Latest news with #CharliePickering
Daily Mail
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Mail
The Project star reveals surprising secret from show's early days - as shock twist about axing is revealed
Charlie Pickering has opened up about his early days as host of The Project a mere week after the show was cancelled by Channel 10 after 16 years. The 47-year-old funnyman has revealed that he and his then co-anchor Carrie Bickmore were not supposed to host the long running show at all. Pickering's confession comes after widespread reports that current Project star Sarah Harris was sacked. However, in a shock twist, The Australian reported on Monday that Harris, 43, quit the network after being informed that a fresh news program would replace The Project. The publication added that management 'definitely' asked Harris to stay on, but the veteran reporter elected to take a break from her career after 12 years at Ten. From A-list scandals and red carpet mishaps to exclusive pictures and viral moments, subscribe to the DailyMail's new showbiz newsletter to stay in the loop. Pickering, meanwhile, dished behind-the-scenes secrets about the early days of The Project in the latest episode of the From The Newsroom podcast. 'One thing I remember very clearly about this show: Carrie and I were never meant to host it. It was an accident of showbiz that that happened,' the comedian, who went on to co-anchor the show for five years, on Monday. Cast initially on the show as regular panellists, the comedian and Bickmore, 44, were only meant to front up in auditions as producers searched for hosts. Explaining that he got 'bored' with the process, Pickering said he would tell jokes. Bickmore also started to improvise. 'She got bored of reading the same headlines over and over, so she started to get more involved in the conversations [with the panel],' he said. Producers ultimately auditioned Pickering and Bickmore. 'This was my Eminem, ''If you only had one shot …'' moment,' he said. 'I put the [host's] earpiece in – and I'd never really had to use one before, had never read an autocue before. 'But I had an advantage: I'd watched every audition, and I knew what had worked and what didn't. I sat in one host's chair, Carrie in the other host's chair … and it just clicked straight away.' The show, which debuted in July 2009 as The 7PM Project, went to air with Pickering, Bickmore and comedian Dave Hughes as hosts. Carrie announced her departure from The Project after 12 years on air in October 2022, after Hughes left in 2013 with Pickering making his exit in 2014. It comes after Bickmore shared a touching tribute to The Project after the flagship program was axed by Network 10 on Monday. The radio host, 44, took to Instagram on Thursday to post a 'trip down memory lane' celebrating her time on the show. Carrie also included a hilarious throwback clip reel to honour The Project team, past and present - including a few seconds from the very first episode. The famously bubbly host selected a series of gaffes and cringeworthy segments for her tribute, as well as fashion fails, including her own questionable 'hair looks'. She also included a clip of a touching throwback clip of a segment dedicated to her late husband Greg Lange who died of brain cancer at 35 in 2010. Bickmore also shared a publicity still from the early in which she can be seen posing beside co-host Charlie Pickering and panelist Dave Hughes. 'I've been on a trip down memory lane these last few days after the sad news about The Project ending after 16 years,' Carrie said in a lengthy story accompanying the post. She continued, 'It was a huge part of my life for 14 years and I made life long friends there. 'I have so much respect for all the hosts who have shared the chairs over the years. Especially the ones there now. 'The effort and creativity involved in turning around a daily news show is extraordinary and it's the faces you don't see who show up day after day that deserve so much credit. 'Boy we laughed, boy we cried, boy we told some incredible stories, and boy we fought for those who couldn't fight for themselves. 'Love us or hate us (everyone had very strong views. Many who hadn't even seen the show) but I hope we were company for you all and thank you for letting us in to your lounge rooms every night.
