But now to troubles in TV land and last week's sudden collapse of Channel Ten:

SANDRA SULLY: The Network Ten board has placed the company into voluntary administration after being left with no other choice. The company maintains it's business as usual and viewers won't notice any changes, but the move sent shockwaves through the industry and Parliament House. — Ten Eyewitness News, 14 June, 2017

The good news is that Ten is still on air and will almost certainly survive

The bad news, for James Packer, Lachlan Murdoch, Bruce Gordon and Gina Rinehart, is that they have lost almost $1bn between them.

While 17,000 smaller shareholders have also lost at least another $1 billion in what the Fin's Joe Aston last month described as:

... the greatest money pit in Australian corporate history. — Australian Financial Review, 30 May, 2017

So, who is to blame?

Well, take your pick from Netflix, Stan, YouTube and the difficulties of running Australia's weakest commercial network.

But, don't ignore Lachlan Murdoch, who as Ten's chairman for 2 years and CEO for one year helped steer it onto the rocks.

Ten's collapse on Wednesday was triggered by three of its four billionaire shareholders, Murdoch, Packer and Gordon, withdrawing their support for the network, which needs to pay back a $200 million overdraft facility in December.

But it was hurried on by Murdoch and Gordon threatening to sue Ten's directors for trading while insolvent, if they allowed the network to draw down any more cash:

That threat was contained in a letter sent to the Ten directors on Monday night at 9pm. — AFR Chantecleer, 14 June, 2017

So why did Gordon and Murdoch force Ten to call in the knackers.

given that the directors claimed in a statement to the Australian Securities Exchange that they had found savings of $50m to $80m a year to keep Ten alive?

One answer is it allows the two billionaires to control Ten's fate.

Another is it puts pressure on parliament to change Australia's media laws.

MITCH FIFIELD: Network Ten's announcement today that it will enter voluntary administration is a wake-up call for opponents of media reform ... — ABC 7pm News, 14 June, 2017

If Murdoch and Gordon are to end up owning Ten, which seems to be their game plan, the media laws will need to be changed.

Gordon needs the so-called Reach Rule to be scrapped, because he already owns a regional TV station WIN and can't own Ten as well.

Murdoch needs the more contentious 2-out-of-3 rule to go, because he already owns a radio station, Nova, and big-city newspapers through News Corp and the rule does not allow him to also own a TV station.

Or not yet.

So, could Ten be the game changer?

Collapse may force media law changes Just hours after Australia's third-largest TV station moved into administration on Wednesday the Nick Xenophon Team confirmed its in principle support for the legislation ... — Sydney Morning Herald, 15 June, 2017

Just three cross-bench senators are now needed to get the media reform package through the Senate at last, and all eyes are on One Nation.

So far, Pauline Hanson has refused to back any reform that gives more power to News Corp. But on Thursday, she was reportedly 'reassessing' her position.

Then, next day, One Nation's James Ashby told Fairfax:

"There is no shift and not likely to be one. We agree with every measure except removing two out of three," ... — Sydney Morning Herald, 16 June, 2017

We'll see if One Nation holds its nerve and if it demands a price. Such as, cuts to the ABC.

Meanwhile, the government and Australia's mainly male media moguls, who lobbied Parliament two weeks ago, are pushing hard for reform.

And on Thursday, Ten's Sarah Harris added her own self-interested plea:

SARAH HARRIS: ... Today we call on Bill Shorten, Pauline Hanson and the Greens to reconsider their positions and support local jobs. Politicians have been warned of the dire consequences if media laws aren't changed and yesterday those predictions were proven correct. It's now more important than ever that you make these changes before it's too late ... — Channel Ten Studio, 15 June, 2017

In fact, Ten could easily survive, whether the reforms go through or not. As one former Ten executive told Media Watch:

A low-cost Ten could easily be profitable even with a 15-20 % share of the TV ad market. And it's currently got 24%. — Ex-Channel Ten executive, 16 June, 2016

But whatever happens, there will be changes as the Fin warned last week:

News Corporation is attempting to tighten its grip around the Ten Network, with Sky News executives believed to have pitched an integration of the subscription news channel's service with the free-to-air broadcaster's news bulletins. — Australian Financial Review, 13 June, 2017

Yes, it's no done deal, but we could see Sandra Sully, Hugh Riminton and Stephen Quartermain, plus Sky's David Speers perhaps still fronting a Ten news sourced from Sky. Giving yet more power to News Corp without media laws being changed.

But if changes do go through, News Corp is tipped to be Ten's new owner.

However, Bruce Gordon also wants the network. And our ex-Ten insider suggests News may just let him have it, asking:

Why would News buy the worst house on the street? That's not their style. — Ex-Channel Ten executive, 16 June, 2016

The suggestion is News would like Channel Nine instead, which would come with TV rights to the NRL and be much more use to Foxtel and News Corp's tabloids, which rely so heavily on footy.

And that could leave Ten as a low-cost network run by WIN's Bruce Gordon. Perhaps showing re-runs of Flying Doctors and other classics from the Crawford Library, which he owns.

Only kidding. We hope.