Australian privacy law, and a gay Olympic diver

[blamebrampton]

Interesting changes afoot on the local media scene.
For background, you need to know that the Australian media is not as salacious as the UK or US media. Yes there are plenty of shots of stars without make-up, and a few years ago there was an appalling under-door shot of a local rugby league star shagging an athlete in a club loo published in the trashy Sydney tabloid, but I can tell you of at least one gay former PM and two who were having affairs through their Prime Ministerships, none of which has ever been really covered in the news.

That said, the press can be insane. I remember working on two separate mags around the time of the death of a major motoring star a few years back. The serious mag was doing a retrospective of his influence on the sport and his personal biography, the trashy mag was feverishly chasing an exclusive story of a woman who claimed she had borne his lovechild decades ago ("We only had the one night together, but I felt he was my soulmate!")

I have to say that I don't hold with trashy mags. In the same way that I don't hold with biographies of people who ask that they have no biographies, with the spilling of names of those who publish as anonymous, nor with the outing of people who are not anti-gay-rights politicians. Sure I've looked at a few, I worked on one for three weeks (I seriously believe that I have the most varied CV in Australian publishing), and I understand that you need to read something stupid some days -- goodness knows there has to be a reason that Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer are this popular.

But I find it disturbing that we treat celebrities like some sort of exotic zoo display and assume that they are less than people, merely fodder for our entertainment. I understand how we reach this conclusion: Britney Spears does not invite a dignified response, nor does Russell Crowe. But they are nonetheless people. If Britney was your cousin, you would drive her to the doctor. Daily.
 
Now a new law has been suggested by the Australian Law Reform Commission, one which would enshrine an individual's right to privacy and allow them to sue for damages if their privacy was invaded in an egregious manner. The statute includes the right of publication for matters that are of public concern, but severely limits outrageous intrusions including unauthorised surveillance, phonetapping, publication of provate nude photographs and intrusion into private arenas.

MediaWatch, a program on the main government channel here, ran a special on the proposal this evening. As they described it, a number of commentators have declared that defamation laws already cover this area and so all the proposed laws will do is allow the rich and powerful to use the law as a means to stop journalists writing about them, including in cases of financial misconduct (which Australia has PLENTY of!)

Richard Walsh, former CEO of a publishing house I used to work for and not the man that I would direct children interested in journalism to model themselves on, declares that celebrities have no right to privacy and that they don't value their privacy at all. (Funnily enough, the athlete who was the victim of the loo amateur paparazzo doesn't see it that way.)  Under questioning, he agreed that this position did derive from the fact that gossip magazines would be garroted if this legislation were enacted, as their source of trashy shots would be destroyed.

But he argued with a straight face that it was essential that this law not be enacted, because it would see an end to investigative journalism in Australia.

Sam North, from Fairfax, who is an excellent journalist, and appears to be a generally decent bloke, made a similar argument from a different direction. He said that the wealthy would use this law to to bring legal actions that would stop investigation of their misdeeds, and, because the concept of Free Speech has no special status in Australia (that is to say, there is no freedom of expression enshrined in our constitution nor statutes), and because the judiciary historically been hostile to the media, there was every chance those actions would succeed.

I'm in two minds. On the one hand, I really do think that ordinary citizens and hapless celebrities should have an inviolable right to privacy. On the other hand, I would not like the judiciary to have the final say on whether or not an investigation into a corrupt company or politician was kosher.

My solution is simple. Stop buying trashy magazines and papers. Buy broadsheets, news mags and gardening magazines. Pay the salaries of smarter journalists. Make their frownlines profitable and keep their kids in good schools while the children of paparazzi become acquainted with the state system for a change.

And for the three people who are interested in this, you can watch and read about it at www.abc.net.au/mediawatch

In slightly related news, there is exactly one out male athlete at these Olympics. GO Australia's Matthew Mitcham! He's diving in the springboard preliminaries tonight and will be in the 10m on the 22nd. For all of you who are slashing the divers, focus, people. Focus.

Comments

[marguerite-26.livejournal.com]

Stop buying trashy magazines and papers. Buy broadsheets, news mags and gardening magazines. Pay the salaries of smarter journalists

::nods::
I couldn't agree more. If those mags didn't sell... sadly, I don't think anyone who is likely to read this actually buys trashy mags.


And i'll be focusing. :D
But if he's up against Alesandre Despatie, I'll be still waving my Canadain flag.

