Speaker 1: Welcome to the second episode of the Downfall of Married
Speaker 1: at First Sight Australia, an investigation by the Maths Funny
Speaker 1: podcast hosted by me Joshua Fox. After we took a
Speaker 1: deep dive into the origins of the show last week
Speaker 1: and the methods that executive producer Tara McWilliams and her
Speaker 1: merry team of like minded puppet masters go to in
Speaker 1: order to ensure that Maths continues to generate tens of
Speaker 1: millions of dollars a season. This week are we shining
Speaker 1: a spotlight on the show's self proclaimed relationship experts, with
Speaker 1: the current lineup consisting of John Aikin, Mel Shilling and
Speaker 1: Alessandra Rampola.
Speaker 2: Like, how do you call yourself experts and you say
Speaker 2: that you're matching people because you know your own payper
Speaker 2: It would work amazingly.
Speaker 3: I think from the very beginning this was just two
Speaker 3: people matched purely for car crash television.
Speaker 1: If you ask Channel nine. These three are the most
Speaker 1: integral part of the experiment. Their combined backgrounds on the
Speaker 1: studies across psychology, relationship counseling, human behavior, and clinical sexology
Speaker 1: provide each of the couples that they carefully match together,
Speaker 1: not just the tools to build solid foundations for their
Speaker 1: new found relationships, but for those relationships to thrive as well.
Speaker 4: Or that's what they're meant to do.
Speaker 5: Oh guys, the experts have nothing to do with matching
Speaker 5: the people, nothing at all.
Speaker 6: They're paid actors.
Speaker 4: They speak at you.
Speaker 7: It's not a two way conversation, because you'll be like,
Speaker 7: my husband yelled at me last night, and they respond
Speaker 7: by going, uh, actually, we're out of time.
Speaker 8: We're not going to address that today.
Speaker 4: Stay or leave. So it's like you're like, but he's
Speaker 4: yelling at me, like help me.
Speaker 1: In the ten years that this show has been running now,
Speaker 1: only six of the one hundred and seven couples they've
Speaker 1: matched have actually stayed together.
Speaker 9: How about the experts?
Speaker 4: They haven't got rubbish.
Speaker 10: I have no idea.
Speaker 1: And is that because they're truly terrible at the job.
Speaker 11: They're there to even to a point to divide people
Speaker 11: and split them up. It's fucking awful.
Speaker 1: Or is it because they're being advised to purposely mismatch people?
Speaker 2: The maths experts masquerade as relationship warriors when their real
Speaker 2: job is to manufacture drama to test the contestants' breaking points.
Speaker 4: Just so they can clash and explode.
Speaker 9: I felt ethically, professionally, morally compromised. Now I have to
Speaker 9: take responsibility for this as well.
Speaker 1: And if that's true, is this something the experts have
Speaker 1: happily agreed to or did they have no say in
Speaker 1: the matter.
Speaker 9: I felt they were attempting to booky me. After that meeting,
Speaker 9: I was completely out of the loop. I did not
Speaker 9: know anything that was going on. They didn't want to
Speaker 9: include me.
Speaker 1: With a success rate as small as theirs, in any
Speaker 1: of a job, you'd be out the door. Yet despite that,
Speaker 1: the three of them are still sat there calling themselves experts.
Speaker 1: And I think that it's about time that we, the
Speaker 1: viewers of this show, question what exactly are they experts of?
Speaker 1: Because I'm yet to see any expertise in anything.
Speaker 12: You know, mel Alessandra Marsels. One of our roles as
Speaker 12: experts is to hold a mirror up and show them
Speaker 12: what they're doing wrong and how to put it right.
Speaker 4: And it's not always pretty.
Speaker 13: Sometimes when you hold that it's.
Speaker 12: Very ugly at times.
Speaker 1: Allie Well John, mel Alessandra, perhaps it's now time I
Speaker 1: hold that mirror up to you free and show you
Speaker 1: what you're doing wrong.
Speaker 4: Before we get to all that.
Speaker 1: Though, since the first episode of this podcast series dropped,
Speaker 1: I've seen the same comment repeated over and over and over,
Speaker 1: people stating that they have no sympathy for anyone left
Speaker 1: broken and push to the brink after finding themselves part
Speaker 1: of this experiment as they chose to sign up to it,
Speaker 1: which is something I've often questioned myself too. Why would
Speaker 1: any person who is thinking rationally subject themselves to this
Speaker 1: when so much stuff out there saying do not do it.
Speaker 1: In an attempt to answer this, I put the question
Speaker 1: to doctor Isabel Morley, who is quite possibly the best
Speaker 1: person in the world to answer it. Not only is
Speaker 1: doctor Isabel Morley a practicing clinical psychologist, she's also a
Speaker 1: board member of the YUKAN Foundation, which stands for Unscripted
Speaker 1: Cast Advocacy Network, an American based organization that's providing mental
Speaker 1: health support and legal advice to past, present, and future
Speaker 1: stars of reality television. Since the foundation was established by
Speaker 1: a star of Netflix's Lovies Blind in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: doctor Isabel Morley and her team have slowly been challenging
Speaker 1: the law surrounding reality TV in America to provide the
Speaker 1: people on these shows with basic human rights, and so
Speaker 1: far they're successfully bringing changes. And when I asked doctor Morley,
Speaker 1: why would anyone ever sign up to a show like
Speaker 1: Married at First Sight, she responded by telling me this, I.
Speaker 7: Think that modern dating sucks. I think are sick of
Speaker 7: swiping left and right and wasting time and not finding love.
