For these reasons, as well as the cogency of his arguments, his critique of Hartigan’s weekend article arguing against the Australian Law Rrform Commisison’s privacy report deserves to be read.

As I commented yesterday, Hartigan’s claims that self regulation is sufficient have been undermined by his own mastheads running the so-called Pauline Hanson pictures. Timmins gives other examples as well, and points out the safeguards to protect the public interest in the ALRC report.

Certainly, Hartigan’s opening paragraph to his weekend article sounds hollow in the wake of the Hanson photographs.

“WE are all entitled to privacy. It serves no one for personal information to be exposed about our health, private financial affairs and so on. If there is no legitimate public interest in someone’s affairs, then that information should — and largely does — remain private.

Except, it seems, when sex and the possibility of circulation gains combine.

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.

Those staff who heard the announcement of change in Melbourne last Friday remember hearing the words “two weeks” and some took away from this that the changes would be implemented in that time span.

Not so, I am told. Rather, Alan Oakley, who has only just been appointed, was given two weeks to come up with a detailed plan on how a national structure for feature sections, including the sub editing, will work.

This will include where things will be done,

Implementation may take a little longer.

But in the meantime, Fairfax is about to go through an upheavel, with CEO Brian McCarthy expected to make an announcement today or tomorrow about his new management structure.

The word is that McCarthy is considering a flatter structure with a smaller number of direct reports to him. Who and what are the subjects of endless speculation, with lots of names being gossiped about as being potentially surplus to requirements.

The journos are worried that the announcement will also contain news about sections and bureaus being amalgamated, but others tell me that such lowly stuff is not necessarily on the agenda for this announcement.

Bob Gordon, editor in chief of the Gold Coast Bulletin, will step down in July.

Meanwhile, the blog that seems to have gotten the latest round of rumours running is this one. This item was published last Friday, and I made some calls. Didn’t check out then, doesn’t now either.

But, as I say, there is something going on with Alan Oakley’s new position. See Crikey.

And for the first time we have a bit of an idea as to what the Australian group is planning. In answer to an analyst’s question, Rupert says that he is in Australia at the moment, and “the local management is in the process of combining all their back offices between the states, which will take out costs.”

So what does that mean? What is back office, and what is front line operations?

Less independence, i would suggest, for the state-based metro tabloids. Perhaps less independence for the Australian, which still runs a Canberra press gallery presence separate from the News Limited “pool”.:

Rupert puts a brave face on it, but surely the local lieutenants will stop pretending that there are no cut backs in the wind? Easy to understand why they don’t want to make a song and dance of it, but it’s beginning to look a bit silly.

Here is what the News Corp. profit statement said about Australia:

The Australian newspaper group reported 18% lower second quarter operating income in local currency terms versus the second quarter of fiscal 2008 primarily due to lower classified advertising revenues resulting from declines in the employment and auto sectors and higher costs associated with pension expenses and headcount reductions. Overall advertising revenues were down 4% as compared to a year ago. Circulation revenues were in line with the second quarter of the prior year.

Headcount reductions?It has, of course, already been happening.

And what does Rupert say?

He warned that News Corp, which owns newspapers such as The Australian and The Daily Telegraph, was on the path towards “leaner operations” and “across-the-board cuts”.

No pleasure in this one, but understanding what’s happening is hardly rocket science.

The goss is that planning these cuts is being kept very tight within News Limited, in the hope of not spreading too much gloom, misery and pessimism.

For the record, while the 800 figure does not come from me (the boss dug that up), my sources are good and insistent that more redundancies at News Limited are on the way. Which should hardly come as a surprise.