Prev
Next

Grantham story was definitely no ambush

Michael Usher

by Michael Usher

16 Feb 05:55am

Must Reads

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses - this is a caption

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

14

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this - this is a caption

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

50

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it? - this is a caption

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

122

Filed under: 60 Minutes, Channel Nine, Ethics, Media, Queensland Floods, Television

74 comments

It’s the worst part of being a working journalist. Those times you approach people for their story, when they’ve been through the most terrible time of their lives.

Stacey and Matt Keep of Grantham, Qld - willing participants in Michael Usher's telling of their tragic story.

I’d love it if every story was just the opposite. And mostly they are on 60 Minutes. This week I’ve finished writing stories on adorable animals, a very successful businessman, a surprising health advance, and a man who risked his life in a war.

But last week, my focus was on the Keep family who lost their 2 year old daughter, and both her Grandmothers, when their house literally was ripped open in the Grantham flood.

This story, aired second in our rundown, was heart-breaking and raw and uncomfortable. It was very real, and it was very soon after the event on January 10th.

But was it a death-knock story? Well I guess that’s an easy hook for an article, but it cheapens the strength of the Keep family and I think our story.

It suggests we ambushed this family, gave them no warning, no options, no control, no respect. That we hit ‘em up at home and had no regard for their privacy.

Well, in this case, it was the absolute opposite. I have never been involved in a more delicate and sensitive story process. And producer Jo Townsend has allowed me to say exactly the same for her.

So, some background. We received an email to 60 Minutes from relatives of the Keeps expressing their interest in telling their story once, and once only.

Their story had been reported widely in the press and they’d been bombarded with inquiries from journalists, and in a few cases direct requests on Stacey’s Facebook page (the new death-knock?).

We replied to the relatives and after many phone conversations, Jo went to the Lockyer Valley and met with these relatives and listened to their story over 2 days. They wanted to know they could trust us and how we’d go about the story.

Then it was agreed Jo could meet Matt and Stacey in person. That happened. I then met the couple face to face. We talked. We wanted to know Stacey’s health was ok to proceed with the story. She is 27 weeks pregnant.

We agreed shooting would be limited to a short number of sequences and the main interview, all at Stacey’s pace and approval. We made sure there were no surprises and waited until the Keeps had been back to their home, neighbourhood and rail-line on their own before we re-visited these places with cameras.

Meantime, Jo met with local Grantham officials a number of times to make sure we were ok to film in the town and especially the places where their ordeal took place. The Mayor and Police Superintendent especially, were supportive, approving and talking with the Keeps as well.

We shot the story over 3 days. Every morning Jo spoke with Matt and Stacey and sought approval for what we’d be doing that day. Stacey did not have to be there the entire time, and wasn’t.

After we finished shooting, Jo has been in contact with them every day, often a few times a day. We warned them when the promos began airing, and in a very rare move, we sent a copy of the cut story to the Keeps before it appeared on 60 Minutes so they were comfortable before everyone else watched.

Matt and Stacey’s conditions on the interview were simple and firm. They told me they wanted to tell their story so that they could get on their lives, get on with re-building in Grantham, help shine a spot light on the lack of warnings and hopefully raise some awareness for the plight of their hometown.

And judging by the simply overwhelming response to the story – amazing in fact - all those points have been achieved. The material and emotional support for this family and their town is meaningful and real.

Speaking with Matt yesterday he said after the story “they felt stronger.” And that matters a lot to me.

Have an opinion about our reporting style and story choice, but hopefully better understand – in this case – how we went about it.

I’m lucky to work on a program that has time and resources, so when we inevitably report on the downside of life, we can approach it sensitively.

I hope that was the case this time because both Jo Townsend and I went to great lengths to make sure The Keeps, and their story, was handled the best possible way for such a traumatic event.

Most commented

429Australia, you have nothing to fear but fear itself
390There's no one Thomson won't burn to save his skin
333Animal experiments won't cure me from cancer
313Thomson didn't answer the question everyone is asking
265Who murdered the Arts degree?
246A big day for Thomson, who thus far is guilty of nothing...
231South Australia. It's the middle bottom bit.
231Craig Thomson speaks. Meanwhile, in Australia...

74 comments

Show oldest | newest first

    • Caring for the Keep Family says:

      06:23am | 16/02/11

      Michael thank you for clarifying exactly how this story came together.  Hopefully this will quiet those individuals who are only interesting in media bashing and not so interested in being a supportive force for the Keep Family. 

      We felt you conducted yourself and the interview professionally and with humanity and sensitivity. The ordeal the Keep Family have suffered and the tragic loss of their daughter and mothers is fortunately far removed from what most people will ever have to experience in their own lifetime.  They deserve the utmost respect, sensitivity and support from the Australian community. 

      @Tracey Spicer, I hope you regret publishing your article for the unwarranted criticism it contained and generated through responses to your article.  Please show some respect for the Keep Family and for their daughter and mothers.  They need positive support not cheap negativity.

      Reply

    • Rosie says:

      08:22am | 16/02/11

      I agree especially about what Traey Spicer, wrote which I didn’t want to be part of. Thanks Michael for the clarification.

      I know my grandchildren wanted to watch it even after their parents explained to them how sad it was going to be. They asked a lot of prevention questions because they couldn’t understand how it could have happened, The one that intrigued me was why wasn’t the family evacuated to somewhere safer.

      If you want to talk about insensitivity, the filming of the families of the asylum seekers yesterday of which some of them wailing and then the ones from Christmas Island getting on the bus to be taken back after attending the funeral of their loved ones when we all know they wanted to reamain in Sydney for a future outside Christmas Island. Australians have a lot to learn when we blabber away that we are a compassionate sincere bunch.