Speaker 7: And the idea of going on a show and having
Speaker 7: somebody do that legwork for you and maybe pick out
Speaker 7: your dream partner sounds very appealing. And the secondary gain
Speaker 7: of maybe becoming famous or getting a following or launching
Speaker 7: a career also sounds fantastic. And I think people don't
Speaker 7: realize that a lot of the time people are approached
Speaker 7: to be on these shows, they are recruiters are finding
Speaker 7: them on their social media and their LinkedIn and asking
Speaker 7: them to be a part of the interview process. So
Speaker 7: a lot of people aren't actually volunteering themselves. They're being
Speaker 7: pulled into the process without expecting to be and from
Speaker 7: there they're told it will be a certain experience. These
Speaker 7: producers are really good at telling you we'll take care
Speaker 7: of you. We're going to find an amazing person to
Speaker 7: match you with. You won't have to worry about dating
Speaker 7: you'll get a good edit. Don't worry, You're going to
Speaker 7: be the hero.
Speaker 4: Of the show.
Speaker 7: And everyone is told that story, but not everybody ends
Speaker 7: up being the hero of the season. But why wouldn't
Speaker 7: you believe someone's saying don't worry, We'll take care of
Speaker 7: you the whole time.
Speaker 1: And that's exactly how Dean Well has found himself on
Speaker 1: season five back in twenty eighteen, which he previously revealed
Speaker 1: to the ABC, there.
Speaker 10: Were some casting people, a man and a woman walking
Speaker 10: around the bar, hitting up men and asking them questions.
Speaker 10: You know, I saw them. I thought, oh, what's going
Speaker 10: on there. Then they came over to me and just said, Hey,
Speaker 10: we're recruiting for this TV show, Married at First Sight.
Speaker 6: Could we have a little chat with you?
Speaker 4: And I was like, okayeah, no worries.
Speaker 10: They pulled me over to the side of the bar
Speaker 10: and just said, look, this is the concept of the show.
Speaker 10: You know you're going to marry a stranger. Can you
Speaker 10: tell us a little bit about yourself and are you
Speaker 10: looking for a relationship?
Speaker 4: Are you single?
Speaker 10: And I was just like, yeah, I'm single, definitely looking
Speaker 10: for a relationship, looking for the right partner.
Speaker 1: Speaking to doctor Morley, I also wanted to ask her
Speaker 1: if there's a level of naivety behind anyone's decision to
Speaker 1: sign up to any reality show again, because there's so
Speaker 1: much out there saying.
Speaker 4: Do not do it.
Speaker 7: Oh absolutely, I think people also believe you know, I
Speaker 7: will act true to myself. I won't get caught up
Speaker 7: in whatever the demands of the show are. I won't
Speaker 7: say anything I regret without realizing that the conditions they
Speaker 7: put you in are incredibly stressful. It is a time
Speaker 7: pressured situation, it is emotional, and you will undoubtedly say
Speaker 7: things that you regret. So everyone has the best of
Speaker 7: intentions and thinks that they won't be the one to
Speaker 7: get dragged. But guess what, every season, everybody gets dragged.
Speaker 1: As much as that does make sense, I then asked
Speaker 1: doctor Morley if she could put me in the mindset
Speaker 1: of any potential participan in the day the show's contract
Speaker 1: finally arrives at their door, and why anyone would so
Speaker 1: willingly sign that given what's in those contracts. Yeah, these
Speaker 1: one clause in it, and if I read this, I
Speaker 1: would run a mile, And it says I understand my
Speaker 1: actions and the actions of others displayed in an in
Speaker 1: connection with the program may expose me to public ridicule, humiliation,
Speaker 1: or condemnation. My actions may be seen as disparaging, defometry, embarrassing, shocking, surprising,
Speaker 1: or of an otherwise unfavorable nature.
Speaker 7: The contracts in the US are exactly the same, the
Speaker 7: same wording, the same warnings I would say of condemnation
Speaker 7: and humiliation, And I think a lot of people read
Speaker 7: it and think they have to put that in here.
Speaker 7: You know, they're covering their legal bases, but maybe it
Speaker 7: doesn't apply to me, And at least in the US,
Speaker 7: I don't know Howard is. In Australia. People don't have
Speaker 7: a lot of time with their contracts. They get it
Speaker 7: and they get a certain number of hours to read
Speaker 7: through and sign it, and there's pressure because the production
Speaker 7: company is saying, listen, let us know because we have
Speaker 7: fifteen other people who are dying to be on this show.
Speaker 7: So if you're out, somebody else is in. They have
Speaker 7: no chance to talk to a lawyer, they have no
Speaker 7: negotiating power to ask for things to be removed from
Speaker 7: the contract. So basically you've already stunk a lot of time.
Speaker 7: I'm an energy and you've imagined yourself on this show.
Speaker 7: You get a contract, it's got a clause like that,
Speaker 7: But what are you going to do? You don't have
Speaker 7: much opportunity to negotiate or to say no at that point.
Speaker 7: But even then, what can you really say? Ask the
Speaker 7: production company to take out a clause and they'll say
Speaker 7: no and thank you very much for your time, We're
Speaker 7: going to go with somebody else. So it puts all
Speaker 7: the cast in a very difficult position. And again, I
Speaker 7: think partly is who reads a contract that carefully, who
Speaker 7: goes through a line by line. Nobody has a legal background.
Speaker 7: They don't know what they're signing on to exactly, and
Speaker 7: people are just they don't have a chance to be informed.
Speaker 7: So they sign it and they're suddenly a part of
Speaker 7: a show and they're part of the process.
Speaker 1: That's true. They are indeed a part of a process now.
Speaker 1: And although it may have been a cumbination of being
Speaker 1: soda dream blissful, naivety and a whole lot of pressure
Speaker 1: and manipulation that got them there, these days, we do
Speaker 1: have to also acknowledge that the potential of gaining fame,
Speaker 1: of following on a platform to make a lot of
Speaker 1: money is also a major incentive but long before appearing
Speaker 1: on the show spawned any opportunities like that. The real
Speaker 1: selling point, so many cast members have told me, convinced
Speaker 1: them to sign on the dotted line was the relationship
Speaker 1: experts and what they represented. That's certainly what made Dean
Speaker 1: Wells say yes.
Speaker 10: The wording they used was we use a scientific method
Speaker 10: to find the perfect partner for you, and I think
Speaker 10: they even said we've got the perfect woman for you.
