[Marsh.]

Originally Posted by Oliver_W

Well courts have been wrong before But genuinely, good on her for getting a good grift. There's no way some random newsreader is worth the same amount of pay than someone who's on a chatshow in the early morning, radio show early afternoon, and quiz show in the evening. Good on her for mobilising a movement to pad her own wallet

Nobody's talking about their career highlights. The case was about their pay for doing the exact same job on Newswatch/Points of View.

"But he presents a quiz show too" doesn't justify anything.

But, you finally answered my question at least.