EXCEL NOTES

Frontline

'Situation satire'

Features of current affairs shows

• Chequebook journalism
• Dubious editing tricks

- Each episode of Frontline examines the way in which stories are devised and developed to capture ratings rather than reality

- The truth behind the stories is distorted, over-exaggerated and sensationalised in order to gain audience interest and attention

- Emotive programming is seen as a priority because it gets the TV viewers emotionally involved so they are more likely to continue watching

- The role of the host is paramount - based on the constructed role of the all-knowing, insightful, objective yet compassionate host (i.e. Ray Martin)

- Viewers feel they are watching stories with depth and authority, but they are actually not aware of which elements of the story are being left in or out in the editing process, or whose side of the story is being presented

Ratings can lead to the use of formulaic programming, with predictable content, order and style - in order to attract advertising and increase a show's operating budget.

Genre

- Situation satire - a new type of TV show

- Satire, drama and situation comedy

- Frontline mixes genres that audiences are familiar with - soap opera, situation comedy and reality TV

- It is therefore a stylistic and generic parody using the program-within-a-program device

- The appearance of real media personalities, politicians and other celebrities gives Frontline an even greater sense of reality

- Frontline parodies the conventions and values of the current affairs genre and satirises the social context that allows such a genre to exist and to be considered a medium of 'truth'

Style and structure

- A self contained narrative played out to some kind of resolution at the end, with a number of subplots and a series of crises or conflicts (unlike a typical situation comedy, the resolutions are not always neat / humorous)

- Sometimes the issues are subverted or left completely open-ended (i.e. 'Smaller Fish To Fry' when Hugh finds the missing tape, or 'The Siege' when the second gunman shoots his hostages)

- Using these tactics, Frontline deliberately blurs the line between drama & comedy

- The use of a single Hi-8 video camera & one additional hand-held camera gives Frontline a documentary style and reinforces its realism (fly-on-the-wall style)

- This is a contrast to the very staged, controlled camera work used during the filming of the 'Frontline' program itself

- This emphasises the important issues of truth, fabrication and manipulation

- We feel we are getting the truth behind the series of a current affairs program, and at the same time, Frontline is exposing the truth about the medium and the way in which truth is dealt with

Satire

- Mike is generally portrayed as a voice of knowledge in media, but when we see what goes on behind the scenes, Mike loses much of his integrity and respect as a powerful & reliable media figure

- Seeing the characters behind-the-scenes creates satire when we realise how much power these characters wield in the media and in their ability to recreate the truth

Techniques used:

Irony - when the two levels of meaning (superficial + intended meaning) are not apparent to the person speaking but are obvious to the audience

Puns - employ two meanings, but rely on different uses of a word - can be used to set the tone

Inversion - works well with the characters of Frontline, who are expected to behave or speak in a certain way because of their position in society, yet whose speech or actions are inverted to make them the opposite of what we expect. The humour comes from this contrast - i.e. Mike's behaviour; we expect him to be intelligent, insightful & mature but really he is a dimwitted, immature fool

Parody - requires a subtle balance between close resemblance to the original and a deliberate distortion of the known characteristics (i.e. Brooke Vandenberg - Jana Wendt)

Juxtaposition, contrast, incongruity, paradox & oxymoron - Mike: Ha ha ha, Elliot Rhodes... he's a national treasure [closely followed by] Mike: He's shithouse, Brian ('We Ain't Got Dames' Scenes 1 & 2)

These techniques of contrast can often create immediate humour because of the ridiculous appearance of such opposite ideas, events or characters, but can also reinforce serious themes or issues

Hyperbole - physical faults, vices, follies & ridiculous issues or events can be easily recognised in a piece of satire when they are exaggerated

These satiric devices create comedy but also bring us closer to understanding the truth about news & current affairs programs.

