed. Ray Martin, being the “person” that he is took the moral high ground telling Safran that he couldn’t invade other peoples provacy. When Safran and Paxton claimed that’s what ACA does all the time, Martin tried to brush it off by asking them to cite examples in a lame sort of way. More shouting, scuffling, and hands over the camera lense. None of Safran’s shows were ever aired by the ABC, although a bootleg video was doing the rounds in late 1998. The ABC’s Media Watch program finally aired most of the incident in March 1999, despite the ABC’s promises to Martin to the contrary. Then came the media fall out. Old school media writers and radio hosts (such as Ross Warneke and 3AW talkback hosts) denounced Safran and the ABC, defending Martin (as one would expect). Kate Langbroek defended Safran in a column in The Age; the same radio hosts then denounced Langbroek. Portions of Ross Warneke’s column (with some of my comments/ attempts at humour) and some the responses from Green Guide readers are printed below… An affair to forget – The Age Green Guide 25/3/99 …Ray Martin manhandling an ABC film crew that had staked out his Sydney home and harassed him and his family. Martin, who says the ABC had earlier apologised for the intrusion on his private life and promised never to screen the film, was furious that it finally made it to air. And he’s right to feel aggrieved… Over the years, much of [Media Watch’s] criticism of Martin and A Current Affair… has centred on ACA’s propensity to accuse, prosecute and then find guilty all manner of alleged shysters and malingerers, often on the basis of dodgy evidence. ACA’s holier-than-thou harassment of alleged offenders has sometimes bordered on the obscene. But here was Martin, indignant at being targeted, ACA-style, by an ABC film crew. He was getting some of his own medicine. How dare he protest? On the surface, the tormenting of Martin and the anger it provoked in him might be said to prove that the man has double standards. But that is simplistic. I am not defending ACA. But last week’s Media Watch segment on Martin was cheap and vindictive television that did the ABC no credit… (it was funny, but – SM) Apparently the idea was to prove that while ACA accused others… of malingering, Martin himself was a loafer. There were Safran and Paxton outside Martin’s home at 9:15am. “If you’re off at your 9-to-5 job,” said Safran to the camera, “the work-shy Ray is till lounging around at home.” But hang on! Who said Martin ever worked 9-to-5 (or indeed a day in his life – SM)? ACA does not to to air until 6.30pm each weeknight, and after work Martin would not have left for home until at least 7.30pm. Why should he start work at 9am? (I bet his writers/ producers/ assistants/ bum wipers are – SM) As well, Safran seemed intent on proving, by showing Martin’s large home and rummaging through his garbage bin, that he lived the high life. (note: The bin rummaging has never been publicly broadcast; Warneke must have seen an illegal bootleg – SM) This was another cheap shot, implying as it did, that Martin was out of touch with the average Aussie and had no empathy with the less well-off. But everyone already knows Martin is one of the most highly paid personalities (notice he doesn’t use the word ‘journalist’ – SM) on TV. Does it however, automatically make him lacking in social conscience? That is illogical – and, from my own knowledge, untrue. But of most concern is Martin’s claim that Safran and his team also filmed the school that his son attends. If true, it was blatantly irresponsible, if only for reasons of the Martin family’s personal security. Even if Martin were a legitimate target, his family is not. For that reason alone, the ABC’s apology to him and its earlier promise that the film would not be aired were appropriate… First, Media Watch is not a comedy show (a lot may disagree with that assumption – SM). The stalking of Martin, however, was filmed specifically for a comedy show, a show that apparently was so unfunny that it never made it to air… Martin was not being investigated for alleged impropriety. He was being harassed, for harassment’s sake, by someone who fancied himself as a satirist… Safran, Paxton and their film crew were trying to provoke an angry response, for the sake of a laugh. If anything, Martin, who at one stage grabbed Safran by the collar and told him to go away, was remarkably restrained. Screening the footage