The network is making a bold decision with its programming decision for the 2027 season
In this edition of Media McKnight:
- Australian Survivor 2027 timeslot news
- ABC Easter FOI cover-up exclusive
- Defence footage censorship demand
- TV turns 70
CAN SURVIVOR SURVIVE 10’S PROGRAMMING GAMBLE
Channel 10 is making a big play with the upcoming series of Australian Survivor, according to my sources.
Media McKnight can reveal the series will air in 2027 in the old I’m a Celebrity Get Me Out of Here timeslot — up against the Australian Open.
As I previously revealed, and which has now been confirmed by 10, the theme for the 2027 series will be “Rivals.” And it’s likely going to be the last on 10 for a while, given the financial situation of the network.
It’s an expensive series to make, and ratings have been in decline since the network punted Jonathan LaPaglia for David Genat.
With the 2027 series now starting in January, it’s not just the Australian Open it will be up against. It’ll also be going head-to-head with the start of Nine’s powerhouse, Married At First Sight.
10 might be rethinking its plan to axe the series altogether, and this could be a last-ditch effort to see if a new timeslot can drive some ratings. Despite its ongoing financial issues, the network still needs product.
And after seeing Seven snap up I’m a Celebrity, 10 is very well aware its commercial rivals won’t hesitate to pounce on any big brand that comes onto the open market — leaving 10 scrambling to find replacements.
THE ABC’S EASTER COVER-UP
Now to my ongoing look at the ABC’s cover-up of a story I broke about its plans for news programming across radio and television over Easter. After multiple FOI applications, I finally have the details I need.
Back in March, on McKnight Tonight, I revealed the ABC was set to close down local newsrooms over Easter to save millions of dollars. While newsrooms have closed on Good Friday before, this was the first time there would be no local radio or TV bulletins across four consecutive days.
In an email obtained by McKnight Tonight, ABC’s Head of Regional, Rural and Metro News, Donna Field, told managers the Easter schedule had been “revisited” as a “sustainability measure” — Easter Saturday, Sunday and Monday would move to national 7pm bulletins, with local newsrooms nationalised for the period.
After other outlets picked up my reporting, the ABC tried to discredit it. In a statement to outlets like Radio Today, the ABC said:
“Planning for the ABC’s Easter weekend coverage is taking place at the moment. We expect to do two national 7pm television news bulletins over the Easter long weekend and national radio news bulletins, in line with what we’ve previously done over Easter and Christmas periods. Local newsrooms remain fully operational.”
That statement makes it appear the final decision hadn’t been made. But that was a lie. The original email from Donna Field showed there was no ambiguity — the plan for four days of national news was already firmly in place.
And now, Media McKnight can reveal a text exchange between former Head of News Justin Stevens and Donna Field. After trying to call her, Stevens texted that he wanted to revert to “what we usually do with TV over Easter” — one national bulletin. Field replied that it would “be a bit to unpick now,” but that they’d do it “if that is the decision.”
By “he,” I can only assume Stevens meant Managing Director Hugh Marks. And “what we usually do over Easter” means national bulletins over two days, not four.
That, to me, is proof positive the ABC changed its plans.
Maybe you don’t think it’s a big deal how many days of national bulletins the ABC planned to run. Maybe it’s not. It’s the cover-up and the lack of acknowledgment that I think is the real problem here.
And then there’s this: when I first emailed the ABC about the tip I’d received, the first thing their comms team said was:
“Let’s discuss offline.”
It’s almost like they wanted to avoid a paper trail. That email, worth noting, wasn’t released as part of my first FOI request — it only surfaced after a follow-up application.
That same instinct — avoiding a paper trail — shows up again in the text exchange. Stevens tried to call Field, and only switched to text once she couldn’t take the call.
It seems those at the ABC are masters at not leaving paper trails, while expecting transparency from everyone else that they’re not willing to extend themselves.
DEFENCE vs TRANSPARENCY
There were extraordinary scenes in Senate Estimates recently when the Defence Department made an unprecedented demand about the use of vision from the proceedings.