Setting

- Mike's office allows viewers to see even further into the shallowness and vanity of his character - closed blinds & large desk to give himself a sense of power & authority over others, often contrasted with shots of him playing his GameBoy or checking his hair

- Brian's office = also a symbol of power & truth. Mike is frequently a victim of the lies and manipulations that go on in here; he expects the truth when he enters Brian's office but usually we witness Brian setting him up or lying to him in order to create a representation of the truth that Brian feels will win the highest ratings

- Brian's office is therefore the setting for the 'truth'

- Geoffrey Salter's office is another important setting - the trivialities & banalities aired by Mike & Geoff are contrasted with the satellite weather map constantly moving behind them, representing the bigger picture, the real world which is ignored by self-important characters like Mike

- The editing suite serves as a setting for the 'graveyard of the truth' - a story may come in in one form and leave in a completely different way

- The lighting used in this setting is deliberately dark & shadowy, with the use of a single bulb hanging over the small TV screens

- This setting, with its dark, claustrophobic & smoky atmosphere is clearly shown to be an almost sinister place in which current affairs programs tell the truth that suits their own purposes

The Siege

This episode examines the scheming of a current affairs program to dramatise a 'life or death' situation in order to scoop the ratings. The Frontline team disregard police restrictions and the feelings of those involved, distort the truth to increase the story's dramatic appeal and place the host in a role far above his skills.

Marty's antics in flying overhead to get shots of the farmhouse and the instructions of Brian (the producer) reflect the media's desire to tell the truth in their own way, regardless of the law.

Marty: A five-kilometre exclusion zone. Who do the cops think they are?

This shows a blatant disregard for the law when it comes to capturing maximum footage in order to make their story the most appealing and dramatic to the audience.

Marty's smug look in scene 15 is immediately juxtaposed with him taking the moral high ground when he believes another TV show has the gunman on the telephone:

Marty: You bastards. It's not right. You're risking people's lives here, mate.

This is almost instantly contrasted with his jubilation when he realises it is actually Frontline who has the gunman on the phone ("you beauty").

The contrasts in reactions and comments from Marty in this brief scene reinforce the way in which he is determined to tell the 'truth' about the siege as long as it helps boost his own show's ratings and help his own profile in the industry.

His further distortion of the truth is shown in scene 20 when he crouches down "to make it look like I'm in danger" and then decides to wear a flak jacket. This is a parody of reporters who appear in flak jackets behind enemy lines to increase the drama of their reports from war zones. This reflects the way in which media personalities place themselves in roles way beyond their capabilities - the audience is lulled into believing the words of the reporters as if their status and knowledge is much greater than it really is.

Brooke plays the understanding and caring journalist in order to get the mother of the gunman to open up and sign an exclusivity clause.

The visuals of Brooke reinforce her two-faced character as we see her switch from 'caring into professional mode'. Visual and oral cues such as her raised eyebrow, soft mouth, and slow condescending tone of voice show her attempts to look concerned for the woman's wellbeing.

These are contrasted with her 'professional' face when she turns to the camera, furrows her brow and straightens her mouth.

When Brooke tries to get Mrs. Forbes to cry again for the camera, it is a clear comment on the callous nature of journalism when it's only the story that counts, not the people actually personally involved.

The satire in this scene is achieved through the use of contrasts - Brooke's shallow, manipulative behaviour is contrasted with Mrs. Forbes' genuine emotion, reinforcing the unethical behaviour of current affairs journalists.

In scene 16, 'the truth' is further highlighted when Mike enters dressed in racing gear and the production team frantically transforms him for an 'on-camera appearance'. His panicked facial expression is contrasted to his calm, controlled appearance once the cameras start rolling.

Brian thinks only about the high ratings - clearly representing the media's shallow and mercenary nature.

Mike's misgivings really only highlight his own obsession with acceptance and respect in the industry.

In the final scene, the sound effects of gunshots and screams followed by a cut to black show that in this case, the media has gone too far. The message is that it is not the place of a TV program to negotiate situations in which people's lives are at risk.

We Ain't Got Dames

This episode shows how the truth about female viewers is created on a number of levels. The use of market research (interviewing 220 women) creates a particular truth about women and the kinds of interests they have. Through the use of editing, stylising and selectivity, Brian is able to recreate Frontline in order to appeal to female viewers

We can see how a truth can be created about a whole section of the population as the result of comments from a small group. Barb's focus groups produce a limited stereotype about women's likes and dislikes. This sequence shows how Frontline can become a women's current affairs show with just a little manipulation of image & selectivity of stories

The restyling of Mike Moore as a soft, stylish host in touch with his viewers' feelings is another way in which the truth is manipulated (in his new promo). The use of the satiric devices of hyperbole and parody create comedy and reinforce the superficial nature of the TV industry. Mike's posing and over-the-top gestures, supported by soft-focus camera work & music, help create a new image of him which we know is not the 'truth'. When Brian changes his sweatshop workers story, what began as a serious inside look at the exploitation of female factory workers becomes a frivolous look at the Australian fashion industry. The role of editing in current affairs segments is shown to be crucial in representing the truth - the insertion of some older footage, cutting & pasting Mike's story and the overlay of upbeat music changes the entire truth of the story.

