WEBVTT - Nagi v Brooki: Down to the last crumb

0:00:08.440 --> 0:00:11.080
<v Speaker 1>From the Australian. This is the weekend edition of The Front.

0:00:11.240 --> 0:00:15.880
<v Speaker 1>I'm Claire Harvey, Albow versus Dutton, Pope Leo versus the

0:00:15.920 --> 0:00:16.680
<v Speaker 1>other Cardinals?

0:00:16.720 --> 0:00:17.360
<v Speaker 2>Who cares?

0:00:17.680 --> 0:00:22.520
<v Speaker 1>The real contest energizing Australians this month is Nagi versus Brookie,

0:00:22.600 --> 0:00:25.800
<v Speaker 1>a debate so divisive it cut through the political chatter

0:00:26.079 --> 0:00:27.640
<v Speaker 1>like a hot knife through butter.

0:00:28.480 --> 0:00:31.160
<v Speaker 3>You know the old recipe tins that you file recipes in.

0:00:31.440 --> 0:00:35.120
<v Speaker 4>Recipe tin Eats is a online version of.

0:00:35.040 --> 0:00:38.640
<v Speaker 1>My old Famed author cook and owner of recipe Tin Eats,

0:00:38.760 --> 0:00:43.280
<v Speaker 1>Nagi Mahashi took to Instagram accusing Penguin Books of publishing

0:00:43.320 --> 0:00:45.720
<v Speaker 1>a cookbook with plagiarized recipes.

0:00:46.360 --> 0:00:48.840
<v Speaker 4>Everyone has been asking me for my cookie recipes since

0:00:48.880 --> 0:00:49.960
<v Speaker 4>my bakery went viral.

0:00:50.000 --> 0:00:53.080
<v Speaker 2>Bake with Brookie is officially in stores October twenty nine.

0:00:53.159 --> 0:00:56.040
<v Speaker 1>Might seem trivial at first, but the stakes change pretty

0:00:56.120 --> 0:00:59.160
<v Speaker 1>quickly when the book in question, Bake with Brookie by

0:00:59.280 --> 0:01:02.800
<v Speaker 1>Brooke Bellamy, is reported to have generated over four million

0:01:02.840 --> 0:01:07.320
<v Speaker 1>dollars in revenue since publication six months ago. Bellamy has

0:01:07.400 --> 0:01:12.039
<v Speaker 1>denied copying anyone's recipes. The stakes changed again when it

0:01:12.120 --> 0:01:14.840
<v Speaker 1>was revealed the recipes in question were for two of

0:01:14.880 --> 0:01:27.120
<v Speaker 1>the most sacred baked goods, Buckliver and Australia's own caramel slice.

0:01:27.959 --> 0:01:31.200
<v Speaker 2>Consider me rattled when I saw this.

0:01:33.160 --> 0:01:36.880
<v Speaker 1>When news of the alleged plagiarism hit, everyone had an

0:01:36.920 --> 0:01:39.080
<v Speaker 1>opinion from the self assured.

0:01:39.640 --> 0:01:42.319
<v Speaker 4>Some people say it's just a recipe, but I think

0:01:42.360 --> 0:01:45.600
<v Speaker 4>that's missing the point. The idea of plagiarizing a particular

0:01:45.600 --> 0:01:47.360
<v Speaker 4>recipe just seems a bit ludicrous to me.

0:01:48.280 --> 0:01:50.640
<v Speaker 2>To people whose feelings were more dubious.

0:01:51.360 --> 0:01:53.960
<v Speaker 5>Look, I'm not really Anthony Bourdain, but I feel like

0:01:54.120 --> 0:01:55.920
<v Speaker 5>it could easily be a coincidence.

0:01:56.360 --> 0:01:57.800
<v Speaker 2>Some people felt inspired.

0:01:58.560 --> 0:02:01.560
<v Speaker 1>So there's been a lot of drama over this caramel slice,

0:02:01.600 --> 0:02:02.480
<v Speaker 1>so let's make it.