Speaker 1: And did they have the perfect woman waiting for Dean No,
Speaker 1: not quite. To take things back to the very start
Speaker 1: when Married at first first launch in Australia in twenty fifteen,
Speaker 1: the entire premise of the show centered around the experts.
Speaker 1: They were the stars of this show, which was made
Speaker 1: clear from the very first minute of the very first episode.
Speaker 6: This basically will put the relationships on steroids.
Speaker 14: Three of Australia's top relationship experts are leading this radical experiment.
Speaker 9: Cam matchmaking produce a long lasting relationship.
Speaker 14: Using a mix of neuroscience and psychology. They'll try to
Speaker 14: create four perfect matches.
Speaker 6: I think he's too strong a personality.
Speaker 9: Is she going to be resilient enough in this pressure cooker?
Speaker 4: I want to find someone. I want to have kids
Speaker 4: one day, so why not do it this way?
Speaker 7: At least this guy.
Speaker 15: They did a criminal check. You know, that's good.
Speaker 7: That's a good start.
Speaker 1: Their expertise gave the concept credibility, integrity, and it said
Speaker 1: that hey, this isn't car Crush TV in the making,
Speaker 1: but a genuine attempt to help strangers find love. When
Speaker 1: you hear the show referred to as an experiment, initially,
Speaker 1: they were the ones test in the hypothesis and were experimenting.
Speaker 9: Couple's pairing for romantic love is a recent innovation in
Speaker 9: our evolutionary history.
Speaker 14: The first expert relationship psychologist John Aiken, puts couples under
Speaker 14: the microscope.
Speaker 12: I've been doing this now for twenty years, dealing with
Speaker 12: singles and couples day in, day out, teaching them what
Speaker 12: they're doing wrong and then showing them how to put
Speaker 12: it right.
Speaker 14: Through extensive psychological evaluations. He's created detailed personal profiles of
Speaker 14: the potential matches. The second expert, neuros psychotherapist, doctor Tricia Stratford,
Speaker 14: looks at how the brain reacts to love and attraction.
Speaker 14: The final expert, psychologist Sabina Reid, wants to make sure
Speaker 14: the recipe for a successful match is just right. The
Speaker 14: idea behind these arranged marriages is that we're more mindful
Speaker 14: of the ingredients that we're putting into the mix.
Speaker 4: Yeah.
Speaker 1: Over the years, the roles of the experts has somehow
Speaker 1: gone from assisting the couples to antagonizing them.
Speaker 12: What do you think that you can do, Colins that
Speaker 12: will bring her close and make her feel special?
Speaker 4: No, I'm sorry. I came to you for advice. What
Speaker 4: should I do? Just think about it if you decided
Speaker 4: to stay together. No, no, no, no, no, no, I'm sorry.
Speaker 12: I'm not here to tell you what to do.
Speaker 3: You're not here to give me advice.
Speaker 1: Over the years, expert John even now makes no secret
Speaker 1: of the fact that the way he believes he can
Speaker 1: help the couples is by calling them up.
Speaker 12: Certainly, the commitment ceremonies are where we really come out
Speaker 12: hard at them. Okay, so tell us about the commitment ceremonies.
Speaker 14: How are you going to help some of these couples
Speaker 14: to get back on track?
Speaker 6: Well?
Speaker 12: I tend to just come out and you know, tough love. Yeah,
Speaker 12: call him out, call out the bad behavior.
Speaker 1: John has even previously admitted that former expert doctor Tricia
Speaker 1: Stratford would have to tell him to rein it in
Speaker 1: on SAT while they're filming.
Speaker 12: I have a lot of great memories with her. I mean,
Speaker 12: she got so excited about anything to do with the
Speaker 12: brain and love. And she brought into this experiment, the
Speaker 12: pheromone test, where people would smell clothes, and she just
Speaker 12: gets so excited about all of that. And you know,
Speaker 12: she also wore this white lab coat, you know, which
Speaker 12: was amazing. She made it look, you know, kind of fashionable.
Speaker 12: She was great as well because she'd keep.
Speaker 4: Me in check.
Speaker 12: You know, sometimes I'll be yelling at the participants and
Speaker 12: she'd say, you know, John, don't get too preachy. Bring
Speaker 12: it down a notch.
Speaker 16: Yeah, you know.
Speaker 12: So she was always like, you say, that calm voice
Speaker 12: of reason.
Speaker 1: But the issue there is John shouldn't need someone there
Speaker 1: to keep him in check. If his role on the
Speaker 1: show is to guide and advise, it should never reach
Speaker 1: a point where he's told, hey, you're yelling at them
Speaker 1: too much, because why is he yelling at all? This
Speaker 1: isn't what you'd expect of a clinical psychologist, is it, Which,
Speaker 1: as we all know, is why John was hired to
Speaker 1: be part of the show. In the first place because
Speaker 1: of his work as a clinical psychologist in New South
Speaker 1: Wales helping real life couples. But what a lot of
Speaker 1: you don't know is the fact that in late twenty seventeen,
Speaker 1: just after the show's fourth season went to air, which
Speaker 1: was also Tara's first season as the EP of the show,
Speaker 1: where she started supersizing the former and bringing in new
Speaker 1: twists and scandals, the Psychology Council of New South Wales
Speaker 1: were forced to intervene. An unnamed cast member from season
Speaker 1: four launched an official complaint against John to the Psychology Council,
Speaker 1: and after the Council conducted an investigation, they said in
Speaker 1: this email, which was previously published by The Daily Mail,
Speaker 1: mister John Aiken is no longer participating on the TV
Speaker 1: program as a psychologist and he has updated his bio
Speaker 1: on the nine Now website to reflect this. Please note
Speaker 1: that mister Aiken is still able to participate in the show, however,
Speaker 1: he is no longer able to refer to himself as
Speaker 1: a psychologist or undertake psychological practice. This means that so
Speaker 1: long as all reference to him being a psychologist has
Speaker 1: been removed from the show, mister Aikin can continue to
Speaker 1: work on it. In that email, which was sent on
Speaker 1: September fifth, twenty seventeen, the Psychology Council of New South
Speaker 1: Wales also added this, The Council acknowledges that this may
Speaker 1: not be the outcome you had hoped for and understands
Speaker 1: that you may be upset. However, I would again reassure
Speaker 1: you that the Council considers all complaints seriously and takes
Speaker 1: what it considers to be the most appropriate course of
Speaker 1: action available to it. As far as I can tell,
Speaker 1: that ruling macked a huge change on the show and
Speaker 1: for the roles of the experts because John and the
Speaker 1: others were no longer restricted by their professional titles. Losing
Speaker 1: that official title in connection to the show meant John
Speaker 1: and the others could go harder, be louder, and push
Speaker 1: boundaries in ways they likely wouldn't have done before, and
Speaker 1: if they wanted to. They could also now conspire with
Speaker 1: producers to help start drama instead of helping resolve it
Speaker 1: like they were initially hired to do. This is John
Speaker 1: from last season sharing his experiences with the Experts in
Speaker 1: a recent TikTok.