Brian is concerned that Mike's stupid appearance on the ABC comedy debate will show the truth about the Frontline host. TV networks try hard to build a certain image about a TV personality, carefully constructing all their appearances - but at the debate (without his usual trimmings of clever editing, an autocue, special hair & makeup) the truth about Mike is fully revealed to the audience.

In the interview with Cheryl Kernot (then Australian Democrats leader) shows how the truth can be shaped through selectivity & exclusion. Mike only asks questions about her family and her place as a woman in politics - the representation of the truth about female politicians is shaped by Mike's questions. The cut to her exasperated facial expression at the end of the scene shows us she is not happy about this new truth created for her.

The higher ratings for Frontline show that audiences appear to be willing victims to the manipulation of truth in the media. Mike and Brian's happiness about the ratings shows that any desire for objective truth becomes totally irrelevant.

The way Elliot Rhodes is treated in the opening scenes ("a national treasure" - "he's shithouse") is clearly an indication of the way in which the truth is concealed in the Frontline office. Brian frequently lies to Mike, and in return, Mike conceals mistakes he has made in order to avoid Brian's anger. The role of truth in their relationship is undermined by other concerns.

Playing The Ego Card

This episode focuses on the lies, manipulation and superficiality that occur so readily in the Frontline office. Truth is relegated to the back seat when ego, credit and profile are the focus for the team members.

The absence of truth in the workplace is evident from scene 1, where Brian doesn’t want a story without interesting images. These comments reflect Brian’s belief that viewers of commercial current affairs programs need instant gratification via visuals. But in the next scene, where Ian Farmer (General Manager) suggests that Brooke be given a chance to host the show due to her popularity with viewers, Brian realises he can use his previous conversation with Mike to manipulate him into leaving for a week. Farmer’s comments reinforce the lies the network is willing to tell if it means maintaining successful ratings – “Mike Moore has this network’s 100% support… right up to the day we sack him”.

Brian pretends to be on the phone with Farmer, convincing him to let Mike go overseas (when it is actually Emma jubilantly waving just outside the office). Mike is completely oblivious to the game they are playing, and he feels that it is his clever persuasiveness that gets him the overseas posting. Brian has created a truth for Mike that he naively believes in, as he knows how to make Mike feel better about himself.

We can see that Brooke is clever, manipulative and superficial, but we can also see that she is just as vulnerable as Mike in allowing her ego to blind her to the truth. Brooke always maintains an air of loyalty and honour (such as thanking Emma for her help, and convincing Mike that Frontline is still his show), but again and again we are shown the real truth about Brooke – she is superficial, hypocritical, and completely egotistical. Yet her public mask encourages others to perceive her as being smart, caring and insightful. The self-created truth Brooke has built around herself has been successful in deceiving both her colleagues and viewers (including Mike’s local doctor, Geoff Salter and Khor the cleaner).

Later, as Mike is about to leave for New Guinea, Marty asks Mike “Is Lady Macbeth driving you to the airport?” conjuring up an image of the ultimate traitor, who presented herself as loyal and loving while secretly plotting King Duncan’s murder. This betrayal seems highly likely when the scene closes with Brooke asking Mike if she can use his office for the week – the plane confusion on Mike’s face shows that he is unaware of which ‘truth’ to believe – Marty’s advice, or Brooke’s veneer of the caring colleague.

In the reports in New Guinea, Mike is wearing pilot’s sunglasses, combat fatigues and a flak jacket to present the image of being in a war zone – contrasted to previous scenes in which he is wearing a bright yellow linen shirt. The visual imagery used in this sequence reminds us how Frontline represents different versions of the truth.

When Emma discovers the truth about the helicopters, the truth is overlooked on a number of levels. In public, Mike is given the credit for unveiling such groundbreaking news, and his image as the intelligent, insightful journalist is reinforced by the story. Mike is perceived as the authority of truth on TV when it is actually Emma.

In scene 22, Brian helps shape truths for Brooke, Mike, Emma and himself. He tells each of them that they ‘made’ the successful ratings, and Brooke and Mike leave with their egos boosted. However, he ends the episode with the creation of a whole new truth by telling Farmer that he discovered the truth about the helicopters. This leaves viewers with the understanding that any kind of truth can be created, as Farmer is ignorant to the actual events in uncovering the story. This episode makes use realise that truth is a very fickle thing – it can be shaped and created into anything someone wants it to be.