    • Jake says:

      10:08am | 16/02/11

      Tracey Spicer is often bitter towards everyone and everything.  It started when she lost her television career.  It must be journey she is on to rediscover herself and personal self value.

    • Catching up says:

      06:24am | 16/02/11

      I for one believe the story was one we needed to see.

      Sometimes reality is necessary in a world that has become so cynical and negative.

      What I saw was a sad story, heroic parents, and grandmothers and children.

      I thank the parents for letting us share their grief.

      It puts in perspective those who wish to make political capital out of a levy and yesterday refugees burying their dead.

      Why and when did we become a nation of whingers, who are consumed with negativity, with nothing good to say about anything?

      Reply

    • All is not happy in this wonderful world. says:

      10:32am | 16/02/11

      It puts into perspective, we need to ensure the right people are getting the money from the levy and we think of our own as well as others.
      It also has shown good new reporting by Michael Usher, not a set up on their front lawn.
      I have friends in Murphy Creek, they do not wish to share their experience.They do not want the media on their doorstep and have made that quite clear.
      The problem here is the shock has not quite set in, and when it does, there will be what people will call whinging, whining and crying from these people as they will want answers. I believe the Keeps will also want answers. It is only natural , not negativity.

    • Adam Diver says:

      06:28am | 16/02/11

      If you need to defend your work, or justify it, I would say you have already crossed your own moral line.

      Otherwise let your work speak for itself.

      Reply

    • TChong says:

      06:48am | 16/02/11

      Adam, interesting point.
      Maybe Riley shouldnt have given Abbott a chance to explain his “shit happens” - should have just let Abbotts comment,( completely undermining his lies about inadequate resouces) , speak for its self.

    • MarK says:

      07:57am | 16/02/11

      Absolutely TC.

      I agree.

      That is why 7 should not have edited out the immediate response of the Australian commander straight after it or promoted it as a Abbott denigrates a dead soldier story.

      Context dear boy, context.

    • VVS says:

      08:31am | 16/02/11

      Can’t we please have one debate that doesn’t turn into GIllard and Abbott bashing? For once? Please?

      Come on Chongy… you can do it! (Sorry - I saw Rob Schneider’s stand up last night).

    • unbelievable says:

      09:06am | 16/02/11

      When another reporter publicly criticizes your work in such an uninformed way ie lies & innuendo, and it leads to an ugly vitriole from the public, I would say Michael Usher has the right to air the facts.
      He is not “defending” or “justifying” his work he is just stating the facts about how this interview came about after yesterdays awful diatribe following Tracey Spicers story - don’t shoot the messenger!
      It was Matt & Stacy’s request to air their story, it was Tracey Spicers choice to put her name to such a horrible article and it was up to Michael to shed light on the facts (which are true by the way!!)

    • Michael N says:

      12:41pm | 16/02/11

      Adam - people will always differ in their opinions. Consequently, people will always be forced to defend their actions. If Michael had not responded to Tracey’s allegation, his silence would have been tantemount to tacit acceptance of Grimshaw’s argument. He has, instead, been afforded the opportunity to tell his side of the sory and, short of any further information coming to light, we (the public) can now let their respective stories “speak for (themself)”.

    • Pete says:

      06:47am | 16/02/11

      I dont know if it was an ambush.  However, the media is to quick in shoving cameras and microphones into peoples lives. The operative being “peoples lives”.  you dont go there unless invited. that includes both the media and the public.  it’s not in our interest to know the anguish someone felt at the loss of their child. It is in the interest of the media to pursue a story.  The family may need to speak about it, but professional councillors are far better equiped than you.  To often we see invasive stories that we should’nt and to often we see reporters with false empathy in hypermode so that they can extract every excrucitingly painful detail from people and what support afterwards? None, left to fend for themselves.  This may not have been you Mr. Usher but it certainly is what a majority of your colleagues practice.

      Reply

    • JL says:

      06:50am | 16/02/11

      I think you should be congratulated Michael for your delicate reporting. Watching this interview you could see how comfortable the Keep family were. You gave them time and space to speak in their own words and providing small prompts to keep the story flowing. You could feel they felt safe with you and your crew.

      Some people find comfort in sharing their story, this is obviously a step in their healing process and also a sharp reminder to the public, that while the flood waters have receded the clean up and damage will be ongoing. Disasters like this can loose their “gloss” when the news coverage stops. So it was a great wake up call to us all.

      Reply

    • Renee says:

      07:06am | 16/02/11

      I didn’t see the story but do appreciate the way social media such as blogs now gives a way for even journalists to tell their side of the story, in a job that i’m sure is anything but easy, thank you.

      Reply

    • Tom says:

      07:10am | 16/02/11

      Michael Usher and Jo Townsend are two of the most professional, compassionate journalists I know. When a fellow journo criticises your work, you don’t need to respond, but if you don’t, it might suggest you agree with their criticism. The story does speak eloquently for itself, and the Keep family says it made them stronger. High praise indeed. Michael and Jo, congratulations on a very difficult story, handled with care, compassion and empathy. It should win an award.

      Reply

    • Cunegonde says:

      07:17am | 16/02/11

      I was with you and family from outset;and thought you were truly genuine and hw could you not be? My husband and I wanted to be there and than , care for them, give them hugs and comfort- that is the impact it had on us.Love and care and not media rating push.Thank you family and Michael.
      Tracy, you are no better than the rest;I still remember your article pedling women ïnjustice"in TV industry. Could it be women with non talent?
      Thank you Michael, once again.

      Reply

    • Adam Diver says:

      08:04am | 16/02/11

      “Keeps expressing their interest in telling their story once, and once only” and here again is thier story, as an attempt to protect the journalist himself.

      Nice way to keep a promise, Usher. You still didn’t explain why you took the mother back to where she lost the baby. Was it part of the grieving process, or to provoke an emotional response? I know which one the cynic inside me thinks it is.

