The loathsome part of politics

From the very first day after I’d finished my term in the Senate in July 2008 – in fact for many weeks before I’d even formally finished – there would be no question I have been asked more frequently that the one about whether I miss being in politics and whether I’m enjoying being out of it.  Even months after having announced I was getting formally involved with electoral politics once again by joining the Greens and contesting the House of Representatives seat of Brisbane, I am still being asked whether I’m enjoying being out of politics and whether I miss it.

Regardless of the context or the precise question, I can always honestly answer that there are some aspects of being out of parliament that I enjoy, some parts of it that I miss, and some aspects of politics that I loath and detest.

One part of politics I dislike is the pathetic standard of some political ‘debate’, which I was reminded of again by this story of some pathetic parliamentary taunting being directed at NSW Nationals MP Adrian Piccoli.  Even though it is only occasionally reported on, this sort of juvenile rubbish occurs on virtually every sitting day of Parliament.  I don’t pretend to be a saint on this – there are a few MPs I find it hard to muster much respect for, (which only seems fair, as they have done so much to earn my contempt) – but while robust debate is fine with me, juvenile name calling,  especially in the parliamentary chamber, is pathetic.

But a far more loathsome aspect of politics is the lynch-mob mentality which arises from time to time when some in the media decide to go after a politician’s private life.  I accept public figures bear greater responsibility, and there can be cases where it can be hard to decide what crosses the line between private life and public interest.

Regardless of where you might feel that sometimes very fine line should be drawn, it certainly isn’t anywhere near the completely gratuitous media stalking – by a so-called ‘political reporter’ from Channel 7 – and outing of NSW politician and now former Transport Minister David Campbell for visiting a sauna for gay men in Sydney.  There is no suggestion at all that the Minister did anything illegal and, as far as I know, he hasn’t made a point of campaigning on ‘family values’ or engaging in the sort of gay bashing rhetoric which clearly makes it justified to reveal the rampant hypocrisy of destructive hatemongers like George Rekers.

Writing about the Campbell saga in the Sydney Morning Herald, Andrew Stephenson said

“the chapter of Australian history in which politicians’ private lives were their own to live – secure in the knowledge no journalist would report their nocturnal behaviour – ended long ago.”

Whilst he’s certainly right that all politicians know that these days they could never be completely secure in such knowledge, I didn’t realise it was quite so cut and dried that politicians’ private lives are now no longer their own to live. There are still plenty of aspects to the private lives of many politicians that journalists know about – or strongly suspect – but choose not to reveal or even to verify.

According to Andrew Crook, writing in Crikey, Mr Campbell’s “private life had been an open secret in state government and media circles for years”.  If this is the case – and I have no reason to doubt it- then clearly the media collectively chose for quite some time to let Mr Campbell’s private life be his own and not report on his “nocturnal behaviour”.

The trouble isn’t so much that politicians must now accept all bets are off when it comes to public reporting of private matters.  Rather it is that the vague conventions as to what determines something is off limits or not are constantly shifting, and it’s the media – or each individual media outlet – which decides where the line is drawn on any given matter on any given day.

In an era of YouTube, instant Twittering and the like, where every phone is a camera, voice and video recorder, all of us have to accept that privacy isn’t what it used to be, and the more of a public figure you are, the more you have to lose if you just happen to be one of the unlucky ones who end up in the glare of a public spotlight.  But that doesn’t make it any more justified for the mainstream media to be joining the fray as peddlers of tabloid trash and perpetrators of prurient and egregious breaches of privacy.

As Jonathan Green has written at The Drum

A line has been crossed here. Is it now fair game for TV news crews to stalk politicians in the hope of catching the MP concerned engaging in entirely legal, though undoubtedly embarrassing, activity? Where might this end?

He also says that

This is one of those moments when it seems the media mistakes public interest for public amusement. They are not the same.  The risk is that politicians, fearful and badgered, might legislate to protect one and diminish our democratic right to the effective, responsible reporting of the other. That would be a true scandal.

For a variety of reasons, I don’t think it’s very likely we’ll see that sort of legislation appear in response to this – although each instance such as this certainly weakens the credibility of media campaigns about the importance of free speech and the public’s “right to know”.

I think a more likely consequence of this episode will be even fewer people wanting to get involved in politics, or indeed other forms of public life, deciding that the potential negatives outweigh the possible positives.  And that would be a great shame.

