Dig a little deeper, pry a little further

by Jenna Hancock

Dreamy aspirations of journalism often include the romantic lenses of honesty, truth and fairness. What goes to broadcast or print serves the purpose of the public’s interest and ultimately disperses fact into the clear skies of news telling. Well it appears the clouds are gathering over journalism professionals as they are constantly questioning their role as the fourth estate. It seems their job investigating people and events is being turned on its head as the new form of peeping toms and literary paparazzi are being lowered from their pedestals from some the writers within the profession itself. 

Journalists are paid to break the news and dig up the stories with the juiciest dirt. But what is the result when private matters become the latest headline and people are becoming the latest victims of tabloid journalism? The result is the disappointing reality that not all writing is done with a fair and honest hand.

The plight of personal privacy in Australia’s media is gradually fading to an extinct value as more publications and news bureaus turn to celebrity gossip and news that sees what personal information lies underneath the surface of a known face. The likes of celebrity model Lara Bingle are continually seen splashed across the front pages of women’s magazines joined by a banner of private issues being made public. Earlier in the year Bingle announced she would be suing a former boyfriend for a breach of privacy over a leaked nude photograph. Sadly because of her reputation at the time there was little support shown for her fight for personal privacy. Jessica Lake, doctoral student of Melbourne University and writer for the Sydney Morning Herald wrote that the privacy elements breached by the published photo of Bingle held no concern for the viewing public, saying that there was “even less appreciation of the legal and ethical issues involved.”

For Karen Brook, Associate Professor of Media Studies at Southern Cross University, her work and research on cultural media studies has lead her to believe that privacy is often abandoned by journalists and the media and the reason is so that audiences are made to feel they have to know personal information. “I think it’s because of the way it’s been packaged. Not only is it presented as ‘news’ infotainment and there as something we ‘need’ to know about, but because in our very pop culture focussed world, it gives the informed social currency,” she says. The writers of such news are aware of reader’s and viewer’s demands to be met with the latest gossip and Brook thinks this has made our journalists slow on the job but quick to inform the celebrity culture we have adopted. “It’s a distracted time and the culture we create, but I think to a degree it is also quick, convenient and frankly, lazy journalism,” Brook says.

Politics and privacy are constantly thrown into the media blender as policy making figures are attracting the same attention as celebrities in the same style of reporting. In May 2010, the personal life of New South Wales Transport Minister David Campbell came under the scrutiny of the Australian public as Channel Seven destroyed his career and reputation with mere seconds of low quality night time footage. The vision captured Mr Campbell leaving a gay sex club in a ministerial car. The story revealed itself to be the secret of a family man who lived dual lives for decades. The story resulted in the resignation of Mr Campbell and saw him red faced, ashamed and sorry for his personal battles. Channel Seven swept the story under the ‘in the public’s interest’ rug and claimed Mr Campbell had been lying to electorate by campaigning as a family man. The story was met with criticism from some writers and journalists within the industry itself, some who even doubt whether they could write such a story themselves. Sydney Morning Herald sub editor, James Polson looks at the case of Mr Campbell and hopes he is never faced with that decision. “I’d like to be high and mighty and say I absolutely wouldn’t, and I don’t think I would, but until I’m in such a situation myself it’s hard to say. There might be pressures from above to run it, which is something you can’t really control,” he says.

Miranda Devine, known columnist for The Daily Telegraph and formerly of The Sydney Morning Herald condemned Channel Seven for the salacious story in article entitled A family man beyond our Ken. Devine’s article argued that the media’s disgusting display of personal information held surprisingly modest reactions from the Australian public. “Reactions quickly morphing from surprise and mirth to distaste for media prurience and sympathy for the round, red-faced walrus-moustached NSW Minister for Transport,” she wrote.

Sympathy for David Campbell is a sure sign that the media got it wrong. Channel Seven sent journalists Adam Walters on the trail for a story that should never been broadcast due to its reliance on private information that pertained to Mr Campbell’s sexuality. When asked if Mr Campbell was treated unfairly, Karen Brooks didn’t pause to answer. “Absolutely and unequivocally. His sexuality or sexual choices did not impact upon his work performance. It was salacious and unethical reporting at its worst,” she says pointedly.

However some writers in the profession do understand from a media perspective why the story was given a go ahead. Port Macquarie Prime journalist Clementine Johnson can see why the story seemed so appealing to an audience of Australian voters and taxpayers. “He is accountable to the public and therefore his private life is of public interest, if it is going to jeopardise his ability to conduct his work, or represent a group of people,” she says. Johnson believes that it the ability of a good and honest reporter to sum up the information present and then make a conscious choice as to its newsworthiness and if it fulfils the criteria of serving the public’s interest. If given the choice to tell the same story, Johnson says she would make sure all the boxes are ticked before she went ahead. “I would first make sure I have all my facts and fully understand the context to which he was involved. Then I would use my news judgement to work out whether his actions compromise his work ethic or reflects badly on the people he represents,” she says. However Johnson does conceive that some private issues should not be revealed if they do not fulfil the public’s interest. “I do think private matters which are not of public significance, should have their privacy respected,” she says. Many stories, similar to the Mr Campbell’s however escape these moral plights and become public knowledge warranted or not.