0:02:03.160 --> 0:02:04.240
<v Speaker 2>Others dismayed.

0:02:04.800 --> 0:02:06.720
<v Speaker 5>I saw the rooms this morning and I was like, damn,

0:02:06.960 --> 0:02:08.520
<v Speaker 5>Now my cookies have controversy.

0:02:09.120 --> 0:02:12.000
<v Speaker 1>In the newsrooms of The Australian. It's been literated at

0:02:12.000 --> 0:02:17.840
<v Speaker 1>Caroline Overington, Hello and feature writer Fiona Harari Hi leading

0:02:17.880 --> 0:02:22.880
<v Speaker 1>the debate. Now, Fiona, you said the other day, in

0:02:23.080 --> 0:02:25.760
<v Speaker 1>high excitement in the middle of the office.

0:02:25.600 --> 0:02:28.280
<v Speaker 2>The bucklover is this smoking.

0:02:27.800 --> 0:02:30.280
<v Speaker 1>Gun, which I thought was a phrase that I just

0:02:30.400 --> 0:02:33.280
<v Speaker 1>had to get onto the front. Tell me why is

0:02:33.320 --> 0:02:35.440
<v Speaker 1>the Bucklover the smoking gun, and what are we talking about?

0:02:36.000 --> 0:02:38.840
<v Speaker 3>The bucklover is a smoking gun. Look. I did a

0:02:38.840 --> 0:02:41.359
<v Speaker 3>bit of a search for Bucklob I recipes.

0:02:40.919 --> 0:02:43.680
<v Speaker 6>That have a lot of hits, and oh, the variations

0:02:43.680 --> 0:02:48.080
<v Speaker 6>were quite extraordinary. There are so many variations in a

0:02:48.520 --> 0:02:52.120
<v Speaker 6>the ingredients, be the quantities, and see the instructions for

0:02:52.160 --> 0:02:55.160
<v Speaker 6>Bucklob recipes that when you're getting down to things like

0:02:55.320 --> 0:02:57.960
<v Speaker 6>one hundred and seventy five meals of this and one

0:02:58.040 --> 0:03:00.960
<v Speaker 6>hundred and eighty five grams of that, and you know

0:03:01.000 --> 0:03:03.280
<v Speaker 6>the number of sheets of felow that you need and

0:03:03.320 --> 0:03:05.200
<v Speaker 6>the number of strips.

0:03:04.760 --> 0:03:05.840
<v Speaker 3>That you need to cut it into.

0:03:06.160 --> 0:03:08.760
<v Speaker 6>That did make me wonder how you could end up

0:03:08.760 --> 0:03:12.200
<v Speaker 6>with two recipes that were really much more similar than

0:03:12.240 --> 0:03:14.519
<v Speaker 6>any other bu clever recipes I was able to find.

0:03:15.280 --> 0:03:17.280
<v Speaker 1>In The Australian's newsroom, we spend quite a bit of

0:03:17.280 --> 0:03:20.000
<v Speaker 1>time talking about quite serious things. I often see you, Fiona,

0:03:20.080 --> 0:03:24.880
<v Speaker 1>having very deep conversations about injustice or major health problems that.

0:03:24.840 --> 0:03:25.720
<v Speaker 2>People are going through.

0:03:25.960 --> 0:03:28.000
<v Speaker 1>I don't think I've ever seen you as excited about

0:03:28.040 --> 0:03:29.160
<v Speaker 1>a story as you were about this.

0:03:29.800 --> 0:03:32.680
<v Speaker 6>I mean, it's got everything, but it's also quite unlike

0:03:32.800 --> 0:03:34.160
<v Speaker 6>most stories we're used to seeing.

0:03:34.520 --> 0:03:36.200
<v Speaker 3>You know, no one's started in the process.