Add Sex and Stir

Brooke makes her ‘chequebook journalism’ with the sports player seem like a thank-you present for the girl so she can relax after her stressful experience, when it is actually a ploy to get her out of town so that Frontline can air an exclusive. Brooke also completely changes one of the questions she originally asked (she gets the camera crew to refilm her) so that it appears that Alison says that most of the other members of the team are lesbians.

We see further professional deception at work when Mike lies to Domenica about his cocktail party and Brian lies to Mike about appearing on Burke’s Backyard to stop him doing the advertisement. Mike’s appearance on the show, however, once again exposes him as a bumbling idiot.

Brian’s attitude about women’s sport reflects a very real belief in TV – that women’s team sports are boring. In this case we see how successfully and powerfully the media can create its own form of truth. Because they give hardly any air-time to women’s sports, they give the public the impression that there are no successful teams out there. As viewers, we see only hours of male sports and we are unable to know the truth about women’s sports since we never gain any information about them.

On the way to the story, Stu suggests that maybe the woman was dropped because she was a bad player, but Brooke sarcastically responds with “that’s just groundbreaking”, emphasizing the need to manufacture stories with a sensationalised angle in order to win ratings. Brooke sees this story as an opportunity to manufacture the truth in order to look like a groundbreaking journalist who will provide the truth behind the façade.

During the interview, Brooke deftly creates a truth about herself and the reason Alison is being whisked away to the Gold Coast so rapidly – Alison doesn’t know anything about the real reason she is going, or about Brooke’s real personality. The deception is furthered when Brooke has Stu film her ‘noddies’ (for later insertion, to make her look emotionally involved and caring) and film an altered question to completely sensationalise and distort Alison’s story. This shows how easy it is for current affairs programs to manufacture the truth, and the enormous power that they wield. Emma appears to be the lone voice who questions the authority Frontline has in recreating such truths at any cost, suggesting that this story could ruin a sporting career – while Brian just cares about ratings.

The captain of the sporting team, Teresa, later turns up to shout at Brooke.

Teresa: You reported half the story. You beat up the rest. You took up a claim with an axe to grind and broadcast it. You tarnished the reputation of my team and the entire sport… hope you got the ratings you were after.

Her comment raises a number of important issues about Brooke’s story. As well as criticising the manufacturing of the truth through sensationalism, Teresa also shows the way in which selectivity in reporting can distort the truth. Only one view has been provided, without questioning any motivations, so the audience needs to wonder what parts are missing and if the whole truth is being represented. Sometimes the motivating force behind a story is money, and if a person has been paid to tell their version of events, they may be willing to say anything that will justify such a payment. Of course, information of the payment is generally not aired

The shallow nature of the industry is reinforced when Emma attempts to persuade Marty that people in the office would support him, but struggles to come up with anybody who is both loyal and influential. The issue of professional dishonesty is evident again when Emma plots with Marty to ensure the ‘lesbians in sport’ story is dropped. She gets Marty to lie to Brian about the sexuality of a famous Australian cricketer, suggesting that they run a whole series on homosexuals in sport. Brian rapidly retreats, saying that it could ruin the player’s whole career – he is more than willing to sacrifice the career of a female sportsperson but won’t do the same thing for a male sporting ‘hero’. His hypocrisy is cleverly revealed by Marty and Emma’s trick. His sexism shapes the truth in this episode but also reflects a sexism that exists in Aus society as a whole. Emma herself has to act unethical in order to prevent the unethical nature of the story, as she realises it’s too difficult to fight Brian.

Brian tries to stop Mike by going ahead with the ad by deceiving him into believing that he can only appear on Burke’s Backyard if he doesn’t do the ad. However, Brian’s attempt to stop Mike ‘cheapening’ his image completely backfires when a successful journalist does the ad (incidentally, for Qantas) and Mike ends up looking like a fool on Burke’s when he can’t answer a few questions about Rwanda (which Frontline had aired several stories about that week!) Paradoxically, Brian’s deception to get Mike on Burke’s Backyard and stop him from ruining his profile in doing a ‘cheap’ ad does exactly that – Mike is again shown to be ignorant, not knowledgeable.