The footage showed Mr Campbell leaving a gay sex club and using his ministerial car to do so. It was simply a captured private moment outside of his duties as a state minister. Channel Seven news chief, Peter Meakin played up the use of the ministerial car and this became the news channel’s argument for allowing the story to go to air. Meakin maintained that the purpose of the story was not to make news of his sexual choices but to demonstrate Campbell’s lack of commitment to his portfolio, suggesting he used his ministry appointed car inappropriately (a theory which was later debunked) and to defraud the Minister’s claim that he was a family man. In her article, Miranda Devine wrapped up her column on the former Minister for Transport by arguing that Mr Campbell was wrongly persecuted by the media and the sum of his personal life cannot be captured by the story shown by Seven news. “Campbell’s identity is not encapsulated in a two hour session at Ken’s of Kensington on Tuesday night. He is still a family man,” she concluded.  

These distasteful parts of journalism, some say are all apart of doing the job and stepping up in the newsroom hierarchy. It’s about dissecting the information, and if it’s private or sensitive you either follow your gut or follow your chief of staff.  Pressures from news boss are something never far from the journalist’s mind. Sydney Morning Herald sub editor, James Polson looks at the case of Mr Campbell and hopes he is never faced with that decision. “I’d like to be high and mighty and say I absolutely wouldn’t, and I don’t think I would, but until I’m in such a situation myself it’s hard to say. There might be pressures from above to run it, which is something you can’t really control,” he says. If personal is what the boss wants, then that’s what the boss expects.

Michael Morrissey, former reporter of the Maitland Mercury cum lawyer says politicians have to be prepared for the journalists who go a bit further to get a story about their personal life. “Politicians again, you get lots of backroom info when you know people but all aspects of their personal lives, including sordid pasts and affairs, and you again need to weigh up the public utility. Part of getting that info and holding it close to your chest builds the trust that allows you to do real stories or real issues,” Morrissey explains. When working for the Maitland Mercury, Morrissey recalls writing ‘naming and shaming’ stories. “I’ve only ever done a couple but I dislike then, Where someone has done something inappropriate but not illegal,” he explains. When asked if he would write about Mr Campbell’s personal life in the same manner as the Channel Seven’s Adam Walters the answer was quite simply no due to the personal nature of the information. “No. At least not in that circumstance. There was absolutely no utility to the outing. It didn’t achieve anything except shame a man and his family,” he says shaking his head. The former journalist says privacy is something we all want but not something we all enjoy, depending on who we are and what we’ve done. “Privacy is absolutely an inherent value that should only be compromised to the extent that a person chooses to compromise by their own actions. But it is a value and a not a right and so much harder to enforce,” he says.

Privacy is an idyllic value many citizens and media professions need to regard with more importance. The loss of privacy often deals a heavy blower to the loser, resulting in public shame and a fall in grace. As reporters we place our morals and journalism codes in one hand and in the other we hold the private information that can turn an individual’s world upside down. As journalists we strive to be fair, honest and write with integrity but when a sensational story with all the exclusive details come along, some journalists and chief of staff find it hard to resist making the headlines. The journalists spoken to for this article all agreed on one thing, privacy is an essential lesson that the media need to be reminded of.

  

Although he no longer writes professionally, Morrissey is still an avid supporter of the role of the journalist but thinks privacy needs to be more clearly defined. “I think privacy is still a solid aspect of journalism in principal. It’s just the lines between what’s private and what it public are being continually blurred. Drawing the line is harder than it ever used to be, but that doesn’t mean to say it can’t be and I think it is a contingent of the fourth estate to do so,” Morrissey says.

David Campbell’s private sex life became public knowledge under a thinly veiled excuse of public knowledge. His job as a state minister was in no way compromised as he visited Ken’s at Kensington or lied to his family; those are private matters that bore no effect on his state responsibilities. Public figures should not be subject to the desperate headlines of the media. In a speech made to the Centre for Advanced Journalism in August of this year, former Prime Minister Paul Keating told media professionals they need to rethink the current cultural model of gossip journalism. “Industry leaders and the profession itself should acknowledge that the current ‘free for all’ cannot go on. That invading the privacy of celebrities, starlets, models and sometimes ordinary non consenting members of the public, has nought to do with the public interest and everything to do with the profit flowing,” Keating concluded. Perhaps it is wise for all journalists to have a hard look in the mirror and see what side of journalism they want to be on when the walls of privacy start to hold firm.