0:03:36.480 --> 0:03:40.840
<v Speaker 6>There's no really politics involved, there's no crime. The fact

0:03:40.920 --> 0:03:45.160
<v Speaker 6>that a recipe, you know, which is something so intrinsically

0:03:45.360 --> 0:03:48.880
<v Speaker 6>based in our homes, could become the subject of such

0:03:48.960 --> 0:03:52.600
<v Speaker 6>you know, fascination and discussion and so many questions did

0:03:52.680 --> 0:03:53.000
<v Speaker 6>she do it?

0:03:53.040 --> 0:03:55.480
<v Speaker 3>Did she not do it? Is fantastic for those of

0:03:55.520 --> 0:03:57.640
<v Speaker 3>us watching on It's a food fight.

0:03:57.760 --> 0:04:01.760
<v Speaker 4>Did online fes are just fantastics?

0:04:01.800 --> 0:04:03.720
<v Speaker 2>Are I was very proud of myself.

0:04:03.720 --> 0:04:05.760
<v Speaker 1>I suggested a headline to the editor and he used

0:04:05.760 --> 0:04:08.800
<v Speaker 1>it in print, which was Rumble In the Crumble, I'd

0:04:08.840 --> 0:04:09.880
<v Speaker 1>have with myself for that.

0:04:10.640 --> 0:04:11.240
<v Speaker 2>One of the.

0:04:11.360 --> 0:04:15.760
<v Speaker 1>Debates that's arisen out of the Rumble is whether or

0:04:15.800 --> 0:04:19.360
<v Speaker 1>not it's possible to own a recipe, or whether recipes

0:04:19.400 --> 0:04:24.240
<v Speaker 1>are part of our collective cultural knowledge. Personally, I think

0:04:24.279 --> 0:04:26.440
<v Speaker 1>it is absolutely possible, and I think the fact that

0:04:26.440 --> 0:04:29.640
<v Speaker 1>that is even questioned suggests that we don't really value

0:04:30.240 --> 0:04:34.640
<v Speaker 1>women's work or women's intellectual property. This is considered a

0:04:34.720 --> 0:04:38.080
<v Speaker 1>feminine domain, baking, and there seems to be a slightly

0:04:38.120 --> 0:04:41.320
<v Speaker 1>snobbish assumption that was all the same and it all

0:04:41.400 --> 0:04:42.159
<v Speaker 1>must be easy.

0:04:42.560 --> 0:04:44.640
<v Speaker 2>What did you think about that well.

0:04:44.680 --> 0:04:48.280
<v Speaker 4>I think that's incredibly astute because this is big business.

0:04:48.320 --> 0:04:51.760
<v Speaker 4>We're talking about tens of millions of dollars generated by

0:04:51.800 --> 0:04:55.960
<v Speaker 4>two female entrepreneurs. And it also peeled back some layers,

0:04:56.000 --> 0:05:00.279
<v Speaker 4>if you will, on the book industry, because cookbook books

0:05:00.360 --> 0:05:03.719
<v Speaker 4>are far and away the most successful books in Australia.

0:05:03.800 --> 0:05:07.760
<v Speaker 4>Like without the cookbook industry, many publishers quite simply would collapse.

0:05:08.279 --> 0:05:10.840
<v Speaker 4>Now in terms of whether or not you can copyright

0:05:10.880 --> 0:05:15.400
<v Speaker 4>a recipe, plagiarism is not in itself a crime. You

0:05:15.440 --> 0:05:18.920
<v Speaker 4>can't be sued for plagiarism. It's not a criminal offense.

0:05:19.240 --> 0:05:22.560
<v Speaker 4>Traditionally in journalism it's been a moral thing. But it's

0:05:22.560 --> 0:05:25.800
<v Speaker 4>interesting to me that that creative work, as you say,

0:05:25.880 --> 0:05:29.240
<v Speaker 4>because it's by women, perhaps attracts no protection in law.

0:05:29.640 --> 0:05:31.680
<v Speaker 2>That seems like a gap in the law to me, Fiona,

0:05:31.720 --> 0:05:32.159
<v Speaker 2>what do you think?