Daily Telegraph
7 days ago
- Entertainment
- Daily Telegraph
Charlie Pickering reveals surprising secret from The Project's early days
Don't miss out on the headlines from Entertainment. Followed categories will be added to My News. Former The Project host Charlie Pickering has opened up about the show's origins in a new interview with – and revealed that he and Carrie Bickmore were never originally intended to take on hosting roles on the show. Pickering speaks to Andrew Bucklow for Monday's episode of the From the Newsroom podcast, reflecting on his time on The Project after news last week that the show will be axed later this month after 16 years on-air. Back when it debuted in 2009, the show was called The 7pm Project and teamed Pickering, Bickmore and comedian Dave Hughes as joint co-hosts. At the time, Hughes was by far the most well-known of the three. 'One thing I remember very clearly about this show: Carrie and I were never meant to host it. It was an accident of showbiz that that happened,' Pickering revealed onFrom The Newsroom. L-R: Dave Hughes, Charlie Pickering and Carrie Bickmore were hosts back when the show was The 7pm Project. Pickering said that Bickmore, who back then had a regular gig as a newsreader on Rove Live, was earmarked for a similar role on The Project, expected to sit at the end of the desk and offer occasional news headlines. Pickering, then an up-and-coming comedian, would sit at the other end of the desk to offer light relief and be a 'regular correspondent' for the show, delivering a couple of stories per week. With the pair locked in as satellite panellists, the search was on for actual hosts – and Pickering and Bickmore were enlisted to help with the audition process. The pair were on hand as the audition process ran 'for two or three days straight,' sitting on either end of the panel as pairs of more famous hosts were brought in to bounce off them during mock episodes. 'I think it was Good Morning Australia – they'd finish recording in the morning in the studio, then we'd move in a desk [and audition hosts],' he said. Pickering said that to keep the auditions consistent, they used the same stories with each auditionee: 'Carrie would do the headline, then I'd chip in and have an opinion … and I got bored doing the same thing all the time, so I'd change my opinion on each story, try to think of different jokes. I was sitting there for two, three days, just trying to make as many jokes and have as many different opinions on the same stories as I could.' Bickmore, too, started to go off-script as the auditions wore on. Pickering says when he was told he needed to smarten up his wardrobe, he realised he was in with a shot as co-host. 'She got bored of reading the same headlines over and over, so she started to get more involved in the conversations [with the panel],' he said. Pickering said that at the end of their final day of auditions, they'd made it through every auditionee and there was still '15 minutes' left before they had to vacate the studio. One of the producers tasked with casting the show suggested they use their final 15 minutes doing a take with just Pickering and Bickmore on the panel. 'This was my Eminem, 'If you only had one shot …' moment,' he said. 'I put the [host's] earpiece in – and I'd never really had to use one before, had never read an autocue before. But I had an advantage: I'd watched every audition, and I knew what had worked and what didn't. I sat in one host's chair, Carrie in the other host's chair … and it just clicked straight away. 'For me personally, it felt like the most natural thing I've ever done. Hosting, hitting the autocue, guiding the conversation. And Carrie was more experienced than I was on TV, so she was really comfortable and we both just had fun,' he said. Once they'd finished, Pickering went home and thought of it as a 'fun' exercise in gaining some technical experience: 'Now I know what it's like to read an autocue,' he remembered thinking. Yes, Ruby Rose was once a regular panellist on The Project.. An hour or so later, he received a call from his manager: The show's producers wanted to continue the audition process with he and Bickmore, this time with just one more host: Dave Hughes. He said that one new directive made him realise he was being considered for a more central role than end-of-desk funnyman. 'They said, 'we've gotta get you to wardrobe, because you can't wear what you're wearing,'' he recalled. 'All of a sudden, I was not visually presentable for the job that they now wanted me for.' The Project debuted on July 20 2009, with Pickering, Hughes and Bickmore remaining the show's central trio until Hughes left at the end of 2013. Pickering exited a year later, with Bickmore eventually becoming the longest-running host in The Project's history, staying with the show until 2022, a year in which Peter Helliar, Tommy Little and Lisa Wilkinson all also left. Pickering, who now hosts The Weekly on the ABC, said it was a 'real shame' that The Project will come to an end on June 27, bringing its 16-year run to an end. 'In my five years, I think I hosted something like 1300 or 1400 hours of television. It was the best place to learn how to make TV.' Originally published as Charlie Pickering reveals surprising secret from The Project's early days
