Emma Husar is, politically, not so much toast as she is one of those bits of the toast that get stuck in the bottom of the toaster, lingering and charring until you finally find the right pointy instrument to get them out.
In her parting, Husar fingered the famously invisible forces of faction in the Labor Party, NSW branch, which no doubt have a trophy room somewhere at Sussex Street displaying a row of decapitated heads. The media, gratified by her eventual surrender to the leaking waves of salaciousness which just kept coming, turned as it always does when it has its corpse, to discussing the story of the story; that is, to talking about itself.
There has been much analysis of whether BuzzFeed, which broke the story of the internal ALP investigation into the many allegations of misconduct against Husar and followed with further devastating leaks, did the right thing by publishing at all. There is a fair debating point of journalistic ethics in this, since the publication did root Husar royally, rendering the investigation process fairly pointless.
A separate question is whether BuzzFeed has anything to worry about, legally speaking. Will Husar sue for defamation? Her reputation has been destroyed and her political career ended, by what BuzzFeed published. If she does sue, will she win?
[Anguished social media warriors have it wrong on Husar]
The double-edged sword of defamation hangs sharply over a case like this. If Husar wanted to have a crack, she’d have some tough tactical decisions to make. When you sue for defamation, you have to identify the defamatory imputations which you say have been conveyed; not just what was said, but what it said about you.
If Husar wanted to argue that BuzzFeed’s publication of the leaked allegations conveyed to readers that she is guilty as charged, then she’d have trouble. BuzzFeed was careful to report the allegations without any editorial commentary, saying nothing about whether they were true. It also reported Husar’s denials, so far as she made any.
A more subtle approach would be to argue that the publication of the allegations, regardless of their truth, was defamatory — on the basis that readers would assume that where there’s smoke, there’s fire. That is to say, maybe she was being stitched up by her factional enemies but, as reader logic may go, surely with so much dirt being thrown there must have been a little bit of truth in there somewhere.
BuzzFeed would probably run three defences to this type of claim: it would argue that the imputations didn’t arise; alternatively, it would run a truth defence; and as the final back-up, qualified privilege for straight reporting on a matter of genuine public interest. (Don’t @ me for how inadequately I’ve just summarised the entire law of defamation. I know, ok?)
BuzzFeed would need complainants willing to come forward and back up the allegations in court, for a truth defence to stack up. For Husar, this could be a debacle, as she’d have created the opportunity for a full airing of the claims against her. BuzzFeed wouldn’t need to prove everything, just that there really was some kind of fire making all that smoke.
There’s a chance that the complainants melt away and BuzzFeed is left with the unproved allegations which it published, unable to prove them itself. In a qualified privilege fight, the field gets way more level as BuzzFeed would have to prove public interest and that it acted reasonably.
As attractive as the qualified privilege defence looks to publishers in theory, in practice the courts have made it a bit of a nightmare. Reasonableness isn’t just putting the allegations to the subject before publishing; it goes to the decision to run the story in the first place. While there is public interest in Husar’s running of her office and how she treated her staff, and definitely an interest in the public knowing that the ALP had commissioned an independent investigation, that doesn’t necessarily extend to publicising every little speck of mud that’s been thrown at her.
So, if it came to it, there might be some uncomfortable moments for BuzzFeed. Not that Husar should sue — the risks are too high for that to make sense. And I think she’d lose.
Which brings us back to the ethical question, and whether BuzzFeed should be feeling like that was a job well done. I’d ignore the journos who are proclaiming that they wouldn’t have published this stuff; they all have a dog in the race.
Personally, I think publishing was fair enough. Husar, her office and her employees are publicly funded; it is appropriate that she is held to the highest standards of professional conduct. The wrong, which made it right for BuzzFeed to expose this story when it did, was the ALP’s attempt to keep it secret. That may be appropriate in a private workplace, but not in the political office of a member of parliament. Transparency can be extremely unpleasant, but that’s the whole point.
How much more mileage are you going to get out of this Gossip?
Got it in one. Well said.
This article is weak for completely failing to mention the sexual allegations.
Regardless of opinions over reporting priorities, over whether even if true the bullying allegations are no worse than is swept under the carpet with a cavalcade of male bad boss MPs (including the likes of Rudd and Turnbull), Buzzfeed are obviously on safe ground legally and ethically with reporting the investigation and the allegations involving treatment of staff generally.
The issue here is reporting the sexual allegations, since that’s the real reputation burner and apparently rests on the word of one guy with an ax to grind. As I sad yesterday, if I called Crikey’s tipline claiming I saw Malcolm Turnbull getting a blowjob under the desk from two hookers, you wouldn’t run that without a great deal more substantiation. I think what Buzzfeed did running the sexual allegations against Husar, legally and ethically, is only a hair above that because at least the source was a former employee and not anonymous, but it’s sill dodgy as hell.
Given they were already reporting the investigation and the other allegations, adding the sexual claims to it loses a lot of the public interest lustre.
Remember from the Hockey case that the court will look at Tweets and other publicity for a story separately from the story. Fairfax went down in that case not based on the actual newspaper story but on the “Treasurer for Sale!” posters and tweets which lacked context. My view is that while Buzzfeed might say the story was careful to avoid saying Husar was guilty, they have NOT been so careful on Twitter and the socials.
Personally I think Buzzfeed’s defamation insurer will force a settlement on those allegations and they’d be stupid to fight, UNLESS they can back it up with stronger evidence of truth than presently appears to be the case.
Good points; the sex sleaze allegations are out there, denied but live thanks to Buzzfeed’s decision to publish them. I don’t know if Husar should sue but I reckon she’s entitled some compensation out of this shitfight that has destroyed her paliamentary career and her reputation. I hope she and her kids are ok.
Surely a more senior ALP MP should have had a word to her long ago, it is not plausible that her behaviour was unknown to other MP’s. ALP are playing internal political games at the expense of the taxpayer and more specifically constituents of Lyndsay.
This does not bode well as to leading the country.
The Libs are corrupt manipulators as well though, both should be accountable to the citizens firstly and only then the party otherwise they ate unfit to govern
Which behaviors should have been know to ALP MP’s?
The treatment of her staff or her habit of dressings sans undergarments?
I really do fail to see how other MP’s would have known about either.
Agree entirely.
Disagree with your comment, the complainants should have taken their concerns to the proper work place authorities, not to the ALP NSW.
This looks and smells like a factional stitch up in much the same way as the ABC730 report on Greens seemed to be. I have a problem with so called reputable journalists not sussing that out and clarifying the true issues before publishing.
To crakeka,
There’s usually an agenda lurking somewhere.
good call