0:05:32.320 --> 0:05:34.960
<v Speaker 6>Look for me, there's obviously a very important area of

0:05:35.000 --> 0:05:36.800
<v Speaker 6>big business, but I think that there's a whole question

0:05:36.880 --> 0:05:39.159
<v Speaker 6>of courtesy. That's what it comes down to for me,

0:05:39.680 --> 0:05:42.200
<v Speaker 6>as someone who's cooked for a very long time and

0:05:42.279 --> 0:05:45.120
<v Speaker 6>comes from a family of very keen bakers. In my

0:05:45.360 --> 0:05:48.679
<v Speaker 6>very old and very worn recipe photo album at home,

0:05:48.760 --> 0:05:52.640
<v Speaker 6>I have a recipe that is called simply Nancy's chocolate Cake.

0:05:53.080 --> 0:05:54.320
<v Speaker 3>I don't know who Nancy is.

0:05:54.400 --> 0:05:56.280
<v Speaker 6>I think she was a friend of my auntie's, and

0:05:56.320 --> 0:05:59.599
<v Speaker 6>I think I got this recipe thirty years ago, but

0:05:59.720 --> 0:06:02.320
<v Speaker 6>it will always been Nancy's chocolate cake. And people make

0:06:02.400 --> 0:06:04.480
<v Speaker 6>recipes that I've given them, and I may have got

0:06:04.520 --> 0:06:07.640
<v Speaker 6>it from a cookbook years ago, but it's known as

0:06:07.680 --> 0:06:09.960
<v Speaker 6>Fiona's brownie is because I gave it to them. Now,

0:06:10.480 --> 0:06:12.680
<v Speaker 6>I've never professed to have come up with that recipe,

0:06:12.720 --> 0:06:15.640
<v Speaker 6>but I think that over a very long time, there's

0:06:15.720 --> 0:06:20.279
<v Speaker 6>been a tradition where you acknowledge who you have received

0:06:20.279 --> 0:06:22.800
<v Speaker 6>a particular recipe from. And this is not to say

0:06:23.200 --> 0:06:25.599
<v Speaker 6>what has or has not gone on this case. I

0:06:25.600 --> 0:06:30.680
<v Speaker 6>think that as a basic courtesy, people have always generally acknowledged,

0:06:30.760 --> 0:06:34.159
<v Speaker 6>I think when they've received a recipe from someone else.

0:06:34.480 --> 0:06:36.600
<v Speaker 6>So as a very first instance, I think you should

0:06:36.680 --> 0:06:39.800
<v Speaker 6>do that. Can you own a recipe, Well, you can't

0:06:40.440 --> 0:06:42.760
<v Speaker 6>own a buckle of a recipe, but you can presumably

0:06:44.320 --> 0:06:47.560
<v Speaker 6>have your version credited to yourself, is the way I

0:06:47.560 --> 0:06:48.160
<v Speaker 6>would put it.

0:06:48.640 --> 0:06:51.760
<v Speaker 4>What's interesting to me is I think people would accept

0:06:51.760 --> 0:06:54.480
<v Speaker 4>that if you have a very special recipe, you own it.

0:06:54.720 --> 0:06:57.000
<v Speaker 4>The one example that has been given to me since

0:06:57.000 --> 0:07:00.000
<v Speaker 4>this story broke was the snow egg. Now everybody knows

0:07:00.440 --> 0:07:02.920
<v Speaker 4>that the snow egg is owned by Peter Gilmore because

0:07:02.960 --> 0:07:05.400
<v Speaker 4>he invented it, he presented it on Master Chef. If

0:07:05.400 --> 0:07:07.760
<v Speaker 4>you saw that meringue on the little bowl of Grenda

0:07:07.800 --> 0:07:10.600
<v Speaker 4>anywhere else, you would know exactly where they got it from.