Smaller Fish to Fry

This episode opens with an excerpt from ABC’s Media Watch, then hosted by high-profile barrister Stuart Littlemore, criticising a story from Frontline targeting a fridge repairer ripping off clients. Littlemore says “Ever wonder why current affairs programs never go after the big fish? I do”. This comment raises a significant issue for commercial current affairs programs – this is because commercial networks rely on advertising revenue for funding, so any story that is critical of big corporations may therefore be doing damage to the future funding of the network and thus the program. This hidden bias means that the ‘truth’ shown by commercial current affairs programs is fairly limited, and these programs go after small businesses and individuals who don’t have the financial capacity to threaten the program.

Foster: No-one ever gets told directly they can’t do a story. But as if your network owner’s likes and dislikes are not known to the people working for him…

This comment highlights the importance of bias in reporting the news on a commercial network. Some truths will never be aired because they may clash with the ideals or interests of the owner of the network. Viewers aren’t being denied the truth; they are just never given the opportunity to know such truth exists in the first place. Bias leads to selectivity and determines what truths can and can’t be known. This episode shows that the authority to tell the truth rests with those in control of the network as a whole. When Mike tries to convince Brian to run the story, he says he will “put it on the backburner” for a while to check some facts, but Mike later discovers this is a lie when he finds the file hidden in Brian’s desk drawer.

Later, Mike fails to realise the ramifications of running this story –

Mike: They won’t sack me for this.

Foster: No. They’ll find something else.

This reinforces the tactic used by higher authorities to ensure that the truth is never told. No-one high up will admit that the truth should be suppressed; they just use different tactics to ensure that it never comes out.

When Brian discusses the story with Ian Farmer, Farmer tries to delay the story by saying they are checking facts, and then he says they may have to postpone contract negotiations. Without telling the truth about the story, Farmer manipulates Brian into realising that to run with the story would jeopardise his future with the network. The phrase “Keep your nose clean for the next couple of weeks, and…you know”, as well as the pauses in this exchange, reveal the truth – that Brian’s career is on the line.

When Mike insists that he go ahead with the story, Brian distorts facts in order to build a case against him – suggesting a sexual harassment charge, the hypothetical situation of theft, and “rifling through someone’s desk”. But in the end, it is Hugh’s incompetence that keeps the story off Frontline that night. Despite all the deceit and blackmail that has occurred to keep the truth about the fraud story from being told, Hugh’s inability to label tapes is what saves them all. Both Brian and Mike pretend to be disappointed that the tape can’t be found, and we can see how the distortions have truth have trickled all the way down from Cavell to Mike – all the levels of the network’s hierarchy are creating fictions to save themselves.

Selectivity and bias are also evident in the scenes where Brooke and Emma are preparing for an interview with the PM. Brooke understands that her career will be advantaged if she sucks up to the people in power – “You don’t get ahead by pissing people off” – and she does what those in authority want her to do. She agrees to every change suggested by the PM’s minders, and so the public will never be exposed to a fully truthful insight into the PM because of the effective use of bias in the media. His minders are clearly working hard behind the scenes to ensure he maintains control over the truth.

In the comic scene where she is shooting her ‘Christmas message’, she shouts at Mike and calls him a “dumb bastard” before sitting down and recording her ‘warm’ message. The contrast reinforces how differently Brooke and Mike maintain their image – the public never gets to see the ‘true’ Brooke on camera.

This Night of Nights

When Marty and Bruce discuss the great story the Street Aid scandal would have made, we get to see two experienced, hard-working, cynical ‘journos’ who still have the ability to place ethics before a story if they really think it matters. However, when Marty returns to the office, his momentary ethical insight is swept away by Brian’s persuasive skills. Brian says “we, as the media, have a duty to report what we learn, not to sit back and decide what people should or shouldn’t know”.

This is dramatically ironic as in the previous episode (‘Smaller Fish to Fry’), Brian chose not to report a story because of instructions from those in power above him. It also resonates with a later story-line in the episode where Brian decides not to report a serious story about Telecom tapping customer’s phone lines because Telecom is a major network sponsor. Clearly, his beliefs about the media’s ‘duty’ to report the truth are highly conditional. When Mike later tries to repeat the story Marty has told him about working in radio (actually Brian’s story), it reminds us that while Brian believed it was his duty to report the truth to the public, such a duty is conditional on the circumstances and influences and is ultimately in the hands of the naïve and foolish Mike Moore. When Brian later has to bribe a journalist to keep Mike’s drink-driving a secret, this makes us realise the extent of the corruption in the industry.

