Rinehart aide describes Nine’s House of Hancock as a ‘tacky grab for ratings’
Billionaire Gina Rinehart has taken aim at Nine Entertainment Co CEO David Gyngell with a senior executive saying they had repeatedly told him of “glaring errors” in some scenes of mini-series House of Hancock.
The drama pulled a bumper audience of 1.3m metro viewers for Nine last night which portrays the relationship between Rinehart, her father Lang Hancock and his second wife Rose Porteous.
Tad Watroba, executive director of Rinehart’s company Hancock Prospecting, said in a statement: “Channel 9 has seemingly gone out of its way to cause undue damage and upset to those currently living and the memory of those no longer with us.
“Despite repeatedly bringing it to Nine CEO David Gyngell’s attention, many scenes broadcast last night were fictitious, unfounded or grossly distorted, and some simply never occurred.”
The Rinehart camp pointed to several parts of the program as incorrect, including the portrayal of Rinehart honeymooning while her mother was ill, a scene where Rinehart was shown to support using nuclear devices in mining, and an extract where Hancock is shown telling his daughter that no one could love her.
“Despite the portrayal, Mr Hancock and Mrs Rinehart had a loving, father/daughter relationship, and were together throughout the funeral of Hope Hancock, and to portray otherwise is wrong,” said the Hancock camp’s statement.
“Mr Hancock never told Mrs Rinehart that no one could ever love her, or that her husband never loved her. The scene was made up and untrue. Her relationship with Mr Frank Rinehart was very loving, and her mother loved her son in law also.
“Nor was there a scene where Mr Hancock said terrible things about his daughter’s appearance.”
It is understood that the scene, which saw Hancock describe his daughter as a “baby elephant”, was based on written correspondence between Hancock and Rinehart.
Rinehart’s long-serving adviser Watroba said he had witnessed many of the events portrayed in the two part TV series: “I worked for Lang Hancock and have been with Mrs Rinehart’s company Hancock Prospecting since 1991 so I have a good grasp on what actually took place.
“I know the facts, and this show has turned out to be a tacky grab for ratings, damaging the memory of good Australians along the way.
“Since starting promotion of the show, Channel 9 has not bothered to fact-check anything despite repeated offers when people have pointed out mistakes.”
The program was the second most watched TV show on-air last night with 1.383m viewers. Nine declined to comment on the Rinehart camp’s remarks.
Part two of House of Hancock is scheduled to screen next Sunday and will feature the death of Hancock and subsequent legal dispute between Rinehart and Porteous, before fast forwarding to a later dispute between Rinehart and her children.
Nic Christensen
I can almost see the Rinehart lawyers salivating . . .
User ID not verified.
Surprising. Nine are never one to distort the truth for ratings, a story or grab for cash.
User ID not verified.
Pretty sure its not meant to be a documentary or piece of investigative journalism so Gina & Tad need to toughen up. I better re-tract that statement otherwise I might appear on the suit with Gyng
User ID not verified.
I actually felt sorry for Gina Rinehart. It’s basically tabloid TV dressed up as drama. Far fetched and poorly executed.
User ID not verified.
Damn, I missed it. I was watching an equally fascinating segment on the cooking device which chops, minces and dices on a shopping channel. I will hope they run it again next week.
In other news ‘a commercial TV station didn’t bother to fact check.’ Stop the press
User ID not verified.
Hancock Prospecting …. a tacky grab for iron ore.
User ID not verified.
Not once did channel nine state it was a true story or factual , it just said it was a look at one of the most richest influential families in Australia . If the show was meant to be taken word for word it would have been made as an interview with gina and others from real life . It is just a show people . It was also backed by the Australian government if you saw the credits , and I’m sure that if gina wanted to intervene or stop the show from airing she could have , maybe she was just embarrassed , no one will ever know the true actual facts of what went on in their private lives beside gina , Lang , rose and others involved from their own minds , eyes and ears (point if view) .
User ID not verified.
Did I really write ‘miss judged’?
I do, most sincerely, apologise to the Mumbrella community. #misjudged
User ID not verified.
What would happen if we nationalised the mining industry? Or part f it (Iron Ore)?
User ID not verified.
Imagine how well enough out national finances would be if it had have succeeded in the 1970s.
But the one thing we learned was while we may have “one person – one vote”, those almost 15 million voters don’t count for as much as big business and lobby groups, as we insatiably go down the US path of privatisation.
In generations time they will ask “what the hell were they thinking?!?”
User ID not verified.
I watched both episodes with great interest and to be honest my respect and admiration for Gina Hancock increased by at least 90%. I don’t think the show did her any harm and showed her as the woman she is – patriotic, determined and successful. I hope her kids watched it and took note of how silly they have been in this battle over hideous amounts of wealth that is enough to support the budget of a few of the smaller countries in the region.
User ID not verified.