Some weird moral conundrums arise in the MP-photos affair, in which Labor backbencher James Bidgood flogged the photos he took of a man threatening to set himself alight on the lawns of Parliament House.
Michelle Grattan opined on the Radio National’s Breakfast show this morning that common human decency should have told Bidgood that what he did was no good.
But what about the newspapers that bought or tried to buy the photos — and for that matter the readers of those newspapers who are presumed to have an appetite for such things? Are the standards of human decency not applicable here? Or is Michelle just being precious?
Is it okay for newspapers to try and cater for voyeurs, but not okay for citizens — or MPs at any rate — to cater to them?
I am not sure of any easy answers here. The man’s threats are certainly news. So too the reasons for his serial protests – his quest for a visa for his aged parents. I don’t know the background, but why is it that the immigration problems of a nice German doctor in Victoria make news, and yet this is the first I have heard of this man and his problems?
The man, Marat Aminov, has protested before by jumping on to the floor of parliament, among other things. His parents have staged a hunger strike on the lawns of Parliament House. I still don’t know the rights and wrongs of their stance, and I would like to. I would like to think the media might pay attention without the need for dramatic photos.
Amid all this, it’s interesting to see the different ways Fairfax — which tried and failed to buy the pictures — and News Limited, which got them, dealt with their reporting duties.
The Herald Sun print edition used the photo big on page 19, with a story that stated Bidgood had supplied the photos in return for a donation to charity, and that a Sydney Morning Herald photographer had offered more “but Mr Bidgood insisted his pictures were only published in the Daily Telegraph.” (and, apparently, the Herald Sun, and online, and and … ), as though this was a matter of journalistic pride.
Is it really something to boast of, that an MP in disgrace for his callous behaviour chose you, and only you?
And now online, the photo is still being used, but Daily Telegraph editor Garry Linnell is quoted as saying that there was no question of sale for Bidgood’s profit. It was always going to be charity “I said instantly, ‘Yes, let’s do it’.”
Interestingly News Limited stable mate The Australian print edition story this morning contradicts Linnell. The Oz chose not to use the pics, and ran a story leading on the trouble Bidgood was in, and quoting his exchange with photographers, which states Bidgood sought cash, but the photographers refused to pay until Bidgood made clear that the money was going to charity.
“He agreed to provide the photographs to News Ltd but is understood to have refused to provide them to Fairfax,” says the Oz
And Fairfax? The Age reports the story on the front page, leading on the fact that Rudd has “blasted” Bidgood over the affair, and claiming that when The Age approached him to buy the photos, he “said he had already done a deal with News”.
So apparently the charity deal included exclusive rights.
The photos are certainly dramatic, the story is news, and its naive to expect the tabloids not to go after the pics. But the media outlets that sought the pics are certainly not now in a position to go tut-tutting about Bidgood’s behaviour.
And what about some reporting of the cause of the protest?
Jenny, are you seriously suggesting Bidgood ever held a seat in the SA Parliament? Having lived in SA my whole life and worked in SA state politics for a decade, I can assure you no-one of that name has had a seat in the SA Parliament in recent memory.
A man protests in a public place. He wants to draw attention to his cause. Camera and recording equipment is now ubiquitous. News organisations routinely solicit photos and reporting from ordinary citizens.
There is no objection to the reporting of a protest. There is no objection to more intrusive reporting done by professional journalists and photographers every day. Pictures of protests are news. Remember the wharf dispute? If Mr Bidgood were employed as a journalist he would not have been criticised. If the photo were good enough, he might have won a prize. If Mr Bidgood were a private citizen, it is unlikely he would have been criticised.
Where, precisely, is the wrong?
Is it because he is an MP? What extra obligation does that impose on him? To avoid conflicts of interest? He has not benefited personally. Recognising the commercial value of his photo, he has extracted that value from the commercial media for the purpose of charity.
Is it because he is a Government MP? Is he in some way identified with the object of the protest?
Michelle Grattan has joined many others in expressing outrage and abhorrence, demanding retractions, apologies, sacking. Umbrage is easy. Perhaps it’s more difficult to explain clearly how Mr Bidgood’s actions are to be deplored, when the same or worse is done daily by others, and as part of the professional duties of her colleagues.
Only a thousand bucks !..for exclusive and dramatic pix of a man who was attempting to draw attention to hmself ? Bidgood was ripped off and so was the charity. Should have been $5000. It’s the Silly Season and that’s the only reason this non-story got up.
Michelle Grattan has aways been a sanctomonious goose.
Well said Ailie. After hearing AM but before looking at the Sydney press I made it my business to address this story in the framework of CENSORSHIP of community media and that’s what it is really about.
“Insensitive, inappropriate”? For taking a picture invited by the protest to promote his own profile. Get real. Of course it was okay to take pictures. Then was it wrong to ask for money? Well there is no doubt someone was going to buy his intellectual property in the Big Media. And that’s what it was – intellectual property. So it was only a question of price and who should ethically benefit.
On principle I don’t think there is any objection to him profiting from his own work EXCEPT that he was in harness as an MP and therefore on our tab. So he was wise to donate it to charity. If he had been out of hours, or on holidays it would have been fine.
I reported the basic claims of the Aminov’s on my blog on 19 October ….2007, with a picture via, from memory, an email from Jamal Daoud, who is quoted in the news this week. 14 months ago. It’s here again today http://www.sydneyalternativemedia.com/blog
That’s how pathetic the govt department DIAC have been. But the attempt to sanction Bidgood (who ‘did good’ amplifying the humanitarian protest as any decent photographer, blogger, indy media, or agitator would have), sanction by the PM’s office is all about fear of the policy and politics of refugees, detention and stateless people.
To dress it up as wrong is pure ALP machine stock standard emotional violence in the name of playing the angles. In my humble opinion the rest is sophistry and internal Big Media rivalry.
I rang Bidgood’s phone about 9.30 a.m. and left a message as above as they were in hiding. I can just imagine the staffer listening as the calls came in. I also left a message at the Telegraph’s editorial desk., and Senator Hanson Young, Greens. And the Bidgood angle of the story has been killed stone dead, amen whether by coincidence or Big Govt shame.
Wake up Peter F – no one is confused about Bidgood (what an unfortunate moniker) who drifted from the British Labour Party into an SA State seat then propelled himself into federal politics via his current comfort stop in north QLD where he’s thankfully come to grief. Even dopey Abbott thinks he’s a novice MP and wants to give him leeway!! What’s wrong with you guys? I assumed Crikey contributors were IQ elite. Forget the real issue of national security and obscene visa queues — this bozo MP is as silly as his deep north colleagues – driven by conservate right wing policies of conservatism and authority. He drooled over the entire episode.