      Reply

    • Tony Fraser says:

      08:40am | 16/02/11

      I believe the article from Michael User makes it very clear that the story only proceeded under the agreement of family. If the mother did not want to go back to where she lost the baby I don’t think 60 Minutes would have forced it on her. But I suppose you have your own ideas about what you think happened and of course you were there so you know exactly what happened.

    • Danny B says:

      08:53am | 16/02/11

      Did he take her there, or did she take him there?  This point isn’t addressed and we don’t know whose idea it was.

    • Melissa Bass says:

      09:04am | 16/02/11

      Mr Diver, you are obviously missing the point! Mr Usher has no reason to explain why he did anything. The interview was conducted with the full permission and consent of the Keep family. you might not agree with the way it was reported, but it’s not up to you to critize and judge anyone! And just for the record, I know what I am talking about, as Matthew is my brother.

    • fairsfair says:

      09:08am | 16/02/11

      Agreed. My issue was not that the story took place. The Keeps are well within their right to approach the media. It is their choice. I never once thought they were groomed/forced to tell their story by a pesky reporter.

      My issue was the manner in which the reporter did the story (keeping in mind I have only watched clips of it and not the whole thing). I chose not to watch it because I was sure I knew what the content would be and other viewers comments have confirmed that for me.

      The provocation of response on all parts is what the issue and the story is here. Provoke grief to provoke sadness to provoke ratings. I can’t begin to imagine what this family is going through and I won’t pretend that I agree with their decision to go on national TV and talk about their private hell. I don’t know the circumstance. Perhaps they did so to just get rid of all the requests for their stor. I wonder if the famiily of Jordan Rice has also been asked to share their story also? Did you drop in to Mr Rice’s house while you were in the area Michael? Or did channel 7 get those rights maybe? It is the backroom game playing that you know goes on that is the hardest to bare. These are people’s lives.

      I agree with your earlier comment Adam. If the journalist had no issue with what he presented he would have no need to defend it. Tracey Spicer yesterday wrote a piece that voiced the opinion of a lot of people - that is more journalism to me than what was aired on Sunday night.

      That aside, I still think Michael Usher is one of the best journalists (60 minutes/ACA/Today style of coverage that is) that we have. I think the fault lies with his producers also. I just hope the industry on the whole lifts their game. I don’t even watch TV much lately (unless it is SBS, ABC or Amercian shows) and there are more and more people like me out there.

    • taxpayer says:

      09:17am | 16/02/11

      Adam or are you Reily, whatever the name was? You are so caustic. Let go matey.

    • Gregg says:

      09:40am | 16/02/11

      I think what we have here Adam is a very clear concise description to the background and methodology in doing the reporting of the Keeps tragedy in a way that they had as much comfort as they could have.

    • Aussie Born and Bred says:

      09:59am | 16/02/11

      This isn’t a re-telling of the story, Adam.  It’s an explanation of how the story came about and how it was conducted.

    • Catching up says:

      11:47am | 16/02/11

      fairsfair,
      I am at a loss to know how one can comment on a story they did not watch.  It is more startling when you say you only seen the clips.  How can you put the clips in context, if you did not watch?  When people creating in their own minds beliefs that have nothing to do with the facts to make an attack, you have to defend yourself.  I would rather 60 minutes go on the attack, not defence and say what they really think of some of the comments made.

      I suggest you take time to watch the 60 minutes tape, then is you are of the same mind; please give us your opinions. 

      I would like to offer my condolence to Melissa Bass, as you also lost a mother and niece.  I hope your brother is able to rebuild his home on a hill.  Your niece and nephew are wonderful brave and happy kids.

    • fairsfair says:

      12:47pm | 16/02/11

      I didn’t watch the story on principle. I have listened to other people’s reviews and opinions on the matter and drawn my own conclusions, which remain the same as the ones I came to after I watched the ad of Michael Usher crying earlier in the week. You don’t have to watch an entire story to work out how it came about and identify the intentions of a program/channel for airing it.

      I don’t watch underbelly either because I feel it glorifies crime. It does. Subsequently I don’t watch ACA when Roberta Williams is on because I think it rewards people for being involved in crime. It does.

      If you re-read my comment you will note that my objections relate to the entire concept of the story, not what was contained within it.

    • Zeta says:

      08:33am | 16/02/11

      I revised my opinion of the Grantham story when I read this: “This week I’ve finished writing stories on adorable animals, a very successful businessman, a surprising health advance, and a man who risked his life in a war.”

      For all the discomfort, at least the Grantham yarn was real journalism. How did that feel, delving into a deep story of human suffering only to go snap some photos of a f***ing panda afterwards? And let me guess, the health advance is either botox injections that cure acne or a ‘cancer’ treatment that we’ll only ever hear of on TV.

      60 Minutes is going the way of A Current Affair. It’s not journalism, it’s human interest pap pieces.

      Reply

    • Tracy Lindley says:

      08:39am | 16/02/11

      Michael and Jo, I just wnat to say thankyou for a warm empathetic story that I feel was genuine to the core. After many hours of deliberation I have just wrttien on Tracey Spicers article as follows “Talk about sensationalism.. why plaster an old media photo of Jessica at the start of your comments…. probably because you haven’t met the family to get a more recent one. Had you been in contact with Matt and Stacy or the extended family, as I have, you would know that they wanted the story told. You would know that the extended famlily were also part of the production even if not seen on camera. As heartbreaking as it was for us to view, it is what occured, it is their way of telling their story once to so many that wanted to help. It was the vehicle to get people talking about the tragedy and getting answers to the “why”. Why did the media broadcast evacuations of Grantham were taking place before Grantham even knew the wall of water was coming being one such question. I for one had never heard of Grantham before Jan10, and since then have been working day and night from NSW supporting that community with a group of over 550 people who care. I personally visited Grantham last week and went to Matt and Stacys home with their extended family and we spoke of how for the family, it has been so painful to share stories with each other in fear of feeling more pain. This was a way of the story being told once. SInce this time the support for the Lockyer Valley Community has been overwhelming, as people have a greater undrstanding of a little of what families have endured. Given I can not find one negative comment on here that comes from anyone involved with the community, perhaps this can be laid to rest.” Take care.