0:07:10.840 --> 0:07:13.560
<v Speaker 4>What the problem is here is that the two recipes

0:07:13.600 --> 0:07:17.400
<v Speaker 4>that Nagi says have appeared in Brookie's book, rightly or wrongly,

0:07:18.080 --> 0:07:20.440
<v Speaker 4>are for a caramel slice and baklava.

0:07:20.760 --> 0:07:21.640
<v Speaker 2>Now baklover is.

0:07:21.640 --> 0:07:24.480
<v Speaker 4>At least three thousand years old and probably longer. It's

0:07:24.480 --> 0:07:26.200
<v Speaker 4>certainly been made by people in the Middle East for

0:07:26.200 --> 0:07:29.280
<v Speaker 4>at least that long. And the caramel slice a recipe

0:07:29.280 --> 0:07:30.960
<v Speaker 4>for that has been on the side of the nest

0:07:31.040 --> 0:07:34.400
<v Speaker 4>lay tin for at least fifty years. So it wasn't

0:07:34.800 --> 0:07:37.120
<v Speaker 4>unique enough. It's not a snow egg.

0:07:37.680 --> 0:07:39.480
<v Speaker 1>When you talked about the smoking gun, about the buckle

0:07:39.480 --> 0:07:41.560
<v Speaker 1>of Afiona, I think one of the things you might

0:07:41.600 --> 0:07:44.120
<v Speaker 1>have been referring to is the formatting of these recipes.

0:07:44.160 --> 0:07:47.600
<v Speaker 1>So it's not just that the ingredients are identical down

0:07:47.640 --> 0:07:51.000
<v Speaker 1>to the gram, but that the paragraphs are formatted in

0:07:51.040 --> 0:07:53.480
<v Speaker 1>the same way, so there's three sentences in the paragraph,

0:07:53.520 --> 0:07:54.960
<v Speaker 1>there's a break and there's not a threat.

0:07:55.040 --> 0:07:55.720
<v Speaker 3>And the order in.

0:07:55.680 --> 0:07:58.240
<v Speaker 6>Which the instructions are given as well, like take your

0:07:58.240 --> 0:08:01.480
<v Speaker 6>forty sheets of Philo pastry, cut them in four slices

0:08:01.480 --> 0:08:04.880
<v Speaker 6>on the diagonal. I mean, they're very specific instructions. And again,

0:08:04.920 --> 0:08:08.440
<v Speaker 6>on my quick perusal of different buckclover recipes before, there

0:08:08.440 --> 0:08:12.320
<v Speaker 6>were huge variations. There's lebonones, bucklova, there's Greek bucklov there's

0:08:12.320 --> 0:08:14.120
<v Speaker 6>different types of nuts. Some of them seem to have

0:08:14.160 --> 0:08:17.600
<v Speaker 6>orange blossom water in there. There are a lot of variations.

0:08:17.680 --> 0:08:17.920
<v Speaker 4>I know.

0:08:18.160 --> 0:08:23.080
<v Speaker 6>Yeah, caramel slice maybe because there are fewer ingredients.

0:08:22.720 --> 0:08:25.080
<v Speaker 4>Yes, but there's also the point that you can't make

0:08:25.120 --> 0:08:28.640
<v Speaker 4>a caramel slice without including those ingredients. And that's what

0:08:28.680 --> 0:08:30.840
<v Speaker 4>Brookie said. She's like, at the end of the day,

0:08:30.840 --> 0:08:33.360
<v Speaker 4>cooking is not just not just a matter of throwing

0:08:33.360 --> 0:08:36.000
<v Speaker 4>things together. It's a science. Things react to each other.

0:08:36.040 --> 0:08:38.440
<v Speaker 4>That's why the recipes work. So it's not like you

0:08:38.480 --> 0:08:41.200
<v Speaker 4>can say, oh, okay, dump in three cups of flour

0:08:41.280 --> 0:08:41.800
<v Speaker 4>and make it.

0:08:41.800 --> 0:08:42.760
<v Speaker 2>It has to be one cup.

