There is a demarcation line in the politics-media relationship that divides private and public life. For context, think of the border between North and South Korea, a heavily guarded and contested line that elicits bad blood on both sides depending on your perspective.
Which brings us to the murky scenario of the Premier, his “female friend”, his female friend’s estranged husband and the Premier’s bruised face. Oh, and the media.
The case for arguing that South Australian premier Mike Rann should not be scrutinised over this matter from every angle — including and maybe especially the personal angle — is, unfortunately for Mr Rann and his family, quite wrong. This matter became a matter of public interest at a fundraiser at Adelaide’s National Wine Centre last Thursday night when Mike Rann was bashed in public by an assailant with a magazine.
Since then, Adelaide’s small but heated corridors of power have been in overdrive with innuendo, speculation and tawdry rumours.
Today, The Australian is reporting that Rann had contact with his alleged assailant’s wife “up to 10 times a day and up to 30 times in one particular week before her marriage broke up” and that her estranged husband claims “that Mr Rann’s 15-month friendship with his estranged wife, Michelle Chantelois, 39, broke up their marriage”.
Meanwhile Rann is using the front page of The Advertiser to reveal that “both my children have been threatened with violence and received death threats … malicious hate mail has been sent out to thousands of households (about me and) our house has been vandalised”, and to reassure bemused voters that “neither threats of violence, nor acts of violence, will distract me or deter me from doing my job as Premier of South Australia.”
The demilitarised zone between Rann, the media and the voters has been well and truly breached. The Premier has a responsibility to find a way to reveal the facts, notwithstanding that his assailant has been charged with assault and may not appear in court until after the state election next March. This is now a public, not a private, matter. And quite possibly a matter of the integrity and character of the Premier, not inconsequential issues less than six months out from a state election.
What a load of bollocks.
Also why should ‘public interest’ turn on whether Rann was wacked in a public place or not? Are you saying that if he was wacked in his driveway at home there would be no justification for the media coverage?
More to the point, what makes Rann’s alleged relationship with a Parliament House dining room waitress newsworthy anyway? Ten SMS messages (with perhaps a few phone calls) during the course of a day – or even repeated over a number of days – is hardly behaviour that is of public moment, especially if the communications went both ways (which is what the reports I’ve seen suggest).
It is not like Rann is alleged to have abused his public office for his (or her) personal benefit. How does this relationship go to his fitness to be premier? This isn’t the Profumo affair. It’s a private morality tale, absent any evidence to suggest that Rann has acted unlawfully or infringed the codes of conduct that apply to public officials acting in that capacity.
Having said all that, Rann is a notoriously cynical media tart – so his retaliating in kind by collating his own list of grievances and mistreatments, and getting page one copy, is not surprising. Feel free to expose that rank opportunism. But hold the fire when it comes to the merits the media peddling gossip and innuendo about a person’s private (not professional) relationships simply because the person has a public profile. The man who wacked Rann seems a bit disturbed – but that’s not newsworthy either. It’s just sad.
NOT a load of bollocks at all!
He hasn’t been tagged Media Mike for nothing. Our Prem luuurvvves a camera……,when he has good news. He is currently working damned hard at the ‘I am a victim’ rationale (he’s even said that!)…cue the violins. The bloke IS accountable, how he behaves privately can and does influence his behaviour as a fine upstanding Premier.
The wee tinker has at least raised some questions regarding his contact with a Parliamentary staffer. I suspect there is more to come. Mr Phillips and his WPD (geddit? Weapon of Premier Destruction?), have at least given the man (Phillips) an opportunity to have his say;-in Court.
Our Government has been accused of ‘interfering’ in our Court system. The public will be watching this court case closely.
Any suggestion that those in public office should not be held to scrutiny is absurd. Any perceived trivialisation of such behaviour rendering it as not worthy of critique, is a disruption and distortion of the democratic process. If we do that, then we will get progressively worse public officials,-and the buggers are bad enough already!