      Reply

    • ex-Jackal says:

      08:49am | 16/02/11

      I worked for The Nine Network for a number of years and I saw - and contributed to - some pretty ugly things in the name of getting the story.  It was a “white line fever” of sorts that I can now see was pretty poor form. 
      I did on-the-spot emotional reactions after tragedy.  It wasn’t really optional.  We were just feeding the publics voyeurism.  We gave them what they wanted.
      At 9 I felt that most areas of news and current affairs worked together to ensure good coverage but 60 Minutes didn’t really get involved at all.  They were the flagship, the sacred cow, the special ones.  I felt that they treated everyone the same: with little to no respect.  I felt they were about the story at all costs.  At pretty much any cost.  I saw them do things to their 9 “colleagues” that completely breached their trust and could have got them fired.  I was personally had my job threatened by one of their ‘sensitive’ producers for refusing to hand over a tape without my bosses say so.
      And they did these things to people nominally in the same club.
      Things may well have changed since I was there.  They could be all caring, sharing and worried first about the privacy of their subjects.  It is possible.
      But my experience left me feeling that their producers were pretty much chosen for their ruthlessness and total lack of moral ethics and their camera crews basically attack dogs.
      I believe Musher to be a relatively decent bloke - maybe not quite Damian Ryan decent - but a fairly human guy.  And the story may well have been compassionately done.  But the key is that they were there looking for it and I am certain they knew they’d struck gold.  Total, complete gold.  Walkley gold.  I’m certain they were genuinely affected by it.  I’m sure they will be haunted by it. But for heavens sake Michael, don’t try to tell me that 60 Minutes cares about anything else but ratings.  That is the reason you were in Grantham.  The only reason.  It was the story everyone wanted to see and you got it.
      I’m going to try and find it and watch it on line now.  I need to watch this just like I watched the Tsunami videos.  You are just giving us what we want…

      Reply

    • Ros says:

      08:50am | 16/02/11

      I watched this story and as painful and raw as it was, I believe it was handled with compassion and sensitivity!! I congratulate Jo and Michael for a job well done. The family were happy with the result and that is what matters most. And I got to understand in a very real and confronting sense the agony of just one of many families affected by this tragedy.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      08:55am | 16/02/11

      PLEASE can we just leave this be and accept this for what is was - Matt & Stacy wanting to tell their story and choosing 60 minutes. I really hope that Matt & Stacy did not see all of the ugly comments yesterday about their story and I hope these type of comments do not continue today. A lot of the comments were purely nasty and denigrate this special family’s choice on how & when to tell their story. Please leave them alone and let them heal.
      Tracey Spicer the Keep Family & Michael Usher deserve an apology, after all it was you & your uninformed “story” that started this.

      Reply

    • JBA says:

      10:23am | 16/02/11

      I completely agree… let’s just leave it alone. Tracey Spicer definitely needs to apologise - she has dragged this through the mud and invited cynicism into this families grief. She is accusing 60 minutes of sensationalism but what exactly do we call her article if not sensationalist? Provoking nasty comments from paranoid and bitter members of the viewing public. Disrespecting Jessica’s memory by using a picture of her to get her own ratings? Shameful.

      If the critics didn’t want to watch it they should have just switched it off. Some of us did want to watch and we saw it for what it was. 

      How sad to think this grief-stricken family are on the receiving end of a totally unnecessary backlash - what a disrespectful bunch of un-Australian cynics you all are.

      Michael Usher has explained himself, although he shouldn’t have had to. Let’s hope his explanation can put this to rest so this family can move on as they deserve to.

      RIP Jessica, Pauline and Dawn.

    • Ken says:

      09:32am | 16/02/11

      Riley, Usher, and the rest of the talking head media hacks are an absolute disgrace. The public has lost all respect for the commercial media. Thank God for Media Watch and the ABC. The current affairs shows as well as all the news on commercial TV are simply reality shows with talking heads spruiking their propaganda and twisting and manufacturing news events.

      Reply

    • Missing The Point says:

      09:38am | 16/02/11

      So many of you are missing the point of the exercise.  Stacy & Matthew need privacy and time to grieve.  Walking down the street every day and recounting their story over and over to the people that they meet doesn’t allow them this.  BUT, if it has been expressed publicly, and in their own words through the vehicle provided by 60 minutes, perhaps they can have the peace that they seek.

      I am a part of a large project working to raise a great deal of funds for the town of Grantham.  We are trying to attract the attention of major corporate sponsors.  By airing stories such as this, it reminds people of the ongoing struggles faced by everyone affected by the event and hopefully will assist those involved in fundraising/appeals to meet the goals that they have set.

      Those “croccodile tears” exhibited by Usher were totally real, any idiot could see that.  What kind of monster would one have to be to spend multiple days with this heartbroken family and NOT be affected by their story.

      Somebody had to share this story, I think that it is just fortunate that the Keep family had the courage and the forethought to allow 60 Minutes to do it and not some other cowboy journalist that lacked the sensitivity and the resources that they do.

      We are all trying to share your pain Matt and Stacey, if you read this, there are many people who hold you in their hearts.  And to those who are making this into something it is not, you should take a step back and realise that the crux of this whole thing is to help a grieving family to begin their recovery process, and regardless of the medium used, how could this be a bad thing?

      Reply

    • Emeri says:

      09:44am | 16/02/11

      I thought the story was very sensitive.  The only part that I thought crossed a line was seeing Stacey walk along the train track where she lost her daughter.  That was too much. 

