Will Mark Latham last until Sunday night as part of the Nine team, will he self-destruct (as he did in the 2004 election), or will Nine push the destruct button and rid itself of this PR monster?

The only question that can be answered is the latter, and no Nine it won’t, not unless David Gyngell stands up and protects his only credible journalist performer, Laurie Oakes, after Latham’s atrocious attack on the long-time political reporter on Sky News last night.

In fact Latham provided the answer on Sky News last night when he dismissed the apology, issued last Saturday by Gyngell, as being driven by nothing other than commercial considerations.

”They’re interested in ratings, obviously I’ve been hired to assist with the ratings,” he said.

Got it in one, Mark, and that’s why Gyngell’s apology on Saturday was just rubbish. Had it been serious, Latham’s involvement with 60 Minutes would have been terminated in the same statement. Gyngell wasn’t being genuine. Fancy allowing an employee of the Nine Network to handle the Prime Minister of the day (and then to grossly insinuate that it was something more than just touching, as Latham did last night). Would Nine have allowed something, Latham, for example, to approach and monster John Howard in 2004 or 2007?

There’s another agenda here, Latham’s fits and starts will assure 60 Minutes of a big audience next Sunday night, an hour after Seven returns its Sunday Night program to the schedule at 6.30pm.

It’s not journalism, it’s entertainment because that is what 60 Minutes is these days,  but a cloned cross between A Current Affair and Entertainment Tonight.

Latham’s involvement fits with what Gyngell, programmer Michael Healy and production chief Andrew Backwell demand from their production company clients in drama and in factual (reality) programming. It’s got to have some “noise” or “cut through”, it’s all about short-term hits to ratings (getting high ratings), rather than long-term development.

Nine would not have have wanted MasterChef last year, too much development (although it would have liked the 2009 final and its ratings), it would have grabbed MasterChef for this year, if it had had the chance for the instant hit to ratings. Ten and Seven spend more time to develop programs than Nine (but have killed their share of flops very quickly), which Nine doesn’t want to do.

David Gyngell has a short-term focus (as does the management of Nine’s owners, the private equity group CVC). Gyngell and others are shareholders in the PBL Media vehicle and will get equity when the refloat of the assets comes, that’s why Gyngell is interested in maximising short-term ratings and revenue gains, instead of trying to build a brand and strength in the medium to longer term.

Mark Latham fits the bill, after Sunday night it will be goodbye Mark (not even that), here’s your money, next stunt please.

The ownership of Mark Latham was quickly sorted out at Nine. News and current affairs boss Mark Calvert let it be known that he isn’t responsible for 60 Minutes — “others are” was the quote on the gossip line. Others being John Westacott, Hamish Thomson, the EP and David Gyngell.

And then, according to the Sydney Morning Herald this morning: “Prior to last night’s TV appearance, 60 Minutes executive producer Hamish Thomson took responsibility for the decision and defended the move.

“He’s highly intelligent [and] understands the working of politics,” Thomson told the paper. “He’s a person the Labor Party wanted to run the country. It’s not as if his knowledge of politics is insubstantial.”

David Gyngell would have had to signed off on the fee, claimed in some reports to be $10,000 to $15,000. That makes Gyngell as culpable as anyone.

And, there’s another agenda here. Long-time producer Alex Hodgkinson recently rejoined 60 Minutes where she is chief of staff. She had been there before as a producer, quit and strangely enough ended up at Sunday Night at Seven for four weeks, then suddenly returned to 60 Minutes. That route has raised eyebrows around Nine and Seven.

But there’s also a story doing the round of Nine that Gyngell would like to see Hodgkinson replace Thomson as EP of 60 Minutes. If that’s the case, why doesn’t Gyngell just do it, is the usual reply.

What no one can understand is how Gyngell can allow or play a part in the trashing of Laurie Oakes’ reputation by a nobody such as Mark Latham. Is Oakes’ reputation the “collateral damage” you have to have for a ratings kill at Nine these days?

So what will Oakes now do if Gyngell doesn’t discipline Latham in some way for the attack on Oakes’ character and professionalism on Sky News last night? Seven news and current affairs boss Peter Meakin has Oakes’ number…