I know it’s too much to ask – not least because despite any high minded rhetoric, most of us in the community usually prefer gossip and scandal to debates about public policy, so we can hardly be surprised that this is what the media often feeds us – but it would still be nice if the media, or surely at least the political reporter, could keep the spotlight on the significant issues which directly affect peoples’ daily lives and futures, rather than getting diverted into gutter trawling gossip.

UPDATE: Video a brief media conference given by David Campbell today at this link.

Please like & share:

12 Comments

  1. Journos can dish it out but are weasels when confronted by the truth about themselves -John Safran’s attempt to speak with ray martin comes to mind.

    and how about a story on pets and female newsreaders.

    the ch7 reporter should be condemned by his colleagues as now the gloves can come off and their peccadilloes can be highlighted.

    I hope pollies use “coward’s castle” to rip into the shock jocks who foment so much hatred and discord in our society

  2. Couldn’t agree more Barts. Whilst some aspects of a politicians personal are often on display, there are some that there is simply no excuse for intruding upon. This goes for anyone, in the public eye or not. I could not care less whether a pollie attended a gay sauna or an all you can eat bovine domination bar. As long as it is legal and morally defendable – go at it champ as hard as you like. In stark contrast to this, I do believe that those who are happy to sit on the sidelines on their perceived higher moral ground should be examined in detail – and this includes all journalists.

  3. Well, tabloid telly; ACA and TDT in particular, have been exposed and shamed weekly on Media Watch for two decades now. Yet nothing changes.
    The question is, how do you get rid of this junk without intruding on democracy or dragging broadsheet press and media, which IS needed, from being interfered with also, whilst the latter are about their legitimate investigative journalistic tasks?

  4. Could not help but feel when Philip Adams was chatting to Micheal Kirby(before the story) broke that something was in the wind. The article here http://www.abc.net.au/rn/latenightlive/stories/2010/2903954.htm
    they were talking about amongst other things sexuality, gay sex and coming out and public duty. Maybe it is a coincidence maybe not. Hours later the story broke. One wonders if it had been in a heterosexual sauna whether anything would ave come of it or whether it is another media manipulation of the political landscape Krine Kinneally having done so well to lift the stakes of the ALP in NSW in the last few month’s…

  5. Well said, Andrew. There’s another issue here, though, which I think needs discussion. The “journalist” in this case is a former Labor staffer with, it’s been reported, an axe to grind. People travel back and forth between the media and politics, to the extent that as media consumers and citizens, we can’t be sure whose agendas are being served in the reporting of even simple political stories. It often seemslike a closed world, where the “public interest” is the last thing that might intrude. In NSW, the failure and apparent corruption of the government get a lot of attention from a media whose personnel have often had a hand in governing. Perhaps we need to take a much broader view of institutional corruption, and think about the media as well.

  6. I understand the sentiment, but I am not sure that I can agree with what is above.Mr Campbell was doing something Morally objectionable, but legal. He was cheating on his wife by going to a strip joint. He is in a relationship, he is being unfaithful to that relationship. The sexual boundaries is irrelivant. Look at the precident with John Della Bosca, if he can be outed for having a Hetrosexual affair with his intern. Why can’t David be outed for having a homosexual voyuarism experience?

    Now highlighting the precedent, one must ask is it a good one? People have made the point of “anti gay” activists being outed and that this serves the public good by exposing their hypocracy. What I will contend is that modern politics is not a debate about policy or party positions.

    Modern politics has become this poor soap opera, where David Campbell’s family features as a key component of his campaign. Anna Bligh is on Mastercheif trying again to show how nice a person she is. The portrayl is a nice rose coloured world where these rose coloured people will look after us. Is it that unwarranted for the world to be shattered?

  7. Don’t care about his sex life. I don’t know whether or not his wife knew and in either case it is none of my business, none of yours.

    If Della Bosca had an affair with his emloyee it is an industrial relations issue, not a private one. There is a power imbalance there that makes such relationships, if true, very suspect.

    Torturing people? Not a good look. Defrauding them? Not a good look. Bullying them (as in the ohter case Andre cited) .. really nauseating stuff.

    But having sex with someone .. *yawn*

  8. Yes, if the media want to do some muck raking, let them do it in a pigsty.

    Otherwise they should expect that the rest of the world will start turning their own private lives upside down and inside out for everyone to observe and publicly comment upon.

  9. I really think decent men in the parliament (if any) should have shafted this guy out of the portals of government themselves. Perhaps they went to the media because this scumbag would not budge.

    But the person I feel most sorry for is his wife. How would other women feel if their husbands returned from visiting a male prostitute, and then had sex with them?

Comments are closed.