      But otherwise, I think it portrayed the horror of what happened in Grantham so we can all understand just how miraculous the survival of ANYONE from this town is.  Let alone a 4 year old boy standing on shower taps for 2+ hours.  And his 5 year old sister calling out to comfort him.  They are HEROES.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      09:45am | 16/02/11

      60 minutes has been tabloid TV for years.  It’s not exactly hard hitting journalism as it used to be. Although this familys story should be told to highlight what happened here, maybe we should have allowed them more time to grieve before shoving cameras in their faces.

      Reply

    • ibast says:

      10:22am | 16/02/11

      “60 minutes has been tabloid TV for years.”

      Zackly.  60 minutes is just a long format ACA.  Peter Harvey’s bigoted opinion at the end of every show pretty much sums up the credibility of 60 minutes these days.

    • Gregg says:

      09:45am | 16/02/11

      I’ve not been watching 60M of late Michael, it not seeming to be as much as what it was in the days of the Perfumed Steamroller, George&Co;. though still the odd stories of note but I missed your Keeps story.
      It does seem however that you covered it a lot better than what some reporters do with some stories.

      Reply

    • Jugg says:

      10:16am | 16/02/11

      60 Minutes is not the flagship it once was and it will never be the same again.

      There is no integrity, no in-depth research, no confrontation with geunine issues.  The ‘online’ generation of journalists have no idea what a story is anymore nor how to research and present one.

      Audience numbers are dying, will continue to die and it will fade away.

      Reply

    • Kika says:

      01:23pm | 16/02/11

      I agree. I stopped watching it once Peter Overton started. No offence, I’m sure he’s a lovely man but his stories were just fluff. FLUFF! I couldn’t stand them. And they seem to love the fluff stories so I prefer watching real docos on SBS, ABC, BBC Knowledge or National Geo these days.

    • LauraBoBaura says:

      01:56pm | 16/02/11

      Mark Latham.

      Enough said.

    • BK says:

      10:20am | 16/02/11

      I suspect that they were paid for their story. Nothing wrong with that, as they desperately need money, but it isn’t the same as the family simply wanting to tell their story as a type of therapy.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      11:54am | 16/02/11

      BK, how dare you make such an allegation with proof.  I am sure IF any money was paid, it would come in handy to put grave stones on three graves.

      We are living in a dreadful country if people believe they have the right to say anything, without offering any truth.

      Are you alleging, what this family went through is faked.

    • Sarah says:

      03:29pm | 16/02/11

      The key word was “suspect”. “I suspect”. There isn’t really need for proof when it’s completely someone’s opinion. It just so happens that a lot of people have opinions, it doesn’t matter how uninformed they are. Actually reading back over your post I actually felt ill over your grave stone comment. Lucky everyone gets a say.

    • SM says:

      10:38am | 16/02/11

      60 Minutes = a shadow of its former self

      Reply

    • Robert S McCormick says:

      10:48am | 16/02/11

      You should not have bought into that sort of Gutter Press journalism. “60 Minutes” used to be a really great programme. Today it is nothing more than the electronic equivalent of a muck-raking, sensationalist tabloid newspaper.
      It is all about those stupid “Ratings” isn’t it?
      Give the public some decent programmes without every 2 or 3 minutes bombarding us with mindless advertising, (Yes, we know you don’t do that do you? It must be our TV set which is programmed in some mysterious way to save up all the ads we don’t see during the day because the TV is switched off) and we might just start watching Channel 9 again.
      Is Channel 9 so hard up for that it cannot afford to investigate & report really important issues?

      Reply

    • sarah hopkins says:

      03:22pm | 16/02/11

      are you saying that the floods are not :really important issues”?

    • Donna Riley says:

      11:10am | 19/02/11

      So the Grantham flood wasn’t an important issue. My brother and his wife did that story to let people know that none of the residents of Grantham had no warning what was about to hit them and they and the rest of the community want answers. If they had been warned we would still have our mum and niece as well as Stacy’s mum with us today, plus all the other casualties of that day

    • SB says:

      10:50am | 16/02/11

      For all the cynics out there, all you need to do is see first hand the carnage and devastation in Grantham, Murphy’s Creek, Withcott, Helidon and the surrounding areas. As a daily commuter from Toowoomba to Ipswich, and having been diverted through Grantham before the town was reopened (due to a truck rollover on the highway), it’s impossible to not be emotional and shocked at the destruction in the township. Any journalist that tried to pull some gutter tabloid rubbish would have been run out of town by the residents, volunteers and everyone else in the area. There are times when the media deserves some credit, this story was one of those times. The afternoon of January 10th will never be forgotten.

      Reply

    • rodzilla says:

      11:07am | 16/02/11

      Before you knock Michael Usher’s presentation of the story, watch it again with BOTH eyes open!

      Despite being visibly emotional himself at times (it wouldn’t surprise me if he had tears in his eyes in scenes that never made it to air) he handled the interview professionally and sensitively, with none of the sensationalism which often taints “tragedy” stories.

      It was a hard watch ... but a good one.

      Reply

    • Euripides says:

      02:13pm | 16/02/11

      ‘A good watch”, eh? And why’s that? Let me enlighten you; the word ‘voyeur” describes a person who enjoys seeing the pain or distress of others; a ‘ghoul’ is a person morbidly interested in death or disaster. This programme provided entertainment for voyeurs and ghouls, presumably people who enjoy that sort of thing, no more no less. The same sort of people who would might enjoy a good ‘tearing up’ watching a building burn, or feel a thrill trawling through the debris of a fatal car accident. For Michael to claim that yesterday’s Punchers were merely decrying an ‘ambush’ is playing very loose with the facts. The overwhelming majority were objecting to the segment on the grounds that it served no useful social purpose other than to satisfy the morbid curiosity of tabloid voyeurs. There was nothing to be learned of gained from watching it, n matter how ‘sensitively’ the subject may have been handled. The whole problem is that the subject matter was appropriate in the first place.

