Police are investigating Married At First Sight producers, but Endemol Shine still won’t say a word. Rob McKnight on why it’s a crisis management disaster
In this edition of MEDIA McKNIGHT:
- MAFS investigation: Endemol’s silence
- Monique Ryan dangerous call regarding One Nation
- James Cridland explores new radio data on Time Spent Listening
- Why Channel 10 could be regretting hiring Meghan Markle for Junior MasterChef
- McKnight Was Right: The Voice delayed
You can watch the video edition of MEDIA McKNIGHT in the YouTube player below:
Silence will not make this story go away.
Last week I exclusively revealed that producers at Married At First Sight were being investigated by police over revenge porn allegations made by a groom on the show. Since then, the story’s been picked up and reported around the world, including by the BBC.
Channel 9 has confirmed my reporting. So has NSW Police. The Daily Telegraph has now named the participant as TikTok star Kayne Buik.
The only one still saying nothing? Endemol Shine Australia.
I’ve got more details from my sources, which I’ll reveal in the Inside Mail column in the Daily Mail on Thursday.
But let’s talk about crisis management, because this is a case study in how not to do it.
The investigation happened. We know that. So why is Endemol Shine staying silent? Do they think the story will simply go away?
This is Married At First Sight, one of the biggest shows in the world. The less you talk about it, the more people like me will keep digging. And boy, have I found out some interesting info.
It really seems to me that production companies don’t know how to deal with a crisis, because this certainly isn’t the way to do it.
Monique Ryan crosses a line
The alleged attack on Helen Haines is leading us down a very dangerous path (and yes, we have to say alleged until the allegations are proven in court). The security of our elected representatives should be taken seriously, but it seems politicians are using the tragedy for their own political gain.
One of the most disturbing calls, in my opinion, came from Independent MP Monique Ryan on the ABC’s Afternoon Briefing, when she essentially called for censorship of One Nation. There have been claims the party’s cartoons have added to the rising political temperature, and many have called for them to be scrapped.
On one point, I agree with Ryan. Talking about the Jacqui Lambie cartoon, she said:
“How do you tastefully satirise someone’s vaginal prolapse? You don’t.”
She’s right. Jacqui opened up about a very personal issue, and One Nation treated it as a cruel joke. You can tell a bunch of blokes made that cartoon.
Pauline Hanson has since apologised and had the video taken down. It was disgusting. But in a democratic society, they have the right to post videos like that. It then comes down to how society responds. People didn’t like it, and One Nation decided to pull it. That is democracy.
Where Ryan loses me is what came next. She said:
“On a number of occasions her cartoons have depicted public figures being run over by cars. It’s unacceptable the way that she puts these things out there and then refuses to take responsibility for them.”
Except Hanson did take responsibility. She pulled the video down.
And blaming a cartoon for what happened to Helen Haines is like blaming Hollywood for violence. I know some people do, but I don’t believe films make us violent. The most they can do is trigger people who already have those tendencies.
Does Monique Ryan really believe the alleged attacker drove into Helen Haines because One Nation depicted something similar in a cartoon? Cartoons traditionally include violent scenes that don’t seem as violent because it’s animation.
All the evidence currently suggests the man accused of being behind the wheel wasn’t a right-winger. He appears to be a leftie. It’s now been reported he seemed to be a fan of the left activist group GetUp!, reposting its content more than 17 times on social media.
Do I blame GetUp! for what happened to Helen Haines? Of course not. But I don’t blame One Nation for raising the political temperature either. All politicians do that. People have to take responsibility for their own actions, as this man will if he’s proven to have done what’s alleged.
Who decides who gets a voice?
Then Ryan went further, saying:
“I think that people should marginalise her because of that behaviour,”
“I think the media should stop giving her the attention that they give her and the public voice that they give her, because she is a negative force in Australian politics.”
Who decides who can and can’t be platformed?
Pauline Hanson is an elected representative. One Nation is polling so strongly that, going by the numbers, there is a chance it could form Government, or at least help decide who does. You can’t just ignore that. And the arrogance of saying “she’s a negative person, that’s a negative party, so we won’t allow the media to cover her”…
Now, I know Ryan isn’t literally saying “we won’t allow it”. But she’s calling on the media to make a political decision and shut One Nation out. That is not democracy.
I always come back to the time Jessica Rowe interviewed Pauline Hanson a few years ago. Jessica is the biggest lefty you will ever meet, God love her. On Studio 10 she backed left causes against right-wingers and centrists, often as the lone voice on the left. You’d think she’d have banked some goodwill. But when she interviewed Hanson, people on the left went crazy. Grace Tame and others condemned her so loudly that Jessica apologised and pulled the video down.
We don’t get to control who gets spoken to. It’s legitimate to speak to elected representatives. I make no apologies for speaking to Pauline Hanson on McKnight Tonight. Given the opportunity, everyone should speak to her, find out what she represents, challenge her where they want to, or just have a conversation.