News.com.au
15-06-2025
- Entertainment
- News.com.au
Charlie Pickering reveals surprising secret from The Project's early days
Former The Project host Charlie Pickering has opened up about the show's origins in a new interview with – and revealed that he and Carrie Bickmore were never originally intended to take on hosting roles on the show. Pickering speaks to Andrew Bucklow for Monday's episode of the From the Newsroom podcast, reflecting on his time on The Project after news last week that the show will be axed later this month after 16 years on-air. Back when it debuted in 2009, the show was called The 7pm Project and teamed Pickering, Bickmore and comedian Dave Hughes as joint co-hosts. At the time, Hughes was by far the most well-known of the three. 'One thing I remember very clearly about this show: Carrie and I were never meant to host it. It was an accident of showbiz that that happened,' Pickering revealed on From The Newsroom. Pickering said that Bickmore, who back then had a regular gig as a newsreader on Rove Live, was earmarked for a similar role on The Project, expected to sit at the end of the desk and offer occasional news headlines. Pickering, then an up-and-coming comedian, would sit at the other end of the desk to offer light relief and be a 'regular correspondent' for the show, delivering a couple of stories per week. With the pair locked in as satellite panellists, the search was on for actual hosts – and Pickering and Bickmore were enlisted to help with the audition process. The pair were on hand as the audition process ran 'for two or three days straight,' sitting on either end of the panel as pairs of more famous hosts were brought in to bounce off them during mock episodes. 'I think it was Good Morning Australia – they'd finish recording in the morning in the studio, then we'd move in a desk [and audition hosts],' he said. Pickering said that to keep the auditions consistent, they used the same stories with each auditionee: 'Carrie would do the headline, then I'd chip in and have an opinion … and I got bored doing the same thing all the time, so I'd change my opinion on each story, try to think of different jokes. I was sitting there for two, three days, just trying to make as many jokes and have as many different opinions on the same stories as I could.' Bickmore, too, started to go off-script as the auditions wore on. 'She got bored of reading the same headlines over and over, so she started to get more involved in the conversations [with the panel],' he said. Pickering said that at the end of their final day of auditions, they'd made it through every auditionee and there was still '15 minutes' left before they had to vacate the studio. One of the producers tasked with casting the show suggested they use their final 15 minutes doing a take with just Pickering and Bickmore on the panel. 'This was my Eminem, ' If you only had one shot …' moment,' he said. 'I put the [host's] earpiece in – and I'd never really had to use one before, had never read an autocue before. But I had an advantage: I'd watched every audition, and I knew what had worked and what didn't. I sat in one host's chair, Carrie in the other host's chair … and it just clicked straight away. 'For me personally, it felt like the most natural thing I've ever done. Hosting, hitting the autocue, guiding the conversation. And Carrie was more experienced than I was on TV, so she was really comfortable and we both just had fun,' he said. Once they'd finished, Pickering went home and thought of it as a 'fun' exercise in gaining some technical experience: 'Now I know what it's like to read an autocue,' he remembered thinking. An hour or so later, he received a call from his manager: The show's producers wanted to continue the audition process with he and Bickmore, this time with just one more host: Dave Hughes. He said that one new directive made him realise he was being considered for a more central role than end-of-desk funnyman. 'They said, 'we've gotta get you to wardrobe, because you can't wear what you're wearing,'' he recalled. 'All of a sudden, I was not visually presentable for the job that they now wanted me for.' The Project debuted on July 20 2009, with Pickering, Hughes and Bickmore remaining the show's central trio until Hughes left at the end of 2013. Pickering exited a year later, with Bickmore eventually becoming the longest-running host in The Project' s history, staying with the show until 2022, a year in which Peter Helliar, Tommy Little and Lisa Wilkinson all also left. Pickering, who now hosts The Weekly on the ABC, said it was a 'real shame' that The Project will come to an end on June 27, bringing its 16-year run to an end. 'In my five years, I think I hosted something like 1300 or 1400 hours of television. It was the best place to learn how to make TV.'