on Media Watch as though it was a serious, unbiased critique of Martin’s credibility and integrity was wrong – and intellectually offensive. Martin had every right to be upset. He could not be blamed for being fed up after two days of harassment by a film crew parked outside his home. All for the sake of a comedy pilot that, as evidenced by Paxton’s involvement, clearly had one aim – to vilify Martin… It is the use Media Watch made of [the footage] that deserves criticism. To present the item as legitimate current affairs analysis only adds to it’s reputation as too often being paltry and having some sort of private vendetta against Martin. Letters - The Age Green Guide 1/4/99 Mr Warneke: your Rewind column on the screening of the Safran/ Paxton/ Martin altercation (25/3) is a very confused piece of journalism. You state Media Watch screened the footage as though it were “unbiased”. Clearly, Safran was blatantly biased, using A Current Affair’s techniques to point out the absurdity of such programs. You say Martin is “right to feel aggrieved” that the ABC screened the footage after they’d promised not to. I agree with Martin’s right to be angry the ABC reneged on a prior arrangement, but he’d also “feel aggrieved” with the picture in Rewind, taken from the footage you say the ABC shouldn’t have run. You obvisouly haven’t seen the Safran pilots, for they are not “unfunny” but one of the most hilarious and brilliantly subversive hours of videotape I’ve seen. The ABC didn’t not proceed with the show because it was “unfunny”, but because social and polictical dissent does not sit well with any broadcast or print medium run by people hell-bent on maintaining the status quo. To say the pilots are simply “comedy” is like saying Frontline is simply “comedy”. Safran is a witty, ruthless social analyst with a goal to open people’s eyes. Fiona Parker, Fitzroy (Love your work, Fiona! – SM) How delightful to watch the irony steal past Ray Martin without a trace as John Safran assailed his privacy. Perhaps Ray would have answered charges of engendering the same style of intrusive reporting better if he had an autocue. It’s not that he got what he deserved; he got what was unjust and inevitable. Wonderful stuff! Louis Tanglewood, Warrnambool Ross Warneke’s Rewind column (25/3) establishes once and for all that he hasn’t the foggiest idea. Perhaps John Safran should stake out Ross’s house in a bid to discover how such a dim bulb can become an opinion leader in the media of a big city. John Barker, Fitzroy As a recent victim of A Current Affair’s invasive thuggery, I couldn’t care less about Ross Warneke’s politically correct views (25/3). I savored every sweet, delicious millisecond of the Media Watch item on Ray Martin. Maria Belfrage, Bittern John Safran and Shane Paxton should not have succumbed to the same journalistic immorality that is usually so well represented by A Current Affair. But I’m sorry Ross, I’m afraid you lose my vote when you go on to say that it is “illogical” to assume that Ray Martin, as one of TV’s most highly paid personalities, is lacking a social conscience. The simple fact that the man chaired the program for so many years makes it very logical to assume he lacks a social conscience. As an employee of a large bank, I have also been a recent “victim” of A Current Affair and have had to allay my customers’ fears as a result of the show’s many “bank bashings”. Ray Martin was definitely harassed, but how many people have been harassed and offended for so many years by a program that thrives on the gullibility of its viewers. Greg Hall, Carrum Downs How many times have Ray Martin and his pack of dogs at A Current Affair tormented people? When the roles are reversed, he wants an apology and strangely enough, gets it! Warneke states there is no “legitimate journalistic need to stake out Martin’s home” or “public’s right to know being defended”. I don’t think Ray Martin was thinking that when intruding on other people’s lives. He was thinking more of the ratings, while Safran was in it for a laugh. Which is worse? The fact that Martin lost his temper is why the piece of footage is so funny. While I’ll concede that ACA has a few legitimate stories, many are cheap and vindictive. Is Warneke trying to tell me it’s all right for the so-called criminals on ACA to be tormented, but not someone with high celebrity status such as Ray Martin? Simon Vun, Mt Waverly |
|||