0:08:43.120 --> 0:08:45.240
<v Speaker 6>I hadn't been aware that in the recipe t and

0:08:45.280 --> 0:08:48.680
<v Speaker 6>eats version. So she actually says, I've taken this recipe

0:08:48.840 --> 0:08:49.480
<v Speaker 6>from someone else.

0:08:49.559 --> 0:08:51.920
<v Speaker 4>Yeah, And she does that with actually quite a few recipes,

0:08:52.000 --> 0:08:54.560
<v Speaker 4>because we agree that everybody has their recipe and then

0:08:54.600 --> 0:08:56.520
<v Speaker 4>they put like little bit of ginger in it. That's

0:08:56.600 --> 0:08:57.480
<v Speaker 4>your little twist.

0:08:57.679 --> 0:08:59.400
<v Speaker 6>I think if you've cooked for long enough and there

0:08:59.400 --> 0:09:01.520
<v Speaker 6>are recipe that you follow, I know, in my case,

0:09:01.559 --> 0:09:03.880
<v Speaker 6>there are things that I've had a recipe for originally,

0:09:03.960 --> 0:09:06.600
<v Speaker 6>and I've made it so many times over so many

0:09:06.679 --> 0:09:09.040
<v Speaker 6>years that I you know, you lose the recipe, you

0:09:09.080 --> 0:09:11.920
<v Speaker 6>remember it and you add your own additions to it,

0:09:11.960 --> 0:09:16.280
<v Speaker 6>and that's how it becomes your version of a bucklovar,

0:09:16.559 --> 0:09:19.319
<v Speaker 6>or of a spaghetti bolonnaise, or whatever else it might be.

0:09:19.600 --> 0:09:21.679
<v Speaker 4>But then other people come along. So let's say, for example,

0:09:21.720 --> 0:09:23.959
<v Speaker 4>the first person to stick a lemon up the chickens bump,

0:09:24.320 --> 0:09:27.080
<v Speaker 4>like that's now done by I did make a hand

0:09:27.120 --> 0:09:29.760
<v Speaker 4>gesture like that's now done by everyone. The first person

0:09:29.760 --> 0:09:31.200
<v Speaker 4>to put their hand under the skin, you know, and

0:09:31.240 --> 0:09:34.120
<v Speaker 4>rub the garlic around, but that's now done by everyone.

0:09:34.120 --> 0:09:36.920
<v Speaker 4>So who is to say who owns that particular little twist?

0:09:37.400 --> 0:09:38.240
<v Speaker 4>Well of the lemon?

0:09:38.280 --> 0:09:39.920
<v Speaker 6>But then what are you supposed to do? What are

0:09:39.920 --> 0:09:42.360
<v Speaker 6>you supposed to do? If you see a version of

0:09:42.360 --> 0:09:45.320
<v Speaker 6>a work that you believe you have produced and you

0:09:45.360 --> 0:09:50.200
<v Speaker 6>see pretty much the same ingredients, instructions steps, what are

0:09:50.240 --> 0:09:51.000
<v Speaker 6>you supposed to do?

0:09:51.080 --> 0:09:51.560
<v Speaker 3>Is it out there?

0:09:51.559 --> 0:09:53.240
<v Speaker 6>Have you given it out there to everyone? Or do

0:09:53.280 --> 0:09:56.320
<v Speaker 6>you have some sort of say over how it's.

0:09:56.240 --> 0:09:58.400
<v Speaker 4>How it's presented? Now? Nagi said, I just would have

0:09:58.559 --> 0:10:01.600
<v Speaker 4>liked some attribution because she's says the recipe was originally hers,

0:10:01.600 --> 0:10:03.240
<v Speaker 4>and Brookie says, no, it wasn't.

0:10:03.760 --> 0:10:07.160
<v Speaker 3>So it wasn't originally hers. Wasn't it someone else's?

0:10:07.000 --> 0:10:09.840
<v Speaker 2>It's someone else? But she acknowledged that, right, But then.

0:10:09.840 --> 0:10:12.120
<v Speaker 3>Maybe the attribution needs to go to the original person.