Throughout this episode we realise the significance of the Logie Awards night for the Frontline team. This symbol of popularity and image reinforces the superficial nature of the industry, as the winners are chosen through voting forms, not necessarily because of their talent or worth. When we see Jan getting some women to fill out forms, she is in fact ‘fixing’ the Logies, reflecting the obsession with winning and the ultimate symbol of popularity. As the mistress of image, Jan clearly wants her work in creating personalities to be reinforced with a Logie award.

Anne Fulwood’s excuse for not going to the Logies with Mike is shown to be a lie when she turns up anyway. Such personal deceptions and the realisation that nobody knows his name (the running ‘mate’ joke) leave Mike increasingly anxious.

Evidence of bias is reflected when Emma uncovers the story about Telecom bugging customer lines. As usual, she is left with all the work when Mike doesn’t help her, but Mike still thinks of it as ‘his’ story. He is initially indignant when the story has to be shelved – clearly the money provided by a major network sponsor is far more important than telling the truth to the public. Brian recognises that his job and the future of Frontline are more important to him than the ‘duty’ to inform the public he had previously spoken about. This hypocrisy is part of the commercial world that Brian works in.

Mike’s immaturity and fickleness is reinforced when he embraces his new mobile from Telecom – yet again, his attempt to present an image of serious, respectable journalist is undermined by his true character. The dramatic irony of this subplot reinforces the power of bias in the media. In a commercial environment, the truth is only ever revealed it if is the right kind of truth – one that doesn’t jeopardise the profits and ratings of the network.

Characters

Mike Moore

Mike’s flaws enhance the comedy and satire of Frontline, but they also highlight an important truth about current affairs hosts. These hosts are automatically given a certain authority and power. Viewers of these programs look to the host as a symbol of knowledge and truth, but such trust can be dangerous. When we see Mike, with all of his foolishness, we realise just how ridiculous it is to place such weighty authority on him or any current affairs host. Frontline makes us question the way in which TV has made its viewers see TV celebrities as sources of truth and knowledge, and demonstrates just how manufactured this air can be. Mike demonstrates the need to reassess the power and authority such figures have over the truth. In essence, he is a bumbling fool who doesn’t deserve to be seen as such a powerful conveyer of the truth.

Brooke Vandenberg

Brooke’s opportunistic and sycophantic behaviour, while a source of amusement on Frontline for its relentlessness, reflects the truth about commercial TV and the kinds of behaviour that are endorsed and respected. Both on and off the screen, Brooke has clearly managed to cover up the truth about her character effectively – as seen in ‘Playing the Ego Card’, when a number of characters comment on her positively. She presents a façade in the public arena which is convincing enough o ensure her success in a less than truthful industry. She is happy to transform stories through post-production and re-editing in order to cement her profile and get the ratings she wants.

Brian Thompson

Brian knows that the only way to protect his job and his show is to continually produce high ratings – he will manipulate and sensationalise stories if it means reaching those elusive ratings. He also lies and manipulates his staff to ensure they do what he wants, yet feel as if they are making decisions and retaining control. On numerous occasions, Brian is the one responsible for distorting the truth to make a story more sensational and emotional. He willingly creates new truths to suit his own purposes. However, Brian is capable of recognizing that he is selling his soul for TV, and that awareness reflects his ability to see the truth in what he is doing.

Emma Ward

Emma recognises the deceit played out on a regular basis between colleagues and the ‘necessary’ manipulation of truth in order to win ratings, and is both cynical and insightful. Throughout many episodes, she is used as a voice of reason and moral insight. She frequently takes the moral high ground and questions the lack of ethics behind Brian’s decisions. She is deliberately shaped as the character who questions the way in which truth is presented on commercial TV. However, more often than not she ends up endorsing Frontline’s practices because she clearly loves her job and will play along with the lies and deceit in order to keep it.

Martin di Stasio

Marty is similar to Brian, in that he knows that ethics and commercial current affairs are two opposing forces. To cope with the lack of principles he has to work with, he uses coarse humour and sarcastic put-downs as his front. Marty does not receive the respect and recognition from Frontline that the less experienced Mike and Brooke get. This is the way things are, in an industry that places more emphasis on image and catering to the ever-changing whims of the viewers.