This morning Gina Rinehart lost her bid to appeal to the High Court to maintain a suppression order around a legal dispute with her children.
The media will now proceed to report the details of what will, by its very nature, prove a nasty and fascinating spat between Australia’s wealthiest woman and her family.
Rinehart is a controversial figure, a mining magnate with forthright — and often plain wrong views — and now substantial media investments. She uses her wealth to get her way, and has spent a huge sum of money to try to prevent the public from knowing about her family dispute (including on laughable claims that her safety was threatened). She is a figure of legitimate media scrutiny.
However, suppression of information about a dispute, or the high profile of one of the litigators, does not instantly make it a matter of public interest. In covering the Rinehart family’s dirty laundry, the media should demonstrate where it is in the public interest. The family is entitled to privacy like the rest of us. To concur in the breaching of their privacy makes it much harder, with any consistency, to insist the media should not violate the privacy of others in the community merely because it is interesting.
The tension between freedom of speech and privacy is an ongoing one. Resolving it is always difficult, particularly in relation to high-profile figures. But is there anyone who believes the Australia media err on the side of caution when it comes to privacy?
The details of the Rinehart family dispute may well be in the public interest. If so, let the media demonstrate that.
As you point out it should be the balance between public interest & privacy however for the commercial media it is not the issue.
For them the issue is what will sell papers or bring in ratings.
As Ms Renehart has taken a public profile and sought to use the media ( Ch Ten/Fairfax) for her own ends then it is not unreasonable that her affairs are made public.
There is a public interest case to make in that an extremely wealthy & powerful person who can have a significant impact on our society should be understood by that society. Unfortunately this means that family matters may become public knowledge.
If the case is responsibly reported I can see no issue with it. If sensentionalised etc then the media have failed to deliver in the public interest
Yes indeed – this media fascination with the private machinations of “celebrity’ is a bit weird.
If the press is really a cornerstone of democracy surely effort would be better spent engaging in conversation on matters of a little more importance, particularly given the amount of clutter already being rammed at the public by the consumer machine.
Surely the journalist’s role needs to be more than that of simply feeding a public appetite for the banal.
The world is going through a massive shift – cultural, technological, ecological, geopolitical – the effect of which will impact all of us for generations -and here we are just feeding on brain dead cr-p.
Kind of sad really but then, maybe this is just evolution at work!
Responsibly reported or not – either way it is in the public interest.
It’s in the public interest because Rhinehart is a public figure by virtue of her highly public profile which she herself has promoted. She is (and should be) under scrutiny given her interests both figurative and financial, in the media. This specific issue should be given close attention because it reflects her values in relation to her interests.
I am also inclined to the view that whenever high profile people take injunctions to protect themselves, that once judged and failed, the details, for that reason alone, should be made public. That perhaps is the natural view of someone who can skulk away from the limelight, but if you seek media attention then I think you deserve extra scrutiny.
Where should Gina Rhinehart’s private life be left alone? Certainly any activities of her children not relevant to her should be below the radar, such as if one of her children was gay say. Her own sexuality and private relationships should also be below the radar.
As for responsible reporting – that’s a luxury we often have to do without – it doesn’t alter the public interest test.
Journalism 101 – what interests the public is not necessarily in the public interest. eg Kylie Minogue’s derierre is of great interest to the public, but there is no public interest in exposing it.
This is a very silly article -the public interest in the principle of open justise is enshrined in Australian Law . in Re Applications by Chief Commissioner of Police (Vic),9 the Victorian Court of Appeal said:
The principle of open justice is deeply entrenched in our law. It rests upon a legitimate concern that, if the operations of the courts are not on public view as far as possible, the administration of justice may be corrupted. A court is‘open’ when, at the least, members of the public have a right of admission. From this it may be thought ordinarily to follow that the media, in their various forms, are also entitled to communicate ‘to the whole public what that public has a right to hear and see’.10
Indeed