Nine admitting its guilt isn’t a ‘bold step’, it’s a PR necessity 

Nine is facing a public reckoning after its independent report unveiled systemic issues of abuse, power imbalances, bullying, discrimination, and sexual harassment across the media organisation. The findings are damning but unsurprising to many in the media industry.  

Some are touting Nine’s decision to release the report and pledge to implement all 22 recommendations as a ‘bold step.’ But, is it really? 

Let’s be clear: Nine had no other choice but to go public. In today’s media landscape, marked by relentless news cycles and the power of citizen journalism, trying to bury such a bombshell would be simply prolonging what would end up being a far more severe self-flagellation ceremony.  

Five years ago, they might have quietly shelved the report, citing the need for time to work through it, offering a few platitudes about ‘doing better’ and hoping the storm would pass. But that approach would be laughably naïve now. The media’s scrutiny – especially from Nine’s own journalists – would have ensured that any attempt to sweep this under the rug would backfire spectacularly. 

There are, of course, multiple ways Nine could have handled this, all of which would have yielded disastrous PR results. One option would have been releasing selective excerpts of the report, coupled with a statement about protecting victims by keeping details under wraps. But given Nine’s dismal track record on the matter, that would come across as disingenuous at best, and gaslighting at worst (more likely).  

Another option? A neutral, sterile statement acknowledging the report while diminishing its findings with language like, ‘our statistics are not the worst in the industry.’ Yet again, this would have sparked outrage, as it would be seen as revictimising those already harmed by Nine’s toxic culture. 

In the end, transparency became Nine’s only real option. Making the report public and sharing it with employees was the bare minimum required, especially in an era when news – bad news, in particular – travels fast.  

Yet, doing so isn’t a sign of proactivity. Sharing the findings and releasing a statement admitting the harm done were simply two of the 22 recommendations outlined in the report, and for Nine to have done anything less than accept them all would have been an indefensible pursuit of self-preservation. 

Nine’s statement, issued with seemingly sincere remorse, promised a “reset of culture” and included the Board’s commitment to implementing all recommendations. But words are easy. If Nine wants to prove that it is genuinely committed to cultural change, it could have gone beyond the report’s recommendations, introducing additional reforms that demonstrate its intent to rebuild trust.  

For instance, why not address the issue of alcohol at company events, which the review cited as a contributing factor to inappropriate behavior? Or announce an overhaul of leadership training to tackle the deep-rooted gender inequality and power imbalances across the organsation? 

The recommendations themselves – while necessary and robust – are hardly revolutionary. They reflect best practices that any newsroom, not just Nine, should already be embracing. This report is a clarion call for change, and while Nine is being pilloried in the media for its hypocrisy in reporting on the bad behaviour of others, while previously obfuscating its own, other media outlets need to be careful to not thrive on schadenfreude if their own houses are not in order.  

But back to Nine. To enact these reforms is not an extraordinary step, but an expected one. Any attempt by Nine to deflect or obscure the full extent of the issues exposed in this report would have inevitably led to widespread opprobrium.  

Nearly 60% of Nine’s broadcast division employees reported experiencing bullying, harassment, or discrimination. Leadership at every level enabled this toxic environment by ignoring complaints or, worse, warning victims to simply ‘avoid’ known perpetrators. This deep-rooted culture of abuse, especially within the broadcast division, which makes up 35% of Nine’s 5,000-strong workforce, isn’t something that can be changed overnight. But it is certainly something that demands immediate and decisive action. 

Nine should have made it a point to announce specific timelines for when and how these recommendations will be implemented. Concrete deadlines are essential to ensure that this isn’t just another PR exercise but a genuine move towards lasting change. 

Nine has taken the first step by publicly acknowledging the problem and committing to change. But let’s not pretend this was a bold, visionary move. It was a PR necessity – a choice between controlled transparency and a public relations implosion.  

If Nine wants any chance at redemption, it must go beyond the 22 recommendations, ensure full accountability at all levels, and take responsibility for the toxic culture that has been festering under the surface of the media industry for decades. Only then can we begin to believe this is more than mere damage control. 

The next move is Nine’s, and it will be telling. 

Got a tip?

topics Intersection report Mike Sneesby Nine Nine Entertainment Nine Intersection Nine workplace Phoebe Netto

Share Tweet Share