0:10:12.640 --> 0:10:15.280
<v Speaker 3>I don't know at what point do you? Where does

0:10:15.280 --> 0:10:19.079
<v Speaker 3>the attribution begin and end?

0:10:20.000 --> 0:10:23.000
<v Speaker 2>Coming up? How the cookie has crumbled? Sorry?

0:10:23.240 --> 0:10:43.720
<v Speaker 1>The consequences of this cookbook controversy that Bellamy denies all

0:10:43.760 --> 0:10:47.280
<v Speaker 1>accusations of plagiarism. She says she's been using the caramel

0:10:47.360 --> 0:10:51.480
<v Speaker 1>slice recipe in question since twenty sixteen, four years before

0:10:51.520 --> 0:10:55.360
<v Speaker 1>it was published by Nagi Mahashi in twenty twenty. Bellamy

0:10:55.440 --> 0:10:58.400
<v Speaker 1>also offered to remove the recipe from future reprints of

0:10:58.480 --> 0:11:02.680
<v Speaker 1>the book and express great respect for Nagi, but it

0:11:02.720 --> 0:11:06.679
<v Speaker 1>seems the court of public opinion has sided with Nargu Mahashi,

0:11:07.080 --> 0:11:10.679
<v Speaker 1>and naturally, people focused on the optics have followed suit.

0:11:11.520 --> 0:11:15.559
<v Speaker 4>The recipe plagiarism saga has escalated with Brook Bellamy in

0:11:15.600 --> 0:11:18.880
<v Speaker 4>the owner of Baking Empire Brookie Bakehouse, dropped from a

0:11:18.920 --> 0:11:20.240
<v Speaker 4>big ambassador role.

0:11:21.000 --> 0:11:24.240
<v Speaker 1>Bellamy was released from her role as ambassador at the

0:11:24.280 --> 0:11:27.839
<v Speaker 1>Academy for Enterprising Girls, and when the two faced off

0:11:27.840 --> 0:11:30.880
<v Speaker 1>at the Australian Book Industry Awards in Melbourne's CBD.

0:11:31.679 --> 0:11:35.640
<v Speaker 6>Nagi Mahashi, the founder of popular food blog recipe Team Eats,

0:11:35.720 --> 0:11:39.160
<v Speaker 6>has bested fellow cookbook author Brook Bellamy in a major

0:11:39.280 --> 0:11:40.800
<v Speaker 6>book prize.

0:11:40.559 --> 0:11:44.080
<v Speaker 1>But most predictably, it was the online pylon that was

0:11:44.120 --> 0:11:47.840
<v Speaker 1>the most severe, leading to Nagi issuing a statement via

0:11:47.880 --> 0:11:49.040
<v Speaker 1>her Instagram account.

0:11:49.800 --> 0:11:56.400
<v Speaker 5>Please stop the trolling. I know I've made serious allegations,

0:11:56.840 --> 0:12:00.920
<v Speaker 5>but this does not justify the person at attacks that

0:12:00.960 --> 0:12:07.120
<v Speaker 5>I've seen online against Brook Bellamy.

0:12:07.960 --> 0:12:10.600
<v Speaker 6>I was reading and Claire can attest to this. Probably

0:12:10.640 --> 0:12:14.480
<v Speaker 6>way too many responses where this line of comments, and

0:12:14.559 --> 0:12:17.400
<v Speaker 6>I don't know that much about either woman, but a

0:12:17.440 --> 0:12:20.640
<v Speaker 6>lot of the people who were coming at quite ferociously

0:12:20.720 --> 0:12:23.679
<v Speaker 6>in favor of Nagi, were saying because we love her,

0:12:23.760 --> 0:12:25.480
<v Speaker 6>we love her, And I thought to myself, well, is

0:12:25.480 --> 0:12:27.840
<v Speaker 6>that a reason to come out and to defend someone?