The Advertiser
12-06-2025
- Entertainment
- The Advertiser
Yes, audiences have changed. But this is destroying a core tenet of news
This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking. This is all our fault. We stopped watching Q+A. We stopped watching The Project. We've stopped appointment television unless it's the footy. We've changed. As a result, broadcasters, in an attempt to keep audiences, change what they're offering us. We know The Project lost its way, but believe me, when it started out, it felt young and fresh, brimming with energy. Did we start to disengage after it lost Charlie Pickering? Did we lose our sense of humour? Or did they lose their understanding of what we needed to know and how much that's changed? How much have we really changed? I'm not the right person to answer this because I listen, read and watch news all day, every day. But I've got some insights into what's going on at the ABC this week and it makes me want to cry. This week, the ABC announced it would end its panel show Q+A after 18 years. Sure. Despite the fact that ratings for the program, now hosted by Patricia Karvelas, had increased. She and her team, including the remarkable executive producer Eliza Harvey, kept trying different things. So is it about the money? Probably. I think about 10 people will lose their jobs from that program alone, including some who are on the ABC's notorious casual contracts cycle. We don't need to keep the same thing forever, but it's weird that both its panel shows have now gone. Let us hope and pray we don't get served up even more Hard Quiz or the bizarrely unentertaining House of Games, which now leads us into the news. I can't think of a less suitable entrée. Marks continues in his email: "Upcoming initiatives in news include investing in producing additional high-impact premium news documentary programs and embedding Your Say as a permanent initiative." Much as I love Your Say, I'm not sure it's all that. You answer various online questions and then somehow that's turned into filler, not attached to real humans. As you know, no need to be honest with a form - and it kind of plays with us, to be more conservative, to be more progressive, to see where it lands. Is it fun? Sure. Is it truly meaningful? Doubt that so much. Feels like phony participation. Falls far short. I remember my various editors over various decades telling me that the best way of representing what real people felt was to include real people, real names, real lives. Anyhow, I've asked various staff members at the ABC if they can decode Marks's email to all staff. Most have backed away politely. They say they don't really have a clue what most of it means. What they do know is that 40 staff will be made redundant, and 10 short-term contracts will be terminated early. Weirdly, in the more detailed change proposal, the ABC is backing away from digital and dumping innovation. Do we know any other 21st century organisation doing that? I'm shocked Marks thinks he can embed innovation in every unit. Real inventive thinking takes time, space and quiet. It is the exact opposite of what daily media production requires. A couple of insiders have said to me that these changes show a desire by Marks to strut his stuff. What he's doing, they say, is clawing resources (money, people) into television, something he actually knows about. "He's building a war chest for TV," says one source. The internal email says: "The objective is to enhance our TV slate in volume and ambition, increase our capacity to commission more high-value journalism, enable more original podcasting and put targeted resources into our metropolitan audio teams." Yeah, translated, TV war chest. The ABC already does brilliant, high-value journalism. Back the people you already employ. Fund more episodes of Four Corners. Give more staff to news, especially radio news and current affairs. The audience cannot possibly tolerate the barely changed iterations of news stories on AM, The World Today and PM. These are three flagships (and I listen as if news was my religion) and they should be treated that way. Now, going back to Marks's email to staff. See how TV comes first in that list. He's also decided to rename the ABC's Content division as ABC Screen, which will be led by Jennifer Collins. This might be the one bit of good news in the entire shemozzle. Here's an array of adjectives used by ABC employees to describe Collins: respected, no bullshit, pragmatic. And, doesn't interfere in tiny decisions. READ MORE: Apparently, she was overlooked when they appointed Chris Oliver-Taylor (he's the one who carried the can on the Antoinette Lattouf fiasco, but there were others, there were others). Bet ABC management very sorry about that now. Collins has had a long career at the ABC and a short career in commercial screen (as we seem to be calling television now) and has a double degree in television and psychology. She'll need that, not just in thinking about how audiences work, but in thinking about how her boss works. So many people have described Hugh Marks to me as a micromanager who needs more trust in the people who work for him. Speaking of micromanagers. In April, the then-newish host of the ABC's Media Watch, Linton Besser and his team, exposed Kim Williams as an apparently activist chair with no business running the most important media institution in the country. Micromanaging madly. And badly. Trying to leverage his status to influence who appeared on the national broadcaster. At the time, Marks said: "I am vigilant to ensure the proper delineation of responsibility between the board and management, and will act appropriately to ensure the best interests of the ABC, its people and audiences as we move forward." So far, no evidence we are moving forward. Just more bad news. More redundancies. No evidence that any of the most senior folks at the ABC or Ten have any idea what we, the listeners and watchers, really want. Maybe we don't know either. There's only so many episodes of Shrinking.
ABC News
28-05-2025
- Entertainment
- ABC News
The Weekly With Charlie Pickering: Series 11 Episode 12
The Weekly With Charlie Pickering NEW EPISODE Talk & Interview Entertainment Offbeat Watch Article share options Share this on Facebook Twitter Send this by Email Copy link WhatsApp Messenger The Weekly knows the world is too serious to be taken too seriously. Charlie Pickering and a team of Australia's best comedians watch all the news so you don't have to. You give us 30 mins, we give you the week.
