David Campbell case raises a debate throughout Australian media whether it is the privacy of Campbell or the issue has gone into public sphere. McKee (2005, P.6) states that public sphere focuses on distinction between individual, personal forms of representation- over which we have a large degree of control- and shared, consensual representations--which are never exactly what we would like to see precisely because they are public. As a result, the key argument in this case is that as a politician, who has been acknowledged as a public figure, the intimate life of Campbell is his privacy or not, which involves media outlets in Australia in the debate.
Completely opposing voices appear in the Sydney Morning Herald standing for public and private respectively. Andrew Stevenson (2010) argues in ‘the days of privacy in politics are gone’ that the chapter of Australian history in which politicians' private lives were their own to live - secure in the knowledge no journalist would report their nocturnal behaviour - ended long ago. His visiting to gay men's club in Kensington has become fodder for dinner time conversation (Stevenson 2010), namely the scandal of Campbell has step into the phase of public interest which is out of control by Campbell himself. Ending up as his resignation from the Minster for Transport, the case indicates that his sexual behaviour has impacts not only on his private life but his political career.
On the other hand, Andrew West (2010) raises a disagreement in ‘Manufactured scandal leaves another political career in tatters’. West (2010) reckons Campbell, who sacrifices his political career and damages his public profile, as a victim of a scandal manufactured by media, because his sexual interest has no bearing on his public duties. In other words, Channel 7, which release the footage should be criticised due to its offence to private life of Campbell.
This is a case that neither side gains. Campbell is a loser, but Channel 7 is not a winner, as they all call forth sharp criticism. West (2010) compares journalism similar as politics, because they both attract some shallow individuals in it to make money and acquire fame. They also attract people who are committed to the public interest.
Therefore, how media justify their intrusion into politicians’ private lives should be taken into account. Juntunen and Valiverronen (2010) states 2 approaches for journalists to justify their coverage on political scandals: Firstly, revelations about intimate life of politician affect the performance of public duties (Juntunen and Valiverronen 2010, p. 822). The Campbell case is a current public interest that his behaviour cheats the public, who generally believe Campbell values his family.
Secondly, journalists could argue that the misbehaviour of politician indicates a lack of discipline (Juntunen and Valiverronen 2010, p. 823). Campbell drives his office car to gay bar, which is broadly unacceptable to the public, although the Officer Handbook says office holders may drive themselves whenever they choose. However, the venue where Campbell drove to is able to result in the dissatisfaction of the taxpayers.
没有评论:
发表评论