ABC reporter Leigh Sales is rethinking staying away from politicians’ personal lives following revelations of sexual violence in Parliament.
Speaking to the Sydney Media Club on Wednesday, Sales said she had been doing a lot of “soul-searching” on the issue in recent weeks: “Have I been educated in, and almost brainwashed, into a system that has protected powerful men at the expense of women … like their wives, or their staffers?”
It begs the question: in a post-Me Too era, when politicians’ poor behaviour — especially to young female staffers — is being called out more and more, what right to privacy do politicians have?
Who benefits from a curated private life?
It’s now routine for politicians to put their private lives on display to appeal to voters — but they do it on their own terms, posting carefully curated images on social media.
Catharine Lumby, a professor in media and ethics at Sydney University, says this has led to an expectation of greater transparency.
“People have a right to their private lives, but we now live in a society where the private and the public are very blurred,” she told Crikey. “[Now] when people vote they expect to know more about who they’re voting for as a human.”
Blair Williams, a research fellow at the Australian National University’s Global Institute for Women’s Leadership, points out there’s also an important gender split here. While the prime minister wheeling his wife and children into the spotlight has led to a positive “daggy dad” persona, women’s choices are often scrutinised.
“Male politicians use their families to be more relatable to the electorate to help their image,” Williams said.
“Media coverage on women politicians’ private lives often opens up judgement to their choices and their relationships — whether they don’t have children and therefore can’t relate to their electorate, or whether they should be at home with the kids.”
What’s in the public interest?
If we’re only presented with one side of a politician’s life, is it up to journalists to do some digging to see what’s hidden behind the scenes?
Sexist comments that Attorney-General Christian Porter allegedly made throughout his schooling and early career have repeatedly been brought into the spotlight. And Williams argues that this sort of coverage, while encroaching on the personal sphere, is important to highlight.
“A lot more focus is being put on to comments these politicians have made throughout their lives because it does indicate either how they felt or hopefully how they’ve changed. It’s important for people to know that,” she said.
“It’s important to try to have a gender-equal parliament and a parliament that represents all Australians. How can you have that when there are politicians that have expressed racist or homophobic or misogynistic views?”
Lumby said while she didn’t think affairs between two consenting adults needed to be made public, a pattern of politicians dating younger staffers did.
“That’s in the public interest [because] it’s a form of sexual harassment,” she said.
Even if the staffer is consenting, the thinking goes, the power balance between the pair throws that off.
“That’s where it gets difficult because there can be relationships where there’s an age gap and where it genuinely is consensual, but that’s very different to a man who hits on young women to whom he has a duty of care.”
What does all this mean for Sales’ journalistic dilemma? Perhaps that journalists should keep tabs on politicians’ personal lives — but not necessarily report on them unless there is an obvious power imbalance or patterns of inappropriate behaviour.
Of course, these days, journalists like Sales aren’t the only gatekeepers. Lumby said social media not only blurred the line between private and public but also helped women in calling out unacceptable behaviour.
“In the past, women told their stories in single file to each other, to friends and family, to counsellors and sometimes the police and the courts,” she said.
“Social media has allowed women to find a collective voice.”
How can you stand by and allow someone who lives a life to standards that are at odds to the one they project to win votes to gain power to govern – in affect “obtaining a commodity/advantage under false pretenses” – knowing that deceit to be that case?
Is it any more than complicity?
We vote for politicians that most reflect our priorities and values.
Campaigning on family values : when the reality is “Family Values BF’d”?
We pay these people to govern – not to be well-paid, professional hypocrites.
We pay for journalism that keeps us (voters) informed – not to play favourites, aiding and abetting such politics of deception.
Exactly, if politicians are lying about their values, morals and integrity, it’s of public interest.
What is apparently going on in the political circles is deemed unacceptable and has consequences in most other work places. Some of the alleged behaviour is downright criminal. So of course we have a right to know!
Also, politicians have forfeit their right to privacy the minute they started using their families, religious believes and supposed conscientious objections to various causes as political props and tools to impose on the nation not what’s in the best interest of the country but what’s best for them.
I really don’t care what people do in the privacy of their home (presuming it’s nothing illegal). But if you trot out your religion and morals to justify your unjust and cruel policies you bet I want to know if you walk the walk.
If you use your ‘values’ to crucify others I want to know if you walk the walk.
If you misuse your position of power for your personal benefit or to destroy lives – you bet I want to know!
While not entirely against Jack Robertson’s heartfelt take on this, I tend to lean to your side Agatek. It’s when they parade their families and or their morals and then totally don’t walk the walk, I think the hypocrisy is what needs to be drilled down into.
