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

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

I have an irrational hatred for the hype around him (actually, that may be rational), but he seems a bit like one of those old Soviet athletes who are taken away to the Sport Gulag at five and only released after achieving Immortal Olympic Glory. I'm hoping that the young man can have some kind of life now. And eat some vegetables ...

[pingrid.livejournal.com]

I've actually managed to avoid most of the hype, I'm THAT disinterested in the Olympics. Heh. But from what you say and what little I've gathered elsewhere it does seem like his life has been pretty much on one single track! Hopefully it's what he's wanted ... But OMG, I saw a article on his diet! Tabloid though it was, it was really fascinating. 12K calories a day?! For real?!

[blamebrampton.livejournal.com]

Yup, you can eat like a piggy when all you do is swim laps and lift weights!