'''References'''
Dennett H 2011, "Some of us knew Campbell was gay — and chose not to report", Crikey, 11 Feb 2011
It is an article from Crikey. It is written by a gay journalist, and it shows the journalists disappointment to the coverage. In this article, he tells about his high school time as a gay. Then he mentions about the public interest, that its definition is not solid one, and different from people, so it is ambiguous to use it as a reason for breaching the privacy. Also, he argues that the public interest should be changed for gay people. Also He added that public was not interested with the fact that he was a gay, so the seven’s use of the “public interest” is not an excuse for its homophobic report.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2011/02/11/some-of-us-knew-campbell-was-gay-some-of-us-chose-not-to-report/
Dick. T 2011, "Seven News invaded minister's privacy, but no breach", The Age, 10 Feb 2011
It is very similar to the one above. In the ACMA’s Final report, it said;
"the footage and information relating to the minister's out-of-hours conduct attending premises offering sexual services is something that an ordinary reasonable viewer would consider private".
However, it said that the he commercial television code allows stories that invade privacy if there is an "identifiable public interest" in doing so, and it would be inevitable for public figures to be opened to greater scrutiny in their privacy than ordinary citizens. Also ACMA’s report accepted seven’s argument that a minister's secret activities "could make a person vulnerable to being compromised" even when the secret activity was legal, especially for those administering law enforcement and in fact, Mr. Campbell was police and law enforcement minister before.
ACMA concluded that because Seven has provided the possible explanation of his resignation, and Mr. Campbell’s image as a “family man” is against his activity, so it had dealt with public interest.
http://www.theage.com.au/opinion/blogs/media-matters/seven-news-invaded-ministers-privacy-but-no-breach-20110210-1ankb.html
Foschia Liz 2010, "Minister quits over gay sex club visit", ABC, 21 May
It is more on defence on the airing of coverage. It starts with the fact that he used ministrial fund and vehicle for his gay bar visit, and he had resigned before the coverage and John Robertson took his role. This article includes the statement of Adam Walters, the journalist who broadcasted the footage, that he covered the public interest. It mentions Camplbell's poor performance as a trasport minister, and lists some scandals made by politicians. Also, it includes the statement from Kellie McDonald, the head of Gay and Lesbian Rights Lobby Group, that Campbell could be blamed, but on his misuse of ministerial fund, rather than his personal life.
http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2010/05/20/2905224.htm
High Court Australia http://www.hcourt.gov.au/
Juntunen, L and Valiverronen, E 2010 ‘Re-negotiating the boundaries of private and public in political journalism’, Journalism Studies, Vol. 11, No 6, 2010, 817_831, accessed 19 May 2011 from Routledge
Knox, D 2011, "ACMA’s message is the end justifies the means", TV tonight, 11 Feb 2011
It argues that if Mr. Campbell did not resign, the outcome would be different. Also They added that despite of that they admitted that Seven had breached the privacy, they did not reprimand seven, and the ACMA’s report could lead to conclusion that gay is shameful conduct, and neglected the fact that the issue that Seven’s footage actually prompted the resignation of the Minister in the first place.
http://www.tvtonight.com.au/2011/02/acmas-message-is-the-end-justifies-the-means.html
Krudger, P 2011, "Channel 7 invaded privacy over David Campbell story", ABC, 10 Feb 2011
It includes Mr. ACMA’s final decision that Seven has dealt with public interest. It also had interview with Alan Knight, the professor of Media and communication in UTS. Professor Knight was bewildered with this decision, because He cannot see a reason why the story on his sexual interest should be on air, and added that ACMA has shown that they know it is a breaking of privacy as they clearly stated that, but said it was a public interest. He argued that the story should not be on air in first place.
http://www.abc.net.au/pm/content/2011/s3135624.htm
Lewis, D 2010, “Outing of MP a disgrace, says Kirby”, Sydney Morning Herald, 24 May 2010
Michael Kirby: Seven are serial homophobes for outing David Campbell and they hounded my friend to death", Mumbrella, 22 May, 2010.
These two articles are statement made by Kirby, who was a former supreme judge and gay. Kirby blamed seven is being homophobic. He argued that Seven has been homophobic over time, and it had clear records of homophobic report. He took an example of John Marsden, who was a gay lawyer, and that Seven made reports against him over time and went to court regading this issue. Kirby said that Australian medias are male based, so they are generally against the women rights and homosexuals. He took an example of Seven’s coverage of Women’s sports that they don’t put much significance, because of the Seven Networks male environment.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/outing-of-mp-a-disgrace-says-kirby-20100523-w432.html
http://mumbrella.com.au/michael-kirby-seven-are-serial-homophobes-for-outing-david-campbell-and-they-hounded-my-friend-to-death-26164
McKee, A 2005, The public sphere: an introduction, Cambridge University Press, UK
MEAA CODES http://www.alliance.org.au/
Meade. A 2011, "Seven safe despite Campbell privacy breach", The Australian, 10 Feb 2011
It reports ACMA's decision that seven had dealt with public interest, and Seven was not reprimanded, while David Campbell was resigned after this incident.
http://www.theaustralian.com.au/business/media/seven-escapes-censure-despite-campbell-gay-club-privacy-breach/story-e6frg996-1226003624743
Moore, M 2010, "Politicians' private lives in the media's sights", Sydney Morning Herald, 23 May 2010
After the footage, the public felt sympathy on him, and Peter Meakins, who expected that it would become a controversy, was also surprised that the public interest had backfired on him. News paper readers stated that, although he is a politician, it does not mean that he cannot have a private life. Julia Bishop, Bob Carr and Graham Richardson mentioned the scrutiny of privacy on politician, since the time of Bob Hawke, and depended David Campbell. Also they added that his privated life has little public interest.