::looses my focus while thinking of Mitcham up against Despatie::

[uminohikari.livejournal.com]

Trashy magazines are stupid anyway. Half of what they print is just lies!

[bryoneybrynn.livejournal.com]

I'm down with the boycott of tabloid crap. I make an effort not to get into that stuff. I'm always of two minds with the celeb privacy thing. I firmly believe that each of us has the right to basic privacy and can't believe the shit some media people get away with but I do get irritated that celebs participate in building a culture that worships them and then complain about the attention. It's usually a much better articulated rant but I'm sick today.

And hee for slashing the divers. I havne't been but I have been like "Oh, I think Harry's les would look like that but his stomach would look like that." Divers are pretty.

[furiosity.livejournal.com]

I have never understood the appeal of "look, it's a star without make-up!" o.o

[pingrid.livejournal.com]

Hah! "Make frownlines profitable TODAY! We're doing our part." :D

The Norwegian media is pretty tame compared to some, but god yes, I absolutely agree. And who CARES about how Madonna looks without makeup? If only the tabloids were a sign that there's nothing more important to focus on then everything would be dandy, but yeah. *sneers*

I suppose all the other Olympians have just chosen not to be gay. :p

[empress-jae.livejournal.com]

the way i see it, trashy magazines do nothing but add to the igorance of basic human intelligence. what kills me is that there's a huge percentage of people that actually believe everything that is printed. and what's worse, is that they take what's printed as gospel. no one can tell them differnt. even if they're being told, you know...the truth. :D

[luthien82]

goodness knows there has to be a reason that Dan Brown and Stephenie Meyer are this popular.

Ahahahaha I couldn't agree more with you!

I think I know what you mean when you say you're in two minds with this. I would be too (am, really, even though I'm not even living in Australia). Thank god I can say that I never bought a trashy magazine in my life and don't intend to start.

[winterthunder.livejournal.com]

Besides not caring the slightest bit about the content of those types of magazines, the general writing quality just bugs me. Though, ironically, here in the States there's been a big to-do amongst the 'real' papers that the National Enquirer (a really trashy tabloid of the "make stuff up" genre) scooped the Edwards affair story. Guess they do get it right occasionally.

[drgaellon]

nor does Russell Crowe

Really? Over here, he's generally known as a decent actor, not tabloid fodder.

The statute includes the right of publication for matters that are of public concern.... including in cases of financial misconduct

Isn't financial misfeasance/malfeasance a matter of public interest? Especially if it involves governmental or publicly traded entities?

it would see an end to investigative journalism in Australia.

Again, there's a difference between "investigative journalism" (which, almost eo ipso references the public interest) and "gossipmongering."

there is no freedom of expression enshrined in our constitution nor statutes

Well, then, there's your problem right there. They need to fix that oversight, tout de suite.

there is exactly one out male athlete at these Olympics. GO Australia's Matthew Mitcham!

Yay! I'll be rooting for him, even if I won't be watching. (Sorry, I have better things to do than watch televised sporting competitions of any nature. Even if they do have nice eye candy.)

[who_la_hoop]

*puts on my hat of mild disagreement* (and very fetching it is too!). Of course, things may be wildly different in Australia, but in the UK the majority of 'candid' shots of celebrities are arranged with the full knowledge and consent of said celebrities. Who often get paid vast amounts of money. Who are nearly all Z-listers who want the attention. Yes, it's very unfair on the few who don't - but if you put yourself out there, doing interviews constantly with these magazines and talking about your sex life, your diet, your makeup... it's kind of eyerollworthy to then say "zomg! you're violating my privacy!" when a pap takes a picture of you making friends with a cream bun outside a cafe. Which is the majority of the people who star in the trashy mags.

So as I said, very unfair on the people who don't act like that, but I find the idea of an inviolable right to privacy when you're in public pretty frightening, actually - the top of the slippery slope...

[deensey.livejournal.com]

Stop buying trashy magazines and papers. Buy broadsheets, news mags and gardening magazines. Pay the salaries of smarter journalists

Absolutely. I used to buy trashy mags when I flew, as a treat. Now I grab Scientific American and New Scientist.

[tomatoe18.livejournal.com]

I used to buy Entertainment Weekly. It was not trashy. Now it is. I'm not buying anymore. The way they pimp Twilight is just... scary. I can't even appreciate their articles on my favorite movies anymore because they usually say all the wrong things about it. The only magazine I'd still buy right now is GQ (UK).