    • dw says:

      11:21am | 16/02/11

      the only reason this family pursued telling their ‘story’ was to ease the unrelenting pressure the media had already placed on them during their time of incredible grief and pain. The media ambush took place before 60 minutes - but it still took place.

      News reporting should deal with the facts about events - as a public service. Anything beyond that is voyeuristic and incredibly invasive.

      Reply

    • Yvonne Jones says:

      12:46pm | 16/02/11

      Reposted from : A fine line between reporting and milking a family’s grief
      Yvonne Jones says:12:06pm | 16/02/11
      If the Reporters from different Mediums want to have a shot at each other, and requote each others comments, out of context, then you should do it in a Private Conversation. There is NO need to drag a Grieving Family into your Side Show and to comment on the responses of a Man who is trying to get help to a Family and a Community that have now basically been Forgotten, because the Media are Weather Chasing and have now, all but lost interest in the aftermath caused by Greed for Profit of the Water Provider.
      I am Disappointed in you Tracey, You need to get your feet Wet to really know whats going on… I am looking for Volunteers this weekend to clean up after the flooding,  so I will see you on the ground then Tracey,???? So that you can report the truth as you see it.  BYO Shovel and Gum Boots, I will send you the info in a PM.. Guttermonger Journalism, Really !!!.

      Reply

    • Aitch says:

      12:47pm | 16/02/11

      Don’t try and change the subject, Michael. Don’t spin the reactions to your story. Very few of the comments posted on the Punch yesterday suggested the Keep family was “ambushed”. Overwhelmingly commenters were critical of the media’s use of other people’s grief as a commodity. Commenters expressed dismay that 60 Minutes deemed the Keep’s searing pain to be newsworthy in the first place. There’s no public interest in grief porn, mate. None. The fact is that your story mostly focused on the human suffering and you paid little more than lip service to the “little miracles” and the half-arsed “public interest” element, like Matt Keep’s desire to know why there was no warning (one question towards the end of the story). Furthermore, commenters were sickened by the way Channel Nine heavily promoted the story using footage of you choking up with tears during the interview. Most commenters believed this was cynical, vile, opportunistic and wrong. A commodification of grief and an egregious drive for ratings. “Look! Even our journo is upset! Tune in Sunday night to find out why!” A lot of commenters wondered why you, Michael, were such a big part of the Keep’s story: cutaways to your tears; your arm around Stacey’s shoulder; you kissing her head; more cutaways to your tears; your “oh my goodness” reaction to entering their devastated home etc. People wondered why you felt it necessary to enmesh yourself so comprehensively into this poor couple’s misery. face it, the story was partly about you (as the promos promised). Why on earth is that necessary?                   
      Most comments yesterday were about these questions of morality/professionalism and NOT about the alleged “ambush” you vigorously deny here. So, why is it you have only chosen to discuss the barely existent “ambush” aspect? Why don’t you address the real issues – that people were outraged by the wanton exploitation of the Keep’s grief, whether they invited it or not? Why won’t you talk about the issue of ratings – an aspect that people were disgusted by? And don’t dare say the Keep’s story has nothing to do with ratings. Even blind Freddy knows TV programs live and die on how they’re rating. Ratings are why Channel Nine heavily promoted this story using your tears. Promos = advertising and marketing = drive for ratings = money.
      I believe it’s disingenuous for you to say you told the Keep’s story simply because they wanted it told and approached 60 Minutes to do so. Did you ever think, “Hmmm, these people are deeply traumatised. She’s heavily pregnant. Both of their mothers have died, too. Hmmm, maybe we should try to talk them out of going on national TV. Maybe it’s not really what they need right now?” You didn’t have to agree, but then I suppose Channel Seven might have got them instead and out-rated you? Also, did you pay the Keeps? Everyone knows 60 Minutes will happily pay tens of thousands of dollars to secure stories. Did you pay them, Michael, and if so, did the contract state that they weren’t allowed to speak to your competitors at Channel Seven, or other media outlets? If the answer is yes, then won’t you agree that, in essence, you bought exclusive rights to the Keep’s suffering? Please, since you’re stridently defending yourself here, address the REAL issues – not offer some lame distraction about a media “ambush.”

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      03:27pm | 16/02/11

      I think you had better read yesterday’s posts again - but you know what don’t bother! Enmeshed in the story?? It would be a hard heart that got to know their story first hand & not get enmeshed. Real people with real hearts have been doing it in their own homes since 10/1.
      What don’t you understand about a family member contacting 60 minutes for them? What don’t you get about the family wanting to tell their story? Michael rightly explained the process of the story and yes it is true the way he said it. Believe it or not!

    • Aitch says:

      04:18pm | 16/02/11

      By “enmeshed” I refer to the fact the story was thick with footage of Michael Usher. WTF has he got to do with their suffering? Why is it about him? (and it really was somewhat about him - remember the promos?). Most importantly, why does 60 Minutes need to broadcast such grotesque grief porn at all? I note the rest of your post ignores everything else I outlined in mine. Unbelievable ...

    • Tripper Smurf says:

      12:50pm | 16/02/11

      Michael, it is people like you and your colleagues at 60 minutes who do approach these difficult situations that provide me a greater faith in journalism as an industry, and one in which I hope to have a future in myself one day.

      While not all journalists who your compassion in their zeal for the story, your example is one which all journalists could learn from.

      Reply

    • eterio herrera says:

      12:58pm | 16/02/11

      i have cried on this grantham story, and it was never about chequebook journalism, but its about what happen and how it happen and the resilience of this family that survive in the natural castastrophic event.