Cutting people off achieves nothing. It makes them victims in the media and gives them sympathy. Deciding who you and I, as voters, get to hear from is not healthy for Australian democracy.
Radio’s most misunderstood number
One of the most misunderstood aspects of the radio industry is Time Spent Listening (TSL). When I first started working in radio, no one could actually explain how it was calculated.
This week, radio futurologist James Cridland shared a chart in his Radioland newsletter, supplied by Commercial Radio Australia. It followed claims that commercial radio has grown from breakfast to bedtime as more Australians listen longer. So, I asked James to help me test the claim (you can watch the interview in the YouTube player at the top of this article).
The chart shows TSL is up slightly, survey by survey. More importantly, it hasn’t collapsed over the last 10 years the way it has in some radio markets overseas. “It looks to be pretty consistent, pretty strong,” James said, “which is good news, I think, for Australian radio and Australian commercial radio in particular.”
The diary system
So how is TSL actually calculated? James held up the answer: the radio diary.
“About 20% of people have this in paper form. About 80% of people are using this online,” he said.
“But this is how the radio figures are calculated.”
You mark down where you listened, what station, when you started and when you stopped, and there are even stickers for the stations. Those diaries become the ratings. The benefit, James says, is it measures radio “however you’re listening”, whether that’s FM, AM, DAB+ or streaming.
Why 4BH beats 4BC, and Triple M wins on cume in Brisbane
Spencer Howson and I covered 4BC and 4BH on an earlier episode of Media McKnight. Both have strong TSL because they skew older and their listeners stay put. But 4BH is number one in Brisbane while 4BC sits around a 4% share. Good TSL, but not enough people are listening.
James explained share depends on how many people listen and how long they listen for. 4BH is only number six for cume, the total number of people who tune in. It’s only number three at breakfast.
“The reason why it does number one in terms of total share is that time spent listening thing,”
“People who tune into 4BH love it. They keep tuned in all day, from breakfast right through to the end of the day.”
That’s why stations fight so hard for the office. “They’re fighting for the workplace listening,” James said, “because it’s the workplace listening, all the way through the day, that will actually get them to be number one in terms of share overall.”
Stations like Triple M can win on cume because people tune in just for the footy or just for the music. Those listeners dip in and out, so TSL suffers.
So are the CRA’s claims true?
Mostly, with caveats.
“In terms of are people listening to Australian commercial radio more? Well, yes, if you look at the last two surveys,”
James said. But zoom out to five years of data and the picture changes.
“Five years ago, Australians were listening to 12 hours and 22 minutes of commercial radio every week. Now it’s 12 hours and eight minutes.”
Yes, more Australians are listening, because there are more Australians.
He also reminded me that surveys overlap. Survey 6 is half made up of Survey 5, which boosts sample size and consistency, but it means big swings between surveys never happen. “They’re all smushed together a little bit,” James said. That’s also where the “wave” everyone talks about comes from.
The Kyle and Jackie O effect that wasn’t
I’ll admit I thought the departure of Kyle and Jackie O from KIIS would hit breakfast cume in Sydney. It doesn’t seem to have.
“It doesn’t seem to have an impact either on cume or on time spent listening,”
“People seem to have found somebody else who they will tune into. Interestingly, Smooth appears to be the beneficiary.”
Smooth. A very different station to Kyle and Jackie O.
The most intriguing part of the CRA chart wasn’t what the CRA wanted to talk about, though. In 2025, listening drops from around 13 hours a week to 11.5. “That is a calamitous drop,” said James, “and no one who I can talk to can actually explain that one to me. There didn’t appear to be very much happening in commercial radio in 2025.” Equally mysterious is how quickly it bounced back in 2026.
If you want more of James’s insights, sign up to the Radioland newsletter at james.cridland.net.
Channel 10’s Meghan Markle headache
You’ve got to feel sorry for Channel 10. They’ve secured Meghan Markle for Junior MasterChef, a big announcement that should be a cause for celebration. But it’s been soured after reports that disturbing images were found on the computer of her father, Thomas Markle Sr. Questions are now being asked about when Meghan knew about the allegations against him, with reports she knew as early as 2018.
It’s a story that could cause major issues for a network making a kids’ version of a popular show. Junior MasterChef hasn’t started production yet, but Meghan is said to be coming out for a few weeks, and there’s talk Harry may come with the kids. Will she stay in the role if it’s proven she knew of her father’s alleged behaviour and said nothing?
No doubt, a daughter shouldn’t pay for the crimes of her father. But it’s about what she knew, and when. This is going to be a tough one for Channel 10.
Oh yeah, McKnight was right
I was at the Channel 7 upfronts on Thursday night, and there’s a full episode of McKnight Tonight on the YouTube channel. I’ve been telling you for ages The Voice would be put off for a while while they work out how to pay for it, and lo and behold, that’s exactly what happened.
Remember, when you hear it first on Media McKnight, we usually end up saying: McKnight was right.
Media McKnight drops every Tuesday. McKnight Tonight is live from the Gold Coast garage at 9pm AEST.
Send your tips to [email protected]
