If you work in the press gallery, you’ll hear regular rumours about the personal lives of politicians. Usually, they’re wrong. Often they’re circulated not by someone’s political opponents in another party but by party enemies — shit-sheets are almost invariably internal documents.
Rumours about a senior MP and one of their staffers have been circulating for some time. On Saturday, a News Corp tabloid decided, under the guise of reporting on a smear campaign against the MP, to allude, without much detail, to them. Fortunately, it received virtually no media follow-up, except obliquely, in The Australian today. Nonetheless, probably 95% of the people who now know something about the matter only do so because of the editorial decision of one outlet.
On social media, there was plenty of sniping from the Twitterati about the unwillingness of the press gallery to cover the story. There were two main arguments: prominent figures from the other party to the MP had been targeted over their personal lives in years and decades previous, so that made it somehow OK. Alternatively, the MP had, in their political activities, set a different standard for behaviour to the one they allegedly had exhibited themselves.
The first argument doesn’t pass muster. This is not a partisan issue: it is always wrong to cover the personal lives of figures except where there’s a public interest justification. The second argument depends on where you set the threshold. In this case, the threshold appears to have been set absurdly low. Merely mentioning marriage doesn’t make you a family values campaigner whose hypocrisy needs to be exposed to the public. There needs to be a compelling public interest in such exposure, and even if these specific allegations are true, this case is a very long way from satisfying that.
There is a public interest if taxpayer money is being wasted, or if an MP or anyone else is engaging in harassment — or litigation eventuates. MPs’ offices can be deeply toxic workplaces; many people have had their lives ruined by bullying and harassment by politicians; politics isn’t magically free of sexual predators and rapists. But again, there’s no suggestion that any of that applies in this case. People have workplace affairs. People meet future partners at work. None of that is anyone else’s business. Especially when most of the rest of us are pretty imperfect as well.
seems there`s 2 sets of rules in canberra, its O.K for labor party politicians to be smeared and harassed, be it marital, personal or otherwise, but as soon as its a coalition member mentioned in dispatches its some how a terrible thing, every one remembers how julia gilliard was attacked on every level, personal and family wise, the rumour mentioned in this article is widespread, if true its a blight on the integrity of the person concerned, if not then its a battle wound that is suffered the same has ones inflicted on others, if you cant stand the heat then put your own flame thrower away, remember the freedom of speech issue that is so cherished by the coalition, but only if its their freedom of speech and not others.
Fair enough Bernard. I do not read News Corp papers so do not know what is being written but I do know about the Twitter allegations.
However I am not sure why this does not come under the header of Tips and Rumours since that is what it is about – a rumour.
Thus spoke the gatekeeper.
Your first point is spot on. Your second point – well, the MP you’re talking about is a senior member of a government that instituted a postal survey for the general public to provide commentary on the legitimacy of other people’s relationships.
You’re absolutely right – the bar is low, exactly where this MP and his mates set it. Bluntly, if you can’t take a joke, don’t be one.
I’m inclined to agree with Sean’s post. In this MP’s case the bar is very low. You can’t comment on marriage, be seen to hold it in such low regard and then expect no criticism.
It would be good if the media and MPs themselves could observe the same standard when it comes to members of the public. After the ugly campaign against Duncan Storrar who dared to ask a question on Q&A and Alan Tudge releasing personal details to the Canberra Times (which it chose to publish) about a woman who criticized the robo-debt affair, also their decision to record everyone’s metadata, I’m not sure I care much about MPs right to personal privacy until they show some respect for mine.
Agreed, Kelly. Especially when you add to it a government that spies on all of our telecommunications activity, stores lifetime dossiers of information about us, and is about to implement a facial recognition system that can track our whereabouts 24 hours a day, 365 days a year.
What is it they always tell us in regard to these matters? If we’ve done nothing wrong, we should have nothing to hide?
Well, sauce for the goose; sauce for the gander.
I agree . Bernard’s fine words would be worth more if other reporters treated the public with as much deference as they do MPs
Kelly makes valid points. These parliamentary goons who are legislating to deprive us of privacy don’t seem to realise the system can (& will) be used against them.
If News Corpse chooses to expose them, fair enough. In Oz we realise the tall poppy will always wear a target. If the reporting is unfounded the MPs can sue for damages. Bob Hawke made this into an art form.