Speaker 5: The Experts they're actually nice favor it was so weird
Speaker 5: because I'd get roasted by them, absolutely roasted by them.
Speaker 5: And then in the last episode of filming theme, I'm like, John.
Speaker 13: O, you're such a great guy. Our congratulations, Like mel
Speaker 13: gave me a hug, and I just remember being this
Speaker 13: out of body experience because I just got my asshole
Speaker 13: handed to me by them.
Speaker 5: They tore me to shreds, and then they just gave
Speaker 5: me a hug, and I realized that they're paid actors
Speaker 5: and they have earpieces in You'll see every now and again,
Speaker 5: John in particular will stop and sort of look when
Speaker 5: you're sitting across from him, because he's actually listening to
Speaker 5: what he's he's been told what to say.
Speaker 1: This has been one of the longest running rumors on
Speaker 1: Married at First Sight. Are the experts fed questions for
Speaker 1: a secret earpiece by producers who are telling them exactly
Speaker 1: what to say in order to steer things further, Well, yeah,
Speaker 1: they are, which former expert neuropsychotherapist doctor Tricia Stratford previously
Speaker 1: confirmed herself, and she cited that as one of the
Speaker 1: many reasons that led to her quitting the show.
Speaker 17: Are on camera, the executive producer would ask us to
Speaker 17: ask questions we could ask our own questions, but the
Speaker 17: producer would ask us to ask questions. I would either
Speaker 17: reframe those questions or I wouldn't ask them.
Speaker 1: Not only this, but these days on this current season.
Speaker 1: Morena recently told me that as filming wrapped in the
Speaker 1: early hours of the morning for one of her commitment ceremonies,
Speaker 1: and as all the casts were leaving the studio and
Speaker 1: getting into their taxes, she snook off from the group
Speaker 1: and went back inside to go to the bathroom. And
Speaker 1: when she went back in the building, she then saw
Speaker 1: the experts doing something that she never expected.
Speaker 3: I looked through the payphole of the door like a
Speaker 3: little kid, right like that, and I see the three puppeteers.
Speaker 3: Sorry you keep referring to them as the experts, they
Speaker 3: really anyway, and camera crew, one by one they're being filmed.
Speaker 3: One liners, what did I hear? Nobody likes you. You're
Speaker 3: a disgrace. That behavior is not warranted on our watch.
Speaker 3: Blah blah blah blah blah blah blah. You ought to
Speaker 3: be ashamed of yourselves. So they don't mention any names.
Speaker 3: So then they make sure that when they look back
Speaker 3: at their footage, whatever they're going to grab for that person,
Speaker 3: not just me, anybody. They're being going to throw that
Speaker 3: one liner in you ought to be ashamed of yourselves.
Speaker 1: To me, that proves that not only has the role
Speaker 1: of relationship expert transformed over the years into essentially being
Speaker 1: a prop for production, but they're also now just acting
Speaker 1: as well. They're playing the role of a relationship expert
Speaker 1: and actively contributing to manufacturing storylines. As I've already said,
Speaker 1: the current lineup of experts consist of unical psychologist John
Speaker 1: who has been there since season one, dating coach Mel Schilling,
Speaker 1: who replaced human behavioral experts Sabina Read in season two,
Speaker 1: and sexologist Alessandra Rampola, who replaced doctor Tricia Stratford in
Speaker 1: season eight. I reached out to Sabina Read earlier this week,
Speaker 1: wondering if she'd like to talk about what made her
Speaker 1: walk away from Married at First Sight after just one season,
Speaker 1: when it was obvious to all back then that this
Speaker 1: little show they'd just worked on was set to become
Speaker 1: a huge hit. Sabina politely declined to come onto the podcast,
Speaker 1: but she said, and I quote, her involvement in the
Speaker 1: show was ancient history now but she did add that
Speaker 1: the well being of the participants was always paramount to her.
Speaker 1: So does that mean that even back then ten years
Speaker 1: ago some of the people involved could see the direction
Speaker 1: Married at First Sight Australia was already heading That's just
Speaker 1: me speculating, of course. But one person who did make
Speaker 1: it clear that she was not comfortable with how the
Speaker 1: show was slowly changing over the years was former expert
Speaker 1: doctor Tricia Stratford, who suddenly passed away in twenty twenty three,
Speaker 1: age seventy two. When Doctor Tricia's exit was announced in
Speaker 1: early twenty twenty one, she was quoted in a statement
Speaker 1: sent out by Channel nine as saying, after seven years
Speaker 1: have Married at First Sight, I've decided to step away
Speaker 1: from television to focus on my writing, research and europsychotherapy.
Speaker 1: Yet once that pressure release had done the rounds, the
Speaker 1: Late Start then went live on New Zealand Radio and
Speaker 1: she told a very different story.
