Crikey this morning asked a range of leading media operators about
the Brogden affair – did the media act responsibly and has it changed
the ground rules in the relationship between the media and politicians?



Malcolm Farr, chief political reporter, Daily Telegraph

The
Brogden matter wasn’t taken too far, says Malcolm Farr – “it was active
as an issue affecting state politics and voters were entitled to know
about it. In short, there was a public interest factor at play.” If
private activity clashes with public posturing, says Farr, “reporters
should reveal it. Voters deserve to know when a politician says one
thing and does another. For example, the politician who preaches
commitment to family and has a series of affairs; or one who condemns
certain business practices but does the opposite in private.”

And
he believes that “reports of Brogden’s private/public doings did not
force him to harm himself. That was one of several options available to
him, and he chose it. At this point I do not know why he did it, and I
am not aware of anyone who does. I do know there are a lot of people
who think they know, and it might be good if they just shut up.”

Peter Meakin, Head of News, Seven Network
The
media didn’t go too far, says Peter Meakin, because “it was, after all,
a huge story.” Drawing the line between politicians’ public and private
lives has always been tricky, he says – “some politicians clearly
believe they can turn their family life on and off like a tap. You trot
out the wife and kids at election time to show what a trustworthy
family man you are, then demand privacy a few weeks later. Some pollies
(eg Keith Wright) make a stand on family issues inconsistent with
their own conduct. They are fair game because they’re hypocrites.”

Meakin
says he has “considerable sympathy with the view that private conduct
should only be exposed if it impacts on the execution of someone’s
public duty.” And as to whether this episode has changed the ground
rules between journalists and politicians, he says: “In the short term,
probably yes. But this is not a new problem. The two sides have had an
uneasy relationship for decades. If, as we are asked to believe, John
Brogden was a serial pest, was he the worst offender? I’d like to know
that.”

Mark Scott, Editor-in-Chief, Fairfax Metropolitan, Regional and Community Newspapers
“These
are difficult stories to cover,” says Mark Scott. “When John Brogden
confessed to our reporter on Sunday night, confirming on-the-record his
behaviour at that AHA party and his racial slur, it was clearly a major
political story. We gave it full page one coverage – and also covered
the press conference and fall-out from his resignation in comprehensive
detail.” Then, he said, “our focus moved to the crisis facing the state
Liberal Party and the leadership battle. We were chasing the political
story not the personal story. We were not doing further investigations
into his past behaviour. Mr Brogden had stepped down and we felt the
story had moved on.”

Scott says he thinks “there will be
significant debate within newsrooms on whether the AHA function should
have been covered more aggressively, earlier. There had been no formal
complaints and no-one from either side of politics was originally
pushing the allegations. At Fairfax, we were unaware of the racial
slur. For some weeks no media organisation touched the story, apart
from Miranda Devine’s small piece in the Sun-Herald suggesting
his behaviour at the function had been inappropriate and he was now
being watched. Mr Brogden’s behaviour was inappropriate and
unacceptable, but on the same standard perhaps many former and
current political leaders may have fallen. The conventions and rules
may be changing for politicians and journalists.”

Rob Curtain, News Director, 3AW Melbourne
“I
think as a general principle the private lives of politicians should
remain private, and off-the-record conversations should be treated as
such. But it is reasonable to expect journalists to freely report the
behaviour of a public figure at a public function. I think most public
figures would expect and understand this to be the case.”

Catharine Lumby, Associate Professor, Media and Communications Department, University of Sydney
“I
think the fact that the story was held back is evidence that there was
internal debate about whether the information was properly private or
of public interest,” says Catharine Lumby. “The comment about Helena
Carr was genuinely offensive and showed, in the very least, an
extraordinary lack of judgement on Brogden’s part. And in that sense it
was of public interest. The claims, however, that he sexually harassed
two journalists in the pub do not stand up to the same scrutiny. One
journalist has publicly stated she didn’t take offence and the other
makes it clear that Brogden did nothing after she made it clear she
wasn’t interested. I think we are watering down the definition of true
sexual harassment if we make it a hanging offence for someone to flirt
while they’re in a bar socialising.”

The past two decades, says
Lumby, have seen “a very clear shift to a growing focus on the private
lives of political leaders. This is partly because we have politicised
many behaviours formerly seen as private matters, like sexual
harassment. Competition between media outlets is driving these stories
as well – there has been an undoubted tabloidisation of the mainstream
media in the past two decades.” But, she says, “you can’t draw a hard
and fast line between the public and the private, you always have to
ask in every instance: Why is this information of public interest. If a
politician is cheating on his wife but running a campaign against
no-fault divorce laws then that might be of interest. But if he’s just
having an affair then I think that is arguably his (or her) own
business.”

Has this episode changed the “ground rules” between
journalists and politicians? “I think politicians will be on their toes
in the future when they drink around journalists,” says Lumby. “But
they’ll eventually relax because journalists and politicians feed off
each other and end up socialising together (and flirting and drinking
it must be said).”

2UE Head of News, Greg Byrnes
This
episode hasn’t changed the “ground rules” between journalists and
politicians, says Greg Byrnes, it has “just reinforced the dangers of
gallery/rounds journalists getting too close to the subjects they cover
on a daily basis.” But he says he’s been “surprised some of our
competitors refer to the incident as a suicide attempt. 2UE News is
using the term self harm, or an apparent suicide attempt. In many cases,
people in severe bouts of depression are simply trying to hurt
themselves, or are crying out for help, as opposed to actually wanting
to end their own life.”