I’ve been frying other fish for the last two working days, so can only now sit down to write about the Pauline Hanson photos. In the meantime, it has emerged that the photographs might not even be of her.
It has also been suggested that she leaked them.
None of that matters, really, when it comes to the ethics of the decision to buy and publish them. It was an outrageous thing to do – totally indefensible, and the various lame and self-interested attempts to justify the publication by Robyn Riley among others are nothing short of pathetic.
How is what a political candidate did in the privacy of a bedroom when she was a teenager any business of ours? No laws were broken. No hypocrisy has been exposed. There is no public interest.
But most of what can be said about the outrageousness of this publication has already been said by others. I want to draw attention to some wider, grave implications.
It is no secret that at the moment the higher courts are gagging for test cases on privacy, and the Australian Law Reform Commission report on the matter is in play. This could lead to real legal restrictions on what the media can publish. But how will the media look arguing against such restrictions when it publishes photos like this, with no good reason whatsoever other than titillation?
And what about the poor old Australian Press Council? News Limited is the biggest single provider of funds to the Council. News Limited claims to respect and be guided by its principles. Well, the Council has a fair bit to say about privacy:
1. Collection of personal information
In gathering news, journalists should seek personal information only in the public interest.
In doing so, journalists should not unduly intrude on the privacy of individuals and should show respect for the dignity and sensitivity of people encountered in the course of gathering news.
Public figures necessarily sacrifice their right to privacy, where public scrutiny is in the public interest. However, public figures do not forfeit their right to privacy altogether. Intrusion into their right to privacy must be related to their public duties or activities.
Similar sentiments are expressed in just about every ethical code applying to journalism, including News Limited’s own Code of Professional Conduct.
So will we see the Press Council admonish News Limited? I hope so, whether or not a complaint is received. If not, why not?
As for News Limited, I wonder whether CEO John Hartigan was consulted before these pictures were published, and how he feels it reflects on the Right to Know campaign that he has spearheaded. The Right to Know campaign argues against restrictions on freedom of speech. It is an admirable venture, although I won’t be the first to point out that it has concentrated on freedom more than on the responsibility that goes with it.
The fact that News Limited has published these pictures would suggest that the notion that freedom entails responsibility is not widely understood within the organisation.
I’d say that News Limited has just handed the enemies of media freedom a giant free kick. It has undermined its own campaign, its own moral standing and its own authority at a crucial time. Given that for all its faults, News Limited is one of our main defenders of press freedom, we all may live to regret this stupid, craven act of publication.
9 Comments
Another point to be raised, in MHO is the chilling accuracy of the HS’s reading of the electorate. When the President of France, Sarkozy was about to be sworn in the English media thoughtfully published a beautiful shot of a naked Mdme Sarkozy. No one in France appeared to seriously affected by this. However, in Oz, most especially the lower middle-class voters of QLD-think the target market of Kath and Kim-will be ripping their bodices with outrage. Slut would have been one of the kinder remarks.
It is a rotten, rotten thing to do, but I tend to think of the boundless misery which Pauline Hanson, in her heyday, inflicted anyone who was not a conservative voter.
I deplore the outrageous behaviour of the HS-however, look who owns it-but it couldn’t have happened to a more deserving target.
These photos, and the predictable kneejerk sympathetic reaction in Hanson’s favour, increase her chances immesuably (which is why the idea that they came from her campaign is so credible).
News Limited isn’t interested in media freedom, and far less in ethics. They’re interested in selling news. Fox in the US shows that ratings come before ethical practice as a News Limited motivator every time. A huge Pauline Hanson splash/scandal sells news. Her election would sell even more news. For Rupert’s boys this must have been a total no-brainer.
I’m convinced the media is suffering from the same drain of talented expertise we’re seeing across the entire workforce. Read, watch and hear our print and broadcasting offer and its all sub-standard and under-resourced. The communication industry has been gutted by the same practices that caused the global financial crisis – profit at all cost. Radio programs broadcast from Sydney and Melbourne offer little relevance or interaction for listeners in the ozarks. Regional television is at kindergarten standard as are most local newspapers full of advertorial. Any wonder Pauline Hanson wraps her fish and chips in News Limited and Fairfax.
The real question is, does any one care. So she had some pics taken with little on, big deal. Her politics on the other hand, they are a bit hard to take.
The irony is that the Weekend Australian included a long opinion piece by John hartigan on why no cause of action for breach of privacy was justified, mainly becase the current framework for media privacy issues works well, and the Legal Affairs Editor had an article today dismissing the ALRC report on privacy laws as outrageous. See my post at
http://foi-privacy.blogspot.com/search?q=The+Australian+resumes+war+on+a+cause+of+action+against+privacy+
For goodness sake, these pics were published by Sunday tabs. Why on earth are we acting so surprised and shocked? Of course it was a no-brainer for them. Of course it sold thousands of copies (and added millions of online page views). And of course they’ll be (temporarily) chastened if the pics turn out NOT to be Pauline. Though, I’d lay money Neil Breen will not get the sack. Why try to fit a square News Ltd peg into a round ABC hole? Margaret, you and Jonathan Holmes agree 100% on this issue, but you are both completely missing the point. News Ltd doesn’t care. And they never will. It’s just business. We can moan and whinge, and wring our hands and tear out our hair, but they still sell more papers than any other newspaper operation in the country. There’s a market for this stuff. And as long as that continues to be the case News Ltd will continue to cater to it. To borrow a political line – we get the media we deserve.
Has no one done the maths?
according to http://www.aph.gov.au/library/parl/38/mpsbyage.htm Pauline was born May 27, 1954.
It is now 2009. 1977 was 32 years ago. 1975 was 34 years ago. So according to jack the pictures were taken 32-34 years ago.
Being born in 1954, pauline is now 54 years old. (turning 55 in May) and she turned 21 in 1975 and 23 in 1977.
Why was the word teenager being used???
I’m with Bill. This appeared in the Sunday tabloids, what’s the fuss?
If News Ltd got it wrong, they should pay the consequences. If they got it right, so be it.
To be honest, I can’t bring myself to be particularly sympathetic to Hanson after seeing the storm of racism and fascist nonsense her fans unleashed in the ninteys.
The rehabilitation of Ms Hanson was the worst thing the media has done, because people need to be reminded that she is a racist, and therefore an immoral person of poor character.
So I couldnt really care if someone took a photo of her in her knickers and plastered it in the papers. Maybe she’ll finally get the hint and go the hell away before she creates any more victims for her racist banality.
Is it wrong to objectify a fascist? Who cares, fascists dont have feelings.
3 Trackbacks