Speaker 15: I really felt that I'm not going to say I've
Speaker 15: done the show, but right in the start and I've
Speaker 15: done seven seasons and it's time to move on. I
Speaker 15: just felt that I joined the show with the best
Speaker 15: intentions to match people and I really believe in that
Speaker 15: social experiment. I think people are looking for love, and
Speaker 15: there are many ways you can find love, and I
Speaker 15: think married at first sight is one of the ways.
Speaker 15: But it became really clear me over the last two seasons,
Speaker 15: but particularly last season, that the type of people who
Speaker 15: are applying for the show were just becoming more and
Speaker 15: more outrageous, and it became very difficult to match people
Speaker 15: who were on the show for the wrong reasons. I
Speaker 15: understand the network and production company need to make a
Speaker 15: show that's going to rate, but there has to be
Speaker 15: a happy medium in there, and I think for me
Speaker 15: it just swung too much the other way.
Speaker 16: That one of the things is the people that are
Speaker 16: on it that reached a stage where they were, for
Speaker 16: one of a better phrase, starting to become stars, and
Speaker 16: that in itself perhaps encouraged people to bube outrageously.
Speaker 15: Oh correct, So they started to come on to be influences.
Speaker 15: This is their opportunity for stardom, and I suppose you
Speaker 15: need to It's a really good discussion to have. You know,
Speaker 15: are we that desperate for role models or stars that
Speaker 15: we make reality TV stars and to some people which
Speaker 15: to aspire.
Speaker 1: To be doctor Tricia also went on to claim that
Speaker 1: once Tara took over as the EP and the show
Speaker 1: got bigger each year, the experts would then have less
Speaker 1: and less involvement in the matchmaking, which is weird because
Speaker 1: that was initially why they were hired.
Speaker 15: That is another concern with another concern to me that
Speaker 15: in the beginning, the three of us played a big
Speaker 15: role in matching them because that's what we were there for,
Speaker 15: our expertise. But unfortunately, over the last couple of seasons
Speaker 15: that became less and less as well. And I'm in
Speaker 15: my integrity and I'm thinking it's just not working for
Speaker 15: me anymore. I don't feel as though I have enough
Speaker 15: involvement in the matching because it's kind of moved from
Speaker 15: matching to casting.
Speaker 1: Hearing doctor Tricia say that is quite interesting. Just a
Speaker 1: few months ago, as this year's season launched, Tricia's farmer
Speaker 1: co expert John was live on Channel nine Today claiming this.
Speaker 4: Your role is an important one.
Speaker 8: You know you value it?
Speaker 12: Yeah, oh absolutely, And you know, mel Alessandra myself spend
Speaker 12: months meeting these people, getting to really drill down, assess them.
Speaker 6: We put them together.
Speaker 12: Compatibility is very important.
Speaker 4: So which is it.
Speaker 1: Do the experts have minimals say in the matchmaking process,
Speaker 1: and the producers just cast it as a TV show
Speaker 1: like Doctor Trisha was suggesting what's happening? Or is John
Speaker 1: Wright and him mel and Alessandra spent months going through
Speaker 1: applications and interviewing them all one by one. This is
Speaker 1: something Johneral from last season has also shared his thoughts
Speaker 1: on on TikTok.
Speaker 5: And the point of today's video was the letter one
Speaker 5: know that the producers are the ones who decide on
Speaker 5: the couples, the experts, and I'm going to make this call.
Speaker 5: I'm going to say that the little bit the experts
Speaker 5: do where they all sit down and go, oh, we've
Speaker 5: chosen this couple together because you know, he breathes oxygen
Speaker 5: and so does she.
Speaker 6: Perfect match.
Speaker 15: It's perfect.
Speaker 5: I'm gonna say that They record that at the end
Speaker 5: of the three.
Speaker 13: Months of filming, not before the weddings. That's my core.
Speaker 5: They wait until they see how it all plays out,
Speaker 5: and then they put little bits of information. You can
Speaker 5: see John in the one last Night, he's reading off
Speaker 5: a piece of paper. It's not his own words. He's
Speaker 5: been told what to say. Are they there to help couples.
Speaker 13: Come together?
Speaker 5: And be happy.
Speaker 13: Not at all, not one percent.
Speaker 5: They're there to improve the ratings of the show, which
Speaker 5: they do a great job at. Like I said, I
Speaker 5: got my ass absolutely handed to me at the final
Speaker 5: commitment ceremony, and then at the reunion commitment ceremony they
Speaker 5: destroyed me and then gave me a big hug, said Johnny,
Speaker 5: you're a great guy. Wish you all the best.
Speaker 1: And then asked Ben Walters, who appeared on last year's
Speaker 1: season alongside John O, how much interaction did he have
Speaker 1: with the experts pray to filming his wedding.
Speaker 4: He told me this, I was a bit different.
Speaker 11: I first had a zoom chat with Alessandra and John Aiken,
Speaker 11: but my interviews happened in twenty twenty one and I
Speaker 11: was on the show in twenty twenty four, so they
Speaker 11: must have kept me on the back burner for a
Speaker 11: bunch of years. And then finally I get the phone
Speaker 11: call out the bloom and so do you want to
Speaker 11: be on the show? And then I just had a
Speaker 11: one on one in person with mel so I had
Speaker 11: all three So that's the only bit of conversation I
Speaker 11: had prior. So were they instrumental in the process? Absolutely not.
Speaker 11: What was instrumental was the production the producers are going
Speaker 11: through the application and seeing her from ready and excited
Speaker 11: to be on a show.
Speaker 1: When Doctor Trisha did leave the show, she actually attempted
Speaker 1: to want all of us about what was happening behind
Speaker 1: the scenes and the shift that was slow taking place.
Speaker 1: But I suppose that we the fans of the show
Speaker 1: weren't ready to believe it at that point in time
Speaker 1: because we were also wrapped up in the drama of
Speaker 1: each episode and the addictive storylines. In a print interview
Speaker 1: that she did with Woman's Day New Zealand in twenty
Speaker 1: twenty one, Doctor Tricia explained how she and I quote
Speaker 1: felt sick watching things play out during the filming of
Speaker 1: season seven, which was her last season, and she said this,
Speaker 1: by the end, I couldn't compromise my professional and personal
Speaker 1: standards anymore because there were participants on the show who
Speaker 1: I felt shouldn't have been there. If someone gets through
Speaker 1: the critical selection process when we say we don't want
Speaker 1: them on the show because they're quite fragile, they aren't
Speaker 1: going to do well after the show once it airs.
