What networks and production companies should learn from House of Hancock
In the wake of Channel Nine and CJZ’s apology to Gina Rinehart, production companies should be wary of the issues that landed these companies in hot water with the mining magnate. In this post, media lawyer Stephen Digby explains the strategies required to avoid the same fate as TV series House of Hancock.
After Rinehart’s successful legal action in the Supreme Court of NSW in 2015, which gave her access to part two of House of Hancock ahead of its screening on Nine, it appeared that the parties had come to a settlement that, whilst confidential, seemed to allow broadcast of part two of the docudrama under certain conditions.
Some of these conditions included specific disclaimers in the opening and closing credits the show was a “drama, not a documentary”, and that Rinehart was not interviewed by the producers. Several minutes of footage were also cut from the broadcast.
Digby: TV makers can learn from the House of Hancock outcome
However, this did not seem to placate Rinehart, as she took Nine and CJZ back to court claiming defamation and malicious falsehood, as well as misleading and deceptive conduct under the Australian Consumer Law against CJZ, based largely on the future broadcasts and DVDs of the miniseries.
This is a problem that runs all the way back to Machiavelli, who is eternally connected to the idea of underhandedness or disguised truth about the powerful. In fact , the only mistake Machiavelli made, was to tell the powerful what they already knew.
The problem with House of Hancock was not so far removed from Machiavelli. Producers like success, and unfortunately success to a producer means numbers, and between them Producers and Bean Counters have all but destroyed the great art of story telling. Reality is the enemy of theatre, there is nothing real in the presentation of theatre, it is the art of creating an appearance of truth, not the art of presenting the facts; that is best left to journalists and documentary makers. A drama properly treated, in which a family rose to the powerful position of, say the Hancocks, in which the audience was not spoon fed, but allowed to use their individual imagination, would have resulted in no need for defense, no need for argument, and no need for lawyers.
Shame this production is off the Australian viewing scene forever. It was a well-produced, well-dressed, beautifully-performed drama with a great cast, a flash script and enough titillation to keep it watchable. Viewers are the losers here but Gina Rules; right?
I don’t think it is a matter of [quote] “Gina Rules” [unquote] Any responsible producer should know that there are laws preventing personal attack upon individuals based upon open lampooning or imitating actual living people, and/or the use of real names.
Most will be aware of the disclaimer seen in movie credits , where the Producers inform the audience that all characters are fictitious, or that the story although based upon facts, does not represent any specific person alive or dead, or that the names have been changed, for whatever reason.
This is not a grandstanding exercise, it has a very real purpose. If there were no such laws, then the film companies, and others, could say or do anything they felt inclined to invent, without a care for the adverse effects upon the individuals concerned.