A Crikey reader writes:


While the ethics of
journalists going after public figures personal lives is being
seriously debated at the moment, why is there no debate about
journalists involving themselves in internal party politics, which
seems to have been the case in the entire Brogden affair?

John Peak writes:
I
have the greatest sympathy for John Brogden, and when stories like this
hit, they can hit hard. But wasn’t his joke that Bob Carr could “send
back his mail order bride”? And isn’t that, when you think about it,
entirely more offensive to both Bob and Helena than just the mail-order
bride reference, more than just racist or sexist? And how quickly do
they get over that offence? A stupid joke, yes, from a ‘sensitive’ man
who doesn’t hold his alcohol well, and it might never have been
reported, but once it was out there, how were the Carrs supposed to
handle it?

Paul Jeffree writes:
The media don’t
make it easy to be liked with some of their hype over personal details,
but the blame actually unfortunately lies at the feet of the
politicians themselves who as a class of people hold themselves up in
high regard, lecture all about ethics & morality etc but spend
enormous resources on taking down people inside & outside of
parliament without any thought for the damage they do or how
transparent they really are. The ultimate loser is the government
system as more people become cynical about motives behind every word
& every deed of every politician. If they start behaving honourably
then the pressure will be on the media to respect them and then to
convey that respect in their reporting. Meanwhile in the real world
every politician wakes up every morning with the thought in his mind
“how can I expand my self importance?”

A reader writes:
On
Brogden, who is undoubtedly a dope there is lot of cant and hypocrisy.
If Crikey was fair dinkum it would call for and list the sexual
peccadilloes of the Daily Telegraph’s journalists. There was no
public policy reason to publish the personal stuff they did. Let’s face it, they have cast the first stone and if they wish
to sit in judgement then let’s hear about them. I doubt many of them
would pass DT’s own sniff test. And think what a circulation booster it would be for Crikey!

A reader writes:
Unfortunate
headline of year, in the Oz August 31 edition on Emma Tom column on
the ‘mail order bride’ fiasco: “Incorrect postage insult winds up in
dead leader office.”

Ben Aveling writes:
John Brogden’s forced resignation shows that there is one standard for state Liberals and another for federal Liberals.

Ray Sangston writes:
I can recall some awed recollections of Daily Telegraph
editor Penberthy in past Crikey editions. Great drinker, great
practical joker, great journo. I don’t recall “great sleaze raker.” The
fraternity of journos might think Penberthy is worthy of accolades. The
general public might choose to disagree. It’s about time you blokes
tapped into what your consumers are really thinking and stop getting up
yourselves.

Mungo MacCallum writes:
John
Brogden is one of many pollies who have failed to read the three basic
rules of their profession: (1) Sooner or later everybody stuffs up; (2)
Any attempt to justify or cover up the stuff up is invariably worse
that the original stuff up; (3) Everybody forgets rule (2).

A Crikey reader writes:
Fifty
years ago we did not shine the light of public scrutiny on incest, and
child abuse. Then slowly as time moved on, the light shined on more and
more, previously described as ‘private’, activities. Domestic violence
is another example. We need the light of the media
to shine brightly on behaviour that is unacceptable. Sexual harassment
remains a major problem in corporate, professional life. Yes, at the
highest levels. Why is it not disclosed more often? Because whistle
blowers, mostly but not always women, rarely have the opportunity to
work again if they do. Why didn’t the earlier
allegation arise previously? That’s why. Why have I signed this
anonymously? That’s why. Until women can believe that they can speak out
without a backlash they won’t. We need the light of the media to shine
brightly on behaviour that is unacceptable. Finally, I have suffered
several bouts of clinical depression. I am not Mr Brogden and do not
speak for him. Symptoms are usually evident to close family and friends
prior to a potential suicide event. I have great compassion for him,
and admiration, that he has achieved what he has to date [and no doubt
in the future]. But events don’t create suicide, people do. We also
need the media to shine the light on the fact that depression can be
managed, and resourceful and plucky people with a tenancy towards
depression are still capable of public contribution at the highest
levels.

