In Sunday’s Herald Sun, columnist Robyn Riley wrote of how “heartbreaking” it must be for the family of murdered Melbourne man Herman Rockefeller “…to so publicly have the details of his death aired, discussed and dissected.”

But Riley’s concern didn’t seem particularly authentic in a paper that has continued to run hard on the story, despite the accused being securely locked away pending trial.

Just two days earlier, with no further developments in the case, Anthony Dowsley’s piece used an old standby of the scandal-monger, telling readers “it can be revealed that” Rockefeller’s body had been “dismembered with a $99 chainsaw”.

As well as reporting gratuitous grisly details, the paper also moralised, clicking its tongue about Rockefeller having put “his lust for a secretive, s-xual liaison” ahead of his family.

Nor did it help Riley’s credibility that, having first wrung her hands over the “horrifying” public exposure of the family, she herself provided information that no one could argue was in the public interest. This time it was about the Rockefeller children — their ages, schools, school years and personalities.

Online, Riley’s piece was accompanied by links to “Related Coverage” which show that the Herald Sun and its News Ltd stable-mates were themselves responsible for the more lurid headlines:

  • “Chainsaw used on swinger Rockefeller”
  • “Tycoon died after s-x party girl fight”
  • “Rockefeller was a secret swinger”

rockefeller1

Around one-third of those who left online comments on Riley’s piece raised concerns about the effects of this further publicity on the Rockefeller children, and several pointed to the article’s inherent hypocrisy.

Just under Riley’s masthead on page 23 of the paper — directly above her Rockefeller lament — was an invitation to “Join Robyn’s live blog today from 11am”. When I visited the blog at about 11:10am, I found myself in the midst of a particularly lame and repetitive discussion about Kyle Sandilands, the subject of a shorter and less prominent piece on Riley’s page.

rockefeller2

Clearly other readers wanted to raise some of the same questions I had about the Rockefeller piece. At 11:17, a comment appeared from “Barry”:

Robyn, I’d like to discuss your article on the Rockefeller family… I put it to you more column inches from your own newspaper went into coverage of the ‘swinger Rockefeller’ than coverage given when Mr Rockefeller was missing, presumed dead.

Riley’s reply was blunt:

Barry, topic today is Kyle.

At 11:20, “Guest” said:

I thought topic was Rockefeller, that’s what it says.

When perhaps a dozen other chatters also pointed out that the live blog window was in the middle of the Rockefeller story, and that’s what they had come to discuss, Riley’s response was again curt: “We are sticking to the topic”. She then apologised for the “confusion” and said she would “get (the) website fixed”. No mention of the printed newspaper.

At 11:30, Riley denied that she was unwilling to discuss the Rockefeller story: “Not unwilling, just sticking to the topic flagged at the start of this blog”. But the Sandilands discussion was itself flagging.

As others reiterated that Sandilands was not a topic of interest and they had come to discuss Rockefeller, Riley essentially disappeared for 15 minutes, responding only glibly to off-topic comments about football and web designers, before eventually pronouncing the “mistake” fixed and trying to re-start the chat about Kyle.

Right up to noon, disgruntled chatters continued to complain about having their time wasted. But Riley maintained her bizarre behaviour. She took time to tell a few who wanted to discuss Rockefeller to “give her a break” but otherwise completely stonewalled and refused to engage with the Rockefeller topic in any way.

In previous weeks, Riley’s live blog has been promoted with lines like “Discuss the topics that matter to you” and “Tell me what’s on your mind”. This week, people told Riley what mattered to them and what was on their minds, and she apparently wouldn’t hear of it.

If we take her at her word that she was “not unwilling”, then why wouldn’t Riley discuss Rockefeller? Was this the personal response of a usually fearless, opinionated columnist? Or was it the result of some editorial or management directive?

Stephen Downes is the Principal of QBrand Consulting: brand strategy, marketing strategy and customer research.