Speaker 1: Elaborating on this further in a podcast with the ABC
Speaker 1: Doctor Tricia explained firstly that despite stating in her pre
Speaker 1: season assessment that there was one participant in particular she
Speaker 1: felt should not have been cast, as she later there
Speaker 1: flagged midway through production how she could see this participant
Speaker 1: in particular was not coping and she believed that she
Speaker 1: should be removed for her own mental health. This is
Speaker 1: doctor Tricia explaining what happened next.
Speaker 9: So I approached Channel nine and asked them if we
Speaker 9: could have a meeting. The next thing I got was
Speaker 9: that the production was closing down for a couple of
Speaker 9: weeks and that I was to attend a meeting at
Speaker 9: the network. I was quite surprised at that meeting number
Speaker 9: one that there was such an array of top level
Speaker 9: people and lawyers there from BOT nine and in the Wilshine,
Speaker 9: But I felt they were attempting to booky me. After
Speaker 9: that meeting, I was completely out of the loop. I
Speaker 9: did not know anything that was going on. They didn't
Speaker 9: want to include me.
Speaker 1: The cast member in question, who doctor Tricia repeatedly raised
Speaker 1: concerns over, was eventually sent home from the show during
Speaker 1: production and when she got home, and this is in
Speaker 1: cast member's own words from her previous interview they did.
Speaker 1: They had a mental breakdown at their parents' home, to
Speaker 1: the point where the police and an ambulance were called
Speaker 1: and they were then hospitalized. On the Section twenty three
Speaker 1: of the New South Wales Mental Health Act, reflecting again
Speaker 1: on the dangerous direction Maths was heading in when she quit.
Speaker 1: In what I believe was her final ever radio interview,
Speaker 1: Dr Trisha was asked if she fought things would get
Speaker 1: worse rather than better.
Speaker 16: Do you feel that, basically given and you were concerned
Speaker 16: about these direction the show was going in the last
Speaker 16: two seasons, that there's even a possibility they're going to
Speaker 16: get more sensationalists than the season coming.
Speaker 15: I hope not, and I hope not for the safety,
Speaker 15: the mental health safety of the participants who come on
Speaker 15: the show. It's a courageous thing to do. The presha
Speaker 15: they are under, not just from the production company, from
Speaker 15: the fellow pants. You know that all in heightened state,
Speaker 15: they're quite anxious. Those who weren't anxious before they came
Speaker 15: on the show develop anxiety, you know, they become anxious
Speaker 15: because of the PreCure. Those who don't cope really well
Speaker 15: become very anxious. So I hope, I hope that they
Speaker 15: choose the right people for the show, and I hope
Speaker 15: that they really look after them. But that's part of me.
Speaker 15: The other part of me reality television.
Speaker 1: I think an important thing to question here is, as
Speaker 1: doctor Trisha expressed her very valid concerns for the show
Speaker 1: and Cord for all these changes four years ago, now,
Speaker 1: why did the other experts, John and mel remain. Why
Speaker 1: were they willing to go along with these things that
Speaker 1: seemingly went against the core principles behind their pre married
Speaker 1: at First Sight professions, especially now as the show has
Speaker 1: reached a point where half of the tasks that they
Speaker 1: have the couples do are introduced solely to trying to
Speaker 1: them apart, no matter how much they'll try and justify
Speaker 1: it using their serious expert voices.
Speaker 8: Confessions Week is a crucial part of the experiment. We
Speaker 8: want our couples to develop levels of emotional connection which
Speaker 8: would normally take months or even years to create in
Speaker 8: the outside world.
Speaker 4: Get comfortable, getting uncomfortable.
Speaker 9: Oh.
Speaker 8: Throughout the week, the couples will face a series of
Speaker 8: tasks that will challenge them to be honest with one another.
Speaker 8: They may find these tasks confronting, but each one is
Speaker 8: carefully designed to help them to be vulnerable with one
Speaker 8: another so they grow as a comfort.
Speaker 1: One big difference now, though, is the fact that viewers
Speaker 1: are no longer just blindly accepting these things like they
Speaker 1: used to do, and they're not just calling out cast
Speaker 1: members and platforms like TikTok, but the experts too, And
Speaker 1: these videos that the fans are posting are often getting
Speaker 1: more views than the show itself. Listen to this one
Speaker 1: from a TikTok creator called Aims Dicko.
Speaker 2: The maths experts masquerade as relationships when their real job
Speaker 2: is to manufacture drama to test the contestants breaking points.
Speaker 2: Let's call a spade a spade. Wife Swap Week is
Speaker 2: nothing more than a recipe for infidelity, and the photo
Speaker 2: ranking task is just a cruel psychological experiment. As much
Speaker 2: as the experts try to justify it, these are not
Speaker 2: essential exercises in relationship growth. This is an experiment on
Speaker 2: human labyriates designed for failure, not success.
Speaker 1: With all of this in mind, I asked doctor Isabel Morley,
Speaker 1: remember who is an actual practicing clinical psychologist, her thoughts
Speaker 1: on some of the tasks that are Australian experts have
Speaker 1: the couples do, and she said, this, don't.
Speaker 7: Get me started on the therapists who participate in this,
Speaker 7: because I feel like there are so many huge ethical
Speaker 7: issues that I can't believe people do what they do
Speaker 7: on these shows.
Speaker 1: One of the most I'd say fascinating because it's so
Speaker 1: bizarre that they do that. But on Marriat at First Sight,
Speaker 1: one of the first challenges the couples have to do,
Speaker 1: which is second week of being married. So they've just
Speaker 1: had the first dinner party, they've just met all the
Speaker 1: other couples in the experiment, and then they go home
Speaker 1: and the next day, each couple is given photos of
Speaker 1: everyone in the experiment and they have to put them
Speaker 1: in order of who they're most attracted to, from.