0:12:28.520 --> 0:12:30.600
<v Speaker 6>To me, the argument should be not about if you

0:12:30.640 --> 0:12:33.560
<v Speaker 6>love someone or not. It's about if this has happened

0:12:33.600 --> 0:12:36.640
<v Speaker 6>to someone's recipe, should that person be acknowledged or should

0:12:36.679 --> 0:12:39.319
<v Speaker 6>they not be acknowledged. I mean, it's lovely that she's loved,

0:12:39.360 --> 0:12:41.720
<v Speaker 6>but to me, that's not really what's the question, because

0:12:41.720 --> 0:12:44.000
<v Speaker 6>there's there will be other cases where people.

0:12:43.720 --> 0:12:46.200
<v Speaker 3>Will allege their work has been used by others.

0:12:47.280 --> 0:12:49.839
<v Speaker 1>The reason people love Nagi is that she has done

0:12:49.880 --> 0:12:53.480
<v Speaker 1>something different. She has brought something that Jamie Oliver, Nigella

0:12:53.559 --> 0:12:56.640
<v Speaker 1>Laws and Bill Granger, you know, the guy with the

0:12:56.720 --> 0:12:58.160
<v Speaker 1>chicken and a lemon.

0:12:59.600 --> 0:13:01.760
<v Speaker 3>It's another who owns the.

0:13:01.679 --> 0:13:08.240
<v Speaker 4>Beer can in a chicken. It's got to be. Yeah.

0:13:08.320 --> 0:13:10.600
<v Speaker 4>What she brought to the table I think is her

0:13:10.720 --> 0:13:15.640
<v Speaker 4>authenticity and that's another ingredient, as it were in this story.

0:13:15.800 --> 0:13:17.640
<v Speaker 4>And she does it in such a superb way, whereas

0:13:17.679 --> 0:13:21.079
<v Speaker 4>Brookie has always been a bit more about baking cookies

0:13:21.400 --> 0:13:24.080
<v Speaker 4>from maybe a generation. Why audience not as broad.

0:13:24.400 --> 0:13:26.920
<v Speaker 6>See I don't think this is a question about personalities.

0:13:26.960 --> 0:13:28.360
<v Speaker 6>I think they have nothing to do with it, and

0:13:28.400 --> 0:13:31.120
<v Speaker 6>I know lots of people are getting it down to personalities.

0:13:31.120 --> 0:13:34.560
<v Speaker 6>It's a wider question of who do you attribute, And

0:13:34.600 --> 0:13:36.680
<v Speaker 6>I think in this case, in fact, maybe the original

0:13:36.720 --> 0:13:39.320
<v Speaker 6>person needs to be attributed and she's been forgotten. You know,

0:13:39.400 --> 0:13:41.880
<v Speaker 6>if Nagi has got the recipe from someone else and

0:13:41.960 --> 0:13:45.080
<v Speaker 6>she has attributed to this person, maybe that's the person

0:13:45.120 --> 0:13:47.800
<v Speaker 6>who needs the acknowledgment if her recipe has been taken.

0:13:55.120 --> 0:13:58.640
<v Speaker 1>Caroline Overington is The Australian's literary editor and Fiona Harari

0:13:58.720 --> 0:14:01.120
<v Speaker 1>is a feature writer at The Australia. You can read

0:14:01.240 --> 0:14:05.320
<v Speaker 1>their outstanding work anytime at the Australian dot com dot ay.

0:14:06.280 --> 0:14:09.360
<v Speaker 1>This episode was hosted by me Claire Harvey and produced

0:14:09.360 --> 0:14:12.559
<v Speaker 1>and edited by Jasper Leck, who also wrote our theme.

0:14:12.920 --> 0:14:14.959
<v Speaker 1>Thanks for joining us on the front this week. Our

0:14:15.000 --> 0:14:19.080
<v Speaker 1>team includes Kristin Amiot Leat Sammaglu, Tiffany Dimac, Josh Burton

0:14:19.400 --> 0:14:20.400
<v Speaker 1>and Stephanie Combs.