Mark Farrell writes:
The rumour that Andrew West has quit the Oz in disgust over the Daily Tele’s
Brogden coverage is fascinating. It brings to the fore the vastly
different perspectives each paper has taken since the story broke,
which is surprising since the two usually sing from the same
(conservative populist) songsheet. Like a hunting dog to blood, the Tele
got a whiff of sex, race and scandal and couldn’t help itself going for
the hard kill, even against one of their own. It will be rightly
brought into question over the extent to which its dangerous
sensationalism contributed to Brogden’s self-harm. The Oz,
being more of a wily fox, eschewed tabloidism and was much more
sympathetic to the fallen leader. While this is much more suitably
sensitive to Brogden, it is also politically convenient. In fact the Oz
seemed to go out of its way to find an alternative culprit or issue to
distract from Brogden himself. Yesterday’s front page story clearly
sought to paint Brogden as victim as well as perpetrator, with the NSW
Liberal Right and Labor in the frame as gossip-mongers. The comparison between the two
papers is a classic illustration of how to overcook and undercook a
story. Surely there is a way to tell a story as it is without carrying
out a complete character destruction.

A Crikey subscriber writes:
It’s
time to blow off any last delusional shred of middle-class civility
any of us have, guys and girls. Here’s the deal on Brogden, and all
such similar ethical judgement calls that may arise in future from now
on. You professional journalists should continue to summarily grant
your good perfect selves the right to do, say, write, publish,
broadcast and circulate whatever the f**k you think might lift your
circulation, shift units, make yourselves look tough (to compensate for
your supreme c**klessness when reporting on Packer and Murdoch), win a
Walkley, get yourself laid and/or make up for all those novels you’ll
never write and that run at Parliament you’ll never have the guts to
make yourself. When you f**k people’s lives up way beyond any
reasonable definition of ‘public interest’, you should go on granting
yourselves alone – that is, journalists – the sole right to assess your
performance the next day. Obviously the senior leadership figures among
you should continue the fine d**kless journalists’ tradition of never
criticising an ethical failure in a colleague, lest the shoe be on the
other foot next week.

For our part we non-journalists, we will increasingly hate you, increasingly ignore you and
increasingly blame you for our own lazy, pig-ignorant, cretinous media
consumption habits. We’ll also increasingly chase our own distorted and
incomplete versions of the ‘news’, and seek out only those opinions
that flatter our own, via a) the internet, b) reality TV shows and c)
certain celebrity magazines and tabloids. So let’s cut all the bulls**t hand-wringing ‘media ethics’
post-mortems, can we? We both hate each other’s guts, and it’s
only going to get worse. You can always do what
Andrew West did, and start resigning in protest when your bosses or
your colleagues cross the ugly line. No-one – not the public, not the
government, not the courts can improve
media standards except you journalists.

A Crikey reader writes:
Rather
than go home to his wife and confess that he’s either a serial
philanderer, or a wannabe serial philanderer, Brogden goes off and
attempts suicide. When it came to law and order Our John was tough, but
when it comes to facing up to his wife with the truth about himself –
he folds. Live a lie if you want to John, but don’t complain when it
catches up with you. The whole situation reeks of a perpetrator
desperate to portray himself as a victim. This appraisal is as tough,
uncompromising and brutally simplistic as many of Brogden’s
law-and-order policies.

Jack Hoysted writes:
Ah, Hypocrisy, his name is Stephen. I nearly ran off the road listening to Stephen Mayne on 702 bagging News Limited, The Daily Telegraph,
its editor David Penberthy, and the News exec who appointed him, one L
Murdoch, for publishing damaging material about John Brogden. Was this
the same Stephen Mayne who published untrue and unchecked defamatory
allegations about Steve Price and Nick Bolkus, and who then tried to
bully his way out of the consequences. Surely not. And Stephen, my
guess is that Andrew West resigned in disgust, not disgrace as you said
at least three times. You really are a mobile job creation scheme for
lawyers.

Graham Bell writes:
Over 20 years ago,
angry, betrayed fellow veterans urged me to rip the guts out of the
then Defence Minister Jim Killen with a swag of private personal stuff.
I refused. Instead, I tackled him as a public figure on public issues
….. Twice ….. and got beaten twice. No regrets.So why didn’t a
couple of burly journalists, full of booze and bad manners, just take
Mr Brogden around the corner, “put him in the portrait” and persuade
him to apologize for his bad behaviour in a public place? Problem solved
on the spot. No regrets.

Eugene Herbert writes:
I sent this letter to the SMH yesterday morning at 7.45am: The Herald
believes in freedom of the press but apparently that freedom does not
extend to criticism of its own editorial policy!: Dear Sir, The Sydney Morning Herald
this morning (Herald 31 August) reached an all-time low in journalism
with its front photograph of John Brogden being carried on a stretcher
whilst unconscious. It was an inexcusable breach of privacy.