Speaker 4: Like most to least.
Speaker 1: And in the most recent season here there's a man
Speaker 1: called Ryan who's match with a girl called Jackie, and
Speaker 1: Jackie is admittedly she's quite insecure that that's been made
Speaker 1: obvious from the start, and then her husband he says, well,
Speaker 1: I'm going to do this honestly, and he puts her
Speaker 1: as the third most attractive. Then Letter says, maybe you
Speaker 1: would have been fourth, and Jackie just keeps springing it
Speaker 1: up and viewers keep going get over it, But like,
Speaker 1: can you imagine being yeah, I would get over it.
Speaker 1: I'd be fucking heartbroken.
Speaker 17: No.
Speaker 7: And that's what I think people mess up about these
Speaker 7: shows when they are in them or watch them, is
Speaker 7: that it is not an experiment in honesty, like this
Speaker 7: is somebody she just married and is still getting to know.
Speaker 7: They don't have a secure attachment to each other. They're
Speaker 7: building a foundation. If they want to stay married, they
Speaker 7: have to do the things that married couples do, which
Speaker 7: is put each other first, prioritize each other's feelings, be
Speaker 7: aware of how they're impacting each other. But because it's
Speaker 7: a show, right, there's this idea that like they should
Speaker 7: just do the experiment as it's intended. But these experiments
Speaker 7: are not intended to create healthy, long lasting marriages. They're
Speaker 7: intended to create entertainment, right, Yeah.
Speaker 1: And I find it hilarious the justification of the relationship
Speaker 1: experts about why they do each of these things, like, well,
Speaker 1: this is designed to test their loyalty.
Speaker 4: It's like, no, it's not.
Speaker 1: It's designed to destroy the confidence of these people.
Speaker 7: Right, They're a week in, they have no loyalty, they
Speaker 7: haven't built anything together.
Speaker 1: Yet, so why are John, mel and Alessandra happy to
Speaker 1: go along with these things? I message each of the
Speaker 1: experts individually on Thursday morning at ten forty six am
Speaker 1: to see if any of them would like to chat
Speaker 1: offer common or clarity to any of the things discussed
Speaker 1: in this podcast. I did not receive a room apply for.
Speaker 4: Many of them.
Speaker 1: Instead, at nine for three am on Friday, I received
Speaker 1: an email from Channel nine's head of publicity. In the email,
Speaker 1: she stated, I understand that you have made contacts with
Speaker 1: the experts from Married at First Sight. Please do not
Speaker 1: contact directly and send all correspondents via Channel nine Publicity.
Speaker 1: I then replied to that email, firstly by stating, thank
Speaker 1: you for the email, as the podcast I'm working on
Speaker 1: is specifically about the experts and questioning their integrity through
Speaker 1: the issues. Dr Tricia Stratford repeatedly raised, which led to
Speaker 1: her exit. I'd rather go to them directly, as my
Speaker 1: emails via Channel nine often go un answered, and at
Speaker 1: least this way I can be sure they received the
Speaker 1: offer to respond. I then detailed all the questions I
Speaker 1: had for the expert to Channel nine Publicity as they
Speaker 1: asked me to, and again I received no response, which
Speaker 1: is what happens pretty much every time I do put
Speaker 1: a question to Channel nine, which is why I messaged
Speaker 1: the experts directly. I then took inspiration from Channel nine's
Speaker 1: flagship news program, a current affair show that Channel nine
Speaker 1: describes says the People Show, where their team of investigative
Speaker 1: journalists hold people accountable, usually by firing questions at them
Speaker 1: on the street once they've refused to be a part
Speaker 1: of whatever their investigations are. Having had zero response to
Speaker 1: any of my messages and questions, I then approached John
Speaker 1: as he left a lunch at a celebrity hotspot restaurant
Speaker 1: and returned to his car in Sydney's Double Bay on
Speaker 1: Friday at two thirty six pm. I initially approached John
Speaker 1: as he entered the car park. I introduced myself from
Speaker 1: the podcast, and he turned around and shook my hand
Speaker 1: and greeted me by name, as he knows.
Speaker 4: Who I am.
Speaker 1: He then refused to answer any of my questions and
Speaker 1: has also since accused me of harassment and being threatening,
Speaker 1: which I strongly deny. As a journalist, I was asking John,
Speaker 1: who remember is a public figure, what I believe were
Speaker 1: very reasonable questions at a time when this is currently
Speaker 1: both a police investigation and Safe Work New South Wales
Speaker 1: government investigation into the show that he's been the main
Speaker 1: star for ten years now. So for full transparency, will
Speaker 1: now play you the full unedited audio of our entire exchange.
Speaker 1: Hey John math spunny podcast?
Speaker 4: Mate? How are you doing a couple of questions?
Speaker 6: I'm not going to answer your questions, but I will
Speaker 6: introduce myself.
Speaker 12: I am not going to answer more questions because I
Speaker 12: feel like I've got things to do.
Speaker 1: Do you ever feel ethically and morally compromise what you
Speaker 1: do on that show?
Speaker 6: Do you know what?
Speaker 12: I'm not going to answer your questions, but what I
Speaker 12: would suggest you do is you put them to nine.
Speaker 4: I have none of them replied to me, and I've
Speaker 4: messaged you as well. You would you do that last night?
Speaker 4: Is that right? Yes?
Speaker 6: I didn't receive anything.
Speaker 1: Can you agree that the task I kind of designed
Speaker 1: to just tell these couples apart?
Speaker 6: He's good, isn't he?
Speaker 12: But would you know I'm not going to would you
Speaker 12: recommend a couple of comments across Australia?
Speaker 6: Are you watching me out there?
Speaker 4: I've been trying to speak to you, Is that right?
Speaker 13: No?
Speaker 4: One replies to me, why do you think that is?