      Reply

    • Lesley says:

      01:23pm | 16/02/11

      I didn’t watch all the story on 60 minutes as I find I become too emotional. Maybe because I lived in the area for 10 years and it has hit me on a personal level.
      I did watch a few minutes of it and I understand why Michael has done this story as he showed he was badly effected by Stacey and Matt’s story. I cannot imagine how they feel.
      What I did watch though impressed me and knew why they wanted to tell their story. I wish them all the best for the future.

      Reply

    • LauraBoBaura says:

      01:27pm | 16/02/11

      I agree that you & the 60 Minutes team should be congratulated on the way that you handled a delicate situation. I personally did not watch it, I saw the promos & the emotion was just too great and too raw for me.

      But I do understand that Matt & Stacey wanted to tell it, and their courage in doing so should be applauded.

      I’m also glad that the false accusations about your sincerity by Tracey Spicer can be outsted for what they actually are.

      The only thing that I will say is, you say that ‘in this case, it was the complete opposite’ of a death knock. In this case? Why only in this case? Why is this benefit not shown to all families interviewed after a tragedy?

      I think the public as a whole is sick of journalists acting like ambulance chasing lawyers when it comes to things like this.

      Reply

    • Catching up says:

      01:45pm | 16/02/11

      DW, the family seem to disagree with you.  What proof have you that they are not telling the truth.  Are you a member of the family.

      Reply

    • mary monica roche says:

      01:47pm | 16/02/11

      Your comment:
      the latest channel 9 ambushes on television viewers have been called cricket, rugby league and rugby union.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      02:32pm | 16/02/11

      Couple of interesting quotes from the article there:

      “But was it a death-knock story? Well I guess that’s an easy hook for an article, but it cheapens the strength of the Keep family and I think our story.”

      You didn’t actually answer your own question, Mushy.  I presume that is because you know very well that it is a death knock story.  Good to see you’ve been an attentive student of the spin doctors you’ve interviewed over time.

      “So, some background. We received an email to 60 Minutes from relatives of the Keeps expressing their interest in telling their story once, and once only.  Their story had been reported widely in the press and they’d been bombarded with inquiries from journalists, and in a few cases direct requests on Stacey’s Facebook page (the new death-knock?).”

      Right.  So, by your own words, Stacey and Matt didn’t contact you first.  You got the lead-in from some “relatives”—who, by the way? You didn’t then negotiate direct with Stacey and Matt.  You negotiated with the “relatives”.  Eventually you got round to dealing with Stacey and Matt direct.  Nice.

      And your justification for taking up the story at all is, as I read it, “The Keeps had been pushed and hurt by so many stupid death knocks that they came to us in desperation in the hope that if they talked to someone the requests would stop.  They picked us because they thought we might not make a complete fist of it.”

      Rrrright.  So that totally makes you different from the rest of the baiters who prompted them in that direction to start with? It’s a dirty, sensationalist story, Mushy.  Whether you got it from them calling you or you calling them doesn’t make a difference.  It is a capitalisation on grief.  And that is the issue that most people have with the story.

      For your next feat, will you be counting the number of angels that can dance on a pin?

      Reply

    • fairsfair says:

      04:20pm | 16/02/11

      Its up there with Kochie’s defence of breakfast televison last week. “it is ok because we did it and we have the best intentions”. Yes you very well may, but ultimately you are after a story and a story alone. That is your job, there is no point trying to hide it. Just be prepared for the backlash when you take it too far. The handling of the natural disasters has been taken to far by most.

    • unbelievable says:

      03:51pm | 16/02/11

      St Michael get off your high horse. If you want to slam journalists, media, 60 minutes or whoever maybe get “The Punch” to start a thread for unhappy readers/viewers. Do not do it on this site- I am really disillousioned with the human spirit that again today everybody is weighing in with their negativity/views on this story (there a also some lovely posts which give me hope) - you have your right to your opinions but PLEASE not on this thread - agree or disagree please leave the nastiness and bitterness from here. One last time, Matt & Stacy wanted to tell their story, yes their relative contacted 60 minutes (at Matt & Stacy’s request) their name is not your or anyones business but they made the initial contact and arranged the meeting (so what???) - they spoke to them first to get a “feel” for the t v people & who Matt & Stacy were going to be dealing with. This was done to prevent any of this behaviour that everyone is accusing them of.
      You don’t know the family you don’t know the facts and what Michael Usher has descibed as how it all happened is true. Matt & Stacy are happy how their story was told, they are happy with the treatment they received from Michael Usher & co so I really don’t know what you point is. You don’t like journalists - that’s ok but in this case the family are happy with their journalist so this is all just so unnecessary and hurtful to the Keep Family.
      And as always everyone had the option to change the channel/turn it off.
      Please can all of this stop - it doesn’t achieve anything and it is only upsetting the family.

      Reply

    • St. Michael says:

      06:56pm | 16/02/11

      Please reply to my comments where they fall in the thread, not at its end.

      No? Well then, nick off and stop telling people not to comment.  This is an “opinion” site.

      For the last time, and just in case you didn’t pick it up from the three or four times you’ve missed it when you’ve replied to my posts over two threads: I don’t have a problem with Mr and Mrs Keep choosing to talk to a journalist.  That’s their right.  They can put it on a website.  They can do tribute signs.  They can have candelit vigils.  No problem with any of that.  People who’ve just lost a little girl have every right to talk to who they want to and behave as irrationally and griefstricken as they see fit.  It is (for the third time) a tragedy and nobody is saying otherwise.

      The point I will yet again make for you, since you keep missing it repeatedly, is that journalists have a moral duty to refuse this particular type of story irrespective of the wishes of the family.