Defence official Celia Perkins told the committee that witnesses appearing before it did not consent to their evidence being reposted to social media, or their likenesses reproduced outside the framework of the parliament’s own public proceedings.
It was a hell of a demand. This is an open, public forum, and the idea that Defence would even dream of requesting censorship was, frankly, baffling.
Greens Senator David Shoebridge immediately hit back, telling the committee he wouldn’t be silenced from sharing evidence he thought was relevant to the public, and asking for a short break to get advice from the Clerk on the “extraordinary request.”
He’s right.
Defence officials are paid by the public purse, and Australian taxpayers have a right to full transparency.
The advice that came back from the Clerk was that witness evidence can be used on social media — though even that comes with complications. It led to a follow-up response from Perkins, who raised genuine work health and safety concerns about the abuse and “highly inappropriate and highly personal commentary” directed at officials after footage from a previous hearing was edited and used out of context.
There are some valid points in there, and plenty I disagree with. I don’t think public hearings should be kept off social media — the public has a right to see what takes place. But anything posted has to be fair and accurate. You can’t make it look like someone has said something they haven’t.
And to use footage from Parliament, you’re agreeing to rules that include this, from section (e):
Broadcasting of committee proceedings shall be for the purpose only of making fair and accurate reports of those proceedings. Broadcasts of excerpts of committee proceedings shall not be used for political party advertising or election campaigns, or commercial sponsorship or commercial advertising.
So if footage isn’t being used to make a fair and accurate report, Defence could make an official complaint — and it should.
That document is written with the media in mind, and politicians can often get away with more than journalists can. But could it be argued that the social media clips politicians post are political party advertising? I think it could — especially given what pops up at the end of them.
Shoebridge posted a clip to TikTok, pressing a Defence official over a $750 million cut to veterans’ services. It ends with the disclaimer:
“Authorised by Jay McColl, Australian Greens, Canberra.”
A political party disclaimer at the end makes it a political advertisement — which, under the rules, would make its use prohibited.
Now, despite all the outrage about transparency, the secretaries board — made up of the heads of government departments — might actually have a case here too. In a submission calling for the footage to be banned, it argued:
“Recognising the evidence provided to a committee is on the public record, these officials have not consented to a subsequent use of their image, or its use by parliamentarians and their political parties for party-political purposes. In our view, the use of officials’ likenesses and their evidence in this way has the potential to be harmful both to the individual and the public sector as a whole.”
And there’s a clause covering exactly this, under section (f):
a witness who is to appear before a committee must be given a reasonable opportunity to object to the broadcasting of proceedings before they appear, with the committee required to weigh that objection against the public interest.
So the request from Defence isn’t quite as outrageous as it first appears.
But would banning this material from social media be a good outcome? Absolutely not.
The current rules were last updated in November 2016 — well before social media exploded the way it has. It’s time for a proper look at where the balance should sit. This issue is coming to a head, and some tough decisions need to be made.
BIRTHDAY WHIMPER
In case you missed it, television in Australia turned 70 this week.
Despite Channel 9’s fairly uninspiring clip show, and a few short mentions in news bulletins, it wouldn’t surprise me if most viewers had no idea this was the week those immortal words — “Good evening, and welcome to television” — were first spoken.
It’s a shame. If the networks don’t care about this milestone, why should viewers?
Once upon a time, this industry engaged audiences by doing extraordinary things. Now it’s old formats, no new ideas, and boring clip shows. No wonder consumers are finding alternatives.
It makes me sad, and yes, a bit angry. But I guess it’s a fair reflection of where the industry is at.
Anyway, Happy 70 years television. We had some good times together over the years.
Media McKnight is published on YouTube every Tuesday at 8pm AEST at YouTube.com/@McKnightTonight.
The article goes live on the TV Blackbox website every Wednesday morning.
Send your tips to: [email protected]
Why don’t they get Hunted back?
Hunted was so fake and over produced. You had applicants spill that everything was pretty much scripted.
As for 10 airing Survivor in January. I think that’s great. They might get some extra viewers being in school holidays and only having sport as FTA competition. It will at least give them a head start instead of playing catch up.