http://www.smh.com.au/nsw/politicians-private-lives-in-the-medias-sights-20100523-w430.html
Oloyede, B 2005 ,Press Freedom: A Conceptual Analysis, Department Of Mass Communication, Moshood Abiol,a101-109 (2005)
http://www.law.qut.edu.au/staff/lsstaff/dbutler.jsp
Penberthy. D 2010, “Why David Campbell has a lesser right to privacy”, The Punch, 21 May 2010
The writer starts with four mistakes that Mr. Campbell has made; misuse of tax payers’ money and car for his own purpose, he neglected that his power as politician that have power over our everyday lives, he has chosen his image as a family guy and he is a part of government that is distracted by series of scandals. When these things combined, he argues that Mr. Campbell should aware that he is a politician and public figure rather than an ordinary citizen, and should expected that his privacy is at stake. He said he felt sympathy of him, because his price on this is way too enormous, while his affair had nothing to do with crime or corruption, but if he was a minister with better performance and supportive government, he could have solved this issue better, but he was a hopeless minister, so impact of his double life was harsh. In conclusion, ha concluded that if he is upset about that is privacy is bleached, he should not became a politician from the first place.
http://www.thepunch.com.au/articles/why-david-campbell-has-a-lesser-right-to-privacy/
Seven news
"ACMA rules Seven's report on David Campbell is in the public interest", news.com.au, 10 Feb 2011,
An article on ACMA's comment; It has breached privacy, but held with public interest. ACMA has admitted that breaching of privacy is a serious issue, but when it comes to politician, who is a public figure, media can do that if it meets the ‘public interest’. ACMA said it can be justified because the coverage had provided an explanation of Campbell’s resignation that he said “personal reason”, which would be unexplained otherwise. However, ACMA also warned that media should not use public interest justification for its breaching of privacy, and added that public figures are entitled to have privacy under the code as ordinary citizens. Also, For the issue of whether Seven’s footage was homophobic, ACMA found the bulletin was not likely to "provoke intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the minister on the ground of sexual preference".
http://www.news.com.au/national/campbell-report-in-public-interest-acma/story-e6frfkvr-1226003697059
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ia9gPF8BEM0
Stevenson, A 2010, ‘The days of privacy in politics are gone’, Sydney Morning Herald, accessed 17 May 2011,
It tells that the privacy of politician is getting ignored with this incident. The journalist took an example of Paul O’Grady, who was a first open gay politician, and Mr.Campbell could have done that rather than resigning. He said that the resignation of Mr. Campbell shows the discrimination against gays in Australia, while he could stay in his office by being a gay. He admit that he had number of things wrong, but they are minimal, and although he went to the gay bar, it does not mean that he had sex with men there, nor he is a gay, and his price that ended his political life is way too big.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/the-days-of-privacy-in-politics-are-gone-20100520-vozc.html#ixzz1Ms1mzKyD
West, A 2010, ‘Manufactured scandal leaves another political career in tatters’, Sydney Morning Herald, accessed 17 May 2011,
It is an article written by Andrew West, that Campbell should not have resigned. His life as a gay man had nothing to do with being a transport minister and his performance, and his image of a family man had nothing to do with morality. In fact, it is only a family photograph, and nothing to do with image of a family man. He added politics and journalism are careers of remarkably similar character. They both attract some shallow individuals in it to make money and acquire fame. They also attract people who are, in some measure, committed to the public interest. However the most common trait is that politics and journalism often create broken lives. He also criticize moral of Peter Meakin, the chief of news in Seven Network, that he actually had a record of drink driving that is clearly a crime, while David Campbell had nothing to do with crime. It also have a poll on the issue, and 75% of people believes that Seven should not aired the footage.
http://www.smh.com.au/opinion/politics/manufactured-scandal-leaves-another-political-career-in-tatters-20100521-vzzq.html#ixzz1Ms14VCNZ
"Meakin and the Seven rumour mill … voters reject Campbell coverage", Crikey, 31 May 2010.
It blames Meakins, the head of news department in seven. It also includes a poll on this incident, Its credibility of the source is in doubt, however, it does not have much difference with poll held at Sydney Morning Herald that more than 75% of people believes Seven should not aired the footage of David Campbell. Whittaker, the writer of this article calls Meakin a cryptic, because of his coverage that almost stalked David Campbell, while hiding in a car, and viewers did not wanted to watch the coverage. He blames that Meakin did not take any responsibilities for this incident. This article includes comment by Meakin that shows he is not sorry about this incident.
http://www.crikey.com.au/2010/05/31/media-briefs-meakin-and-the-seven-rumour-mill-voters-reject-campbell-coverage-aap-cant-find-the-cop-shop/
http://www.throng.com.au/acma/seven-breaches-minister%E2%80%99s-privacy-broadcast-public-interest
ACMA’s summary
-Seven broadcast clearly used material relating to his personal and private affairs.
- The Authority concluded it was nonetheless in the public interest to use the material as it explained the Minister’s resignation.
-No breach of the privacy provisions of the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice 2010.
-The analysis of the issues raised by the broadcast required a careful consideration of the rights Mr Campbell had to his privacy, as well as the public interest in understanding the reasons for his resignation.
-It was on balance finding which relates to the particular circumstances of this case, and should be treated very carefully in terms of precedent value by licensees.
- The Authority applied the ACMA’s Privacy Guidelines for Broadcasters, 2005
- The ACMA also found that the bulletin did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the code as it was not likely to provoke intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the Minister on the ground of sexual preference.
