There is one annoying word that rears its head almost every time the debate about the sanctity of the private lives of politicians cranks up. Hypocrisy.
Like so many high-profile political leaders, Mike Rann has been perfectly happy to exploit his private life when it suited him.
Wedding pictures, family interviews, sporting scenes, intellectual pursuits, off to church, Womens Weekly covers: this is stuff of human interest that most politicians feed relentlessly and manipulatively to the media whenever it suits their political positioning requirements.
Yet the moment there is even a hint of that other private human pursuit — sex — politicians and their boosters instantly flip the propaganda switch and demand silence in the name of privacy.
Which is not to argue a case for unlimited or unregulated intrusion into the private lives of public figures, but to make the case for proportionality and public accountability.
Under the rules of engagement for responsible media coverage, public officials’ private lives should be off limits unless:
- There is a clear or implied conflict between public and private actions or statements.
- There could be abuse of office, power or public resources.
- Private behaviour could raise the risk of blackmail.
- A politician has lied or misled to protect the consequences of his or her private behaviour.
Beyond those ground rules, there is arguably another less precise but equally important operating principle: politicians in positions of higher leadership — prime ministers, premiers and cabinet ministers — should be held to higher levels of personal behaviour than other public officials.
Why? Because they are leaders, and character and integrity counts in leadership. And because higher-echelon leaders have access to more power and public resources, and should therefore be subjected to greater scrutiny.
Politicians are entitled to private lives. But when they enter public life they give up, by definition, some of their privacy and, in many cases, compromise their right to a total wall of privacy when they selectively display aspects of their private lives to boost their image.
None of which is to defend or justify the gross behaviour of certain media who invade privacy as routine practice on the basis that the worst possible penalty is that it may cost them a legal settlement long after the damage has been done.
And of course Rann’s decison to sue for defamation to try to demonstrate his honesty makes it a public matter. Conveniently there is unlikely to be any pleadings or evidence published until after the election.
Wait… so if I were to tell any part of my life story to the media for some kind of promotional reason, that means I have instantly surrended any rights to any kind of privacy?
What a load of bollocks.
By the way, would you point me to the story where Rann “demands silence in the name of privacy”? I can’t seem to find it. Thanks.
So great to see Crikey jumping onto the latest tabloid beat-up.
I am interested to know why ‘Crikey’ continues this non event, media beat up?
Obviously not satisfied with yesterdays pathetic contibution from Stephen Mayne, which was roundly criticised by the vast majority of bloggers, we are now graced by the words of Eric Beecher who obviously enjoys a drop of the good ole backyard fence gossip and adds absolutely sweet fanny adams to this rediculous debate. The woman is a gold digger, nothing is more obvious, her ex is in on the game, also obvious, 7 and New Idea are interested in the commercial value (profit). It is hypocritical of Mr Beecher to continue the nonsense and conclude his remarks with…”None of which is to defend or justify the gross behaviour of certain media who invade privacy as routine practice on the basis that the worst possible penalty is that it may cost them a legal settlement long after the damage has been done”.
What is Crikey doing by continuing the gossip? Exactly what Mr Beecher declares
as the gross behaviour of certain media who invade privacy as routine…pray tell me how his article differs. Crikey often takes other media to task for being trivial, off the mark, boring. This is a perfect example of the pot calling the kettle….
Its time to show some professionalism and drop this rubbish
I second Raymondchurch’s comments – enough of this tawdfest
I’m not interested in Rann’s sex life – I don’t believe that he should tell me either, before or after the event. I don’t believe mine is any of his concern either! If you want to really do the moralising nonsense, why not ask the woman concerned why she had an affair when she was married; why did she wait nearly 5 yrs to ‘go public’, and why did she accept a lot of money(I’ve heard $200,000?) if she was just outraged by his ‘immoral’ use of her. There’s no hint of abuse, so what is your problem Eric? He would’ve taken a big risk by engaging in sexual activity, both in the parliament and his office? As he says, it’s like Central Station(Sydney) in his office?
What if all journalists and TV presenters(particularly the crap that Channel 7 and others can put out – Today Tonight is a good example?)had their lives scrutinized? What skeletons are in your closet? Have you always behaved with decency and responsibility in your own sexual encounters? How about your colleagues? Do a job on them shall I? Truly! Are your hackles rising due to my questions? Ready to say, ‘none of your damned business’? Good – now you know what I’m talking about. Keep this up, and I’ll expect a full description of your sexual history, so I can assess whether you’re a fit and proper person for me to read your articles!!!!
Tomorrow is White Ribbon Day. How about writing an article about that, urging other men to ‘take the pledge’ and Swear on the WRD website. Now, that is a positive thing to do!
Strange how the next SA election is only a few months away? Funny how the agrieved husband only turned up a few weeks ago, to defend his honour or hers or, by allegedly assaulting the SA Premier – what took him so long to feel angry – just found out? I don’t think so???Then she goes public! How convenient!
I’m always on the side of women when I believe that the media is using double standards, pre-conceived stereotypes re sexual abuse, DV and the ‘ownership’ of girls and women, but this is just so blatantly a witch hunt, that I’m surprised that the media took the bait. I hope Ch 7 and New Idea get the ‘s**t’ kicked out of them in court.
I’m not even a resident of SA; I just have a low opinion of cheap so-called journalists, who’ll use absolute crap to sell papers, magazines and go for ratings on TV, or on Crikey.
Anyone who’s in favour of furthering this witch hunt, should automatically have their closets inspected, and those of their family members! Damned ridiculous!
I’m not interested in politicians sex lives, of either sex, unless it interferes with their paid job, or they use taxpayers money for their personal and social lives !