Speaker 4: Because no one has to answer these questions? Isn't this
Speaker 4: why doctor Tricia left. I'm off to go home, but
Speaker 4: to meet you so you don't want to speak?
Speaker 1: No, no, it Would you recommend couples across Australia kind
Speaker 1: of go and squat partners for a week to strengthen
Speaker 1: the relationships?
Speaker 4: Is that something you and your wife?
Speaker 5: John?
Speaker 6: Are you gonna come up stairs with me?
Speaker 4: Yes?
Speaker 6: Well, I'm gonna head to the post office thing.
Speaker 4: Okay, we're gonna have a doubt together.
Speaker 6: Are you gonna come with me?
Speaker 4: You've got nothing you wish to say? Do you not
Speaker 4: agree this season's crossed the line?
Speaker 12: I mean, I'm amazed if you're at your perseverance.
Speaker 1: Well, no one's answering these questions, and I think this
Speaker 1: this season has crossed they that's a you problem.
Speaker 4: That's a I think it's a your problem. What's happening
Speaker 4: on the show. You must have been accused of enabling
Speaker 4: abusive behavior. Anything to say to that?
Speaker 6: What else you got from me?
Speaker 4: Josh? Do you and your wife followed the touch you're
Speaker 4: doing that? Would you go? Are you someone else for
Speaker 4: a few days to strengthen the marge.
Speaker 6: Where else you going? Uh, Anthony, Anthony, can I come in?
Speaker 4: I'm yeah, I'm just playing arrest harassed. I'm answering your questions.
Speaker 4: So John, You've got nothing to say.
Speaker 1: Just for context here as you're only hearing the audio.
Speaker 1: John turned around as I asked him the questions and
Speaker 1: returned to the restaurant he'd just been dining at. He
Speaker 1: then stepped inside and told a member of staff that
Speaker 1: I believe he's friends with, that he was being harassed
Speaker 1: by me, and he then sat at a table with
Speaker 1: that member of staff laughing. I then asked John one
Speaker 1: final question whilstood a few meters away on the street
Speaker 1: on public Land, and as I did that, he proceeded
Speaker 1: to get his phone out and film me. Hey John, John,
Speaker 1: last question, is it the money or the fame where
Speaker 1: you keep going against the principles of a psychologist?
Speaker 4: John? John? The money of the fame? No answer, am
Speaker 4: I exactly? Hey John?
Speaker 1: You can send that to Channel nine and animal ask
Speaker 1: them to reply to my emails. Nah, but this is
Speaker 1: not gonna end well this year.
Speaker 4: John. You've pushed these people too far and you know it.
Speaker 1: Trigger on and here that comment from me there was
Speaker 1: in regard to the mental health of the participants and
Speaker 1: how it will not end well. And as I keep
Speaker 1: saying on this podcast, if the people behind this show
Speaker 1: do not change their practices, there will be irreversible consequences,
Speaker 1: which is echoed by every cast member I speak to,
Speaker 1: who will fear somebody will take their own life as
Speaker 1: a result of participating in this show. The member of staff,
Speaker 1: who I assumed John is friends with, given how he
Speaker 1: greeted him by first name and then sat with him
Speaker 1: as he returned to the restaurant, then came out and
Speaker 1: said to me, if I scream out again over the restaurant,
Speaker 1: it's not going to be good, which I perceived as
Speaker 1: a threat. And again, for full transparency, here is the
Speaker 1: full unedited audio, starting exactly where that previous clip was cut.
Speaker 1: I can speak to him though springing out over the
Speaker 1: restaurant to get.
Speaker 6: Out of the restaurants.
Speaker 4: Sorry, did you just froighten me?
Speaker 1: And then after that I just went home and realized
Speaker 1: these experts will never.
Speaker 4: Answer questions like this.
Speaker 1: I also want to state that I don't like doing
Speaker 1: things like that.
Speaker 4: Some journalists love it.
Speaker 1: The Channel nine journals on a current affair, literally chasing
Speaker 1: people down streets every day. Seem to love it, but
Speaker 1: I don't. It's just not really my personality. And I
Speaker 1: was rattled for the rest of the day after that,
Speaker 1: and I didn't.
Speaker 4: Sleep that night thinking about it.
Speaker 1: But I do think questions like that need to be
Speaker 1: asked to people like John, and now is the time
Speaker 1: with everything that's happening surrounding the show. Even earlier this week,
Speaker 1: I had a cast member from the current season sobbing
Speaker 1: to me on the phone, telling me the medication there
Speaker 1: now taking just to get through the impact being on
Speaker 1: that show has had in them. Also last month, remember
Speaker 1: when I sat down with Marena. She told me how
Speaker 1: she and two other cast members came close to self
Speaker 1: harming during filming as it all became too much. And
Speaker 1: a show that's meant to entertainers and help strangers find
Speaker 1: love just shouldn't lead to things like this. And again,
Speaker 1: that's why I felt it was important to put those
Speaker 1: questions to John, And that's why I'm doing this on
Speaker 1: this podcast, because, as I've said a million times now,
Speaker 1: if they do not change their practices behind the scenes,
Speaker 1: someone will take.
Speaker 4: Their own life.
Speaker 1: That sounds horrible, but it's the honest reality, and all
Speaker 1: the press I see the experts doing seems to be
Speaker 1: just either the nine website, Channel nines, Today's Show and
Speaker 1: all these things where no one will push them and
Speaker 1: ask anything important.
Speaker 4: Anyway, that's all I've got for now.
Speaker 1: Thank you for listening, and make sure you're subscribed to
Speaker 1: the Mass Funny podcast. There'll be more spoilers and stories
Speaker 1: throughout the week as usual, and Part three of this
Speaker 1: investigation will likely be next Sunday. One last thing as well,
Speaker 1: if you're able to give the podcast a rating on
Speaker 1: whatever app you're listening to it on. I'd really appreciate
Speaker 1: that and it actually helps me out massively. Have a
Speaker 1: nice week everyone, Goodbye,