The media generally, particularly from one proprietor, has been a den of ne’er do wells and misanthropes from way back. Also remains one of the most nepotistic of professions, although nothing like the days of yore.
Consider this, if the Attorney General submitted himself to assessment by a retired Justice as to whether he was a fit and proper person to inhabit the position of Attorney General, first law officer of Australia, most of the talk regarding all the questions regarding him would die down.
He instead chose to go down the “defamation action in the federal court” path, knowing that both the law and the court are advantageous to him.
The reforms to the defamation act are just one of another of legal reforms stalled upon his desk.
As he made this choice then Christian Porter needs to step down and take his appointed, not elected assistant minister Amanda Stoker with him until the defamation action is concluded.
This Attorney General has used our money to conduct a vexatious litigation against Witness K and Bernard Colleary. His misuse of his power has resulted in his behaviours being criticized by 3 federal court judges.
Christian Porter has made a travesty of the convention of the Commonwealth being a model litigant in a number of matters which includes RoboDebt.
There is a question hanging over his fitness for the position which has nothing to do with a historical rape allegation.
Everything from start to finish, including this law suit is part of a plan to save Porter’s a**e and his career. All that bs about the rule of law and presumption of innocence. Out of sudden, when it’s one of them they remember the law. The law that Porter has always been happy to stretch to the point of break when it suited him and when other lives, reputations and careers were at stake. Because, you see, in the universe these people inhabit others don’t matter.
But I guess, Porter’s luck is running out – note that our dear leader is consulting about Porter now.
I omitted to mention that at the start and Porter in his arrogance has clearly failed to realise that Morrison’s a**e comes before everything else. And if Morrison thinks that sacrificing Porter will save his own proverbial he will do it.
100%.
Any number of, but not all, parliamentarians and political wannabes use family members in imagery and public gatherings as stage props to burnish their political careers. Those parliamentarians and wannabes who do, are using, and possibly abusing, the rights of those family members for personal and party political gain.
As Grace Tame indicated in her National Press Club appearance having a spouse, a partner or children does not, of itself, confer any particular knowledge or application of values such as ethics, morality, respect, family or honour etc.
What the stage prop use does reveal are the “anything-it-takes” and “damn-the-consquences-for-anyone-else” values that pervade politics. The behaviour, comments and inaction of some of our parliamentarians illustrates their inability to recognise, to own and to deal with their character deficiencies. Of course, for a number politicians, those deficiencies are celebrated in the company of fellow travellers behind closed doors as their strength and guiding principles.
The parliament, the country and its inhabitants deserve better.
BUT WAIT – THE PM SPEAKS TO THE NATION 23March 2021
A comprehensive weather report and a full run down on flood emergencies followed by a prayers and thoughts moment.
After that, the vintage Scotty from Marketing really strutted his stuff – the only thing he knows how to do even if it is inappropriate. What happens in Parliament House only mirrors what is happening outside, for which we are all to blame and therefore all complicit in – we all must do more. Expressions of shock, a reference to shameful events, a quavering voice for a minute, not responsible for events that happened prior his stint as PM when he was senior Cabinet Minister, (no mention of additional knowledge or responsibility for what has occurred in Parliament or in Government under his watch as PM), regurgitation of the political fixes already in, a shot at the media for asking for more information on important questions – the answers to which were already crystal clear in Scotty’s imagination, a shot at an attending media reporter for an alleged sexual offence presumably committed by someone else in the reporter’s organisation. Scotty had been given a briefing on that one immediately but still maintained he was only recently made aware of the Brittany Higgins alleged attack months ago and just down the corridor.
He had not been informed of a delay in the delivery of a report with an open ended timeframe by his former Head of Staff Mr Phil Gaetjens. He was just told the report process was on ice, so to speak – no inference that this might delay the report delivery and no inference taken by the PM. I am not sure what to make of this revelation beyond the obvious assumption that Mr Gaetjens had not spoken to anyone else in the PMO who could devine possible consequences from the “icing” and inform the PM’s lack of curiosity and blissful ignorance.
I am certain I have omitted other highlights from the presser but I was struck repeatedly with sensory overload interspersed with alternating fits of wry amusement, despair, disbelief and sadness – not for Scotty as he is an insensitive soul, but for our country. I was also thinking that Scotty needs to fall on his political sword, but to what end? His fellow Cabinet Ministers continue to defend the indefensible, including Scotty, so just more of the same from anyone in that group.
As Jefferson said 240 yrs ago – “When a man assumes a public trust he should consider himself a public property”
It applied then – it applies now!