      That is because journalists in this context are not informing the public in an objective fashion, which is their duty.  They are instead wallowing in another person’s grief because they know it will make ratings.  That is a cold and heartless thing to do, and it should not have been done in this case.  It also should not have been done because it encourages the journalistic covey to keep harassing people who’ve just lost their loved ones.  It keeps the death knock rapping away, because other journalists will envy Michael Usher his great story and his great exposure.  The story pushed reasonable peoples’ boundaries, and when a boundary is pushed in media, it can’t ever be shrunk back.

      And it does not have to be that way.  Some journalists do it right.  Some do it sensitively.  Unfortunately, most of them are employed by the ABC’s “Australian Story” and not on the commercial networks, which push the “what’s new, what’s happening” aspect too hard and keep stepping over the line like they did in this case.

      Commence your next anti-everybody rant here, if you please.  I’ll leave the rest of your comments alone since they are utterly irrelevant.

    • Stewart Henstock says:

      05:10pm | 16/02/11

      Give me a break!
      You parasites are only in it for the bucks and if you think i’m going to believe this dribble…you’re wrong.

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      06:25pm | 16/02/11

      So you know them do you?? That’s how you’ve decided it’s dribble - well done!

    • Jugg says:

      07:42pm | 16/02/11

      No unbelieveable, the dribble he refers to, is that Usher’s approach is dribble, not the victim.

      You are completely correct Stewart.  The only reason they are in it is for the money, it’s a business and they don’t care for the pawns.  The media often portray themselves as noble, when that’s the last reason they pursue a story.

    • St. Michael says:

      07:27pm | 16/02/11

      Unbelievable, since—
      (a) you appear to be asserting inside knowledge of all parties concerned and the events concerned in the interview;
      (b) you have told other people to butt out because they don’t know the family and don’t know what happened; and
      (c) since Mushy has decided to remain silent on it—

      —would you like to set out in detail the sequence of events in which Stacey wound up back where she lost her little girl?

      Who suggested it: Stacey, or Mr Usher?
      Did Stacey or Matt express any reservations over going there?
      Was it part of the original conversations with the relatives negotiating on behalf of Matt and Stacey?

      Reply

    • unbelievable says:

      02:56pm | 17/02/11

      Sorry St Michael - have had better things to do - like raise money for the people of Grantham - maybe you could try it!
      All you need to know is that Matt & Stacy had a lot of input into the story they ASKED 60 minutes to do (yes had family check them out first) and that they were very happy with the story and how it was presented. The rest is not my, your or anyone elses business.
      Maybe you can get yourself ready to start commenting on 7’s sunday night program - the ads are already in progress - a young woman crying and it involves death too!
      Finally, in your words “nick off” yourself - have a nice day!

    • hadagutfullofonlookers says:

      11:16am | 17/02/11

      What amazes me is that people who make long winded comments about this article and in the ramble, quite clearly state that they did not watch the program at all.  Surely an opinion can not be formulated by anyone who actually did not watch it from Start to End.  I am also disgusted by some of the Cold hearted, self indulgent comments made by some people, who did not watch because they were busy going about thier miserable lives, but have the balls to pass judgement on people motivation for doing or taking part in the interview.
      If you have time to sit and comment,, take the time to watch the whole thing or find something else constructive to do with yourself. Here is a polite Suggestion…..
      http://www.volunteeringqld.org.au/home/

      http://www.facebook.com/l.php?u=http://sixtyminutes.ninemsn.com.au/article.aspx?id=8209653&h=1bcd2
      And if you still have the same cold hearted opinions, then maybe you can find some warmth in your soul and put your money where you mouth is and donate to families who have nothing left and are relying on the Genourosity of Strangers EVERY DAY FOR 5 WEEKS.

      http://www.facebook.com/permalink.php?story_fbid=141832762545885&id=100001961843504#!/granthamfloodsupport

      Reply
 
Comment

Facebook Recommendations

Read all about it

Punch live

Up to the minute Twitter chatter

Paul Colgan

Colgo 25 May 12 10:37PM

Greece makes the final and Ireland gets in on a golden ticket. How awkward and embarrassing. Love it. #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 10:00PM

Every single #eurovision band is roxette #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:58PM

The weird thing about #eurovision is you've got this massive collection of dorks in a room and no one is wearing Spock ears #sbseurovision

Anthony Sharwood

antsharwood 25 May 12 09:52PM

Europe has the large hadron collider which is light years ahead of its time and #eurovision, where the eighties never die

See all tweets

Recent posts

The latest and greatest

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

by Claire Mallinson

14

Eurovision can’t drown out the human rights abuses

Last year, thousands of Azerbaijanis spontaneously took to the streets of Baku shouting and chanting.…

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

by The Punch Team

50

Revenge. It doesn’t get a whole lot better than this

Last month, Katy McCaffrey boarded the Disney Wonder cruiseliner. At some point during the trip, a sneaky…

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

by Tory Maguire

122

Friday dilemma: can school bullies grow out of it?

ClubsNSW is set to introduce a fresh new effort to combat schoolyard intimidation, insisting on a principal’s…

Nosebleed Section

choice ringside rantings

From: They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

Michael S says:

"A teacher at Geelong Grammar had criticised her for using words that were too long, which had left her confused and had made her doubt her ability to write essays. She became ''quite distressed'' when her English marks began to fall." I can sympathise. My scholastic mentors conveyed to me a causal relationship… [read more]

From: Welfare for breeders is a bonus for everyone

Change Up! says:

I have no problem paying my taxes. As a single, childless person on a very decent income, I can afford it and not have my life severely altered. Plus I understand that my taxes paying for things like schools, childcare and infrastructure is ultimately a good thing. A better community is better for me… [read more]

Light weight

Gentle jabs to the ribs

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments

A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more

243 comments

Newsletter

Read all about it

Sign up to the free daily Punch newsletter

Subscribe to The Punch RSS feed