Three cheers for Channel Seven, time for Mike Rann to resign
|
Thrice-married billionaire Kerry Stokes has been in control of Channel Seven for 15 years. Twice in that time a state premier has contacted him attempting to stop a potentially career-ending story from going to air. Way back in 1996, Stokes was involved in the last-minute decision to pull a damaging Today Tonight story on Jeff Kennett and pokies baron Bruce Mathieson. Today Tonight Victorian presenter Jill Singer ended up collapsing moments after telling viewers management had pulled the story and it was broadcast the next night introduced by fill-in host Naomi Robson after a public uproar that ended up causing Kennett quite substantial damage. I was one of Today Tonight’s sources, having supplied a confidential statutory declaration about the Premier’s dealings and discussions with Mathieson, but the full story didn’t come out until two years later when ABC Television’s 4 Corners trawled over the whole saga. The issue arose again at the 2008 WA News EGM when Stokes failed to win a seat on the board and responded angrily to suggestions he would ever interfere editorially. Stokes called me in quite a rage the next day claiming that ever since the Mathieson story, he has stuck by a firm policy of leaving all editorial decisions to Seven’s news and current affairs boss Peter Meakin. This is no doubt what Stokes would have told James Packer during the Today Tonight attack-fest over Scientology and the lost casino billions. This policy appears to have held up well when Mike Rann contacted Stokes last week to attempt to stop Sunday Night’s story about his affair with Michelle Chantelois from going to air. Seven’s reporter Mark Riley twice declined to comment this morning when asked on 891 ABC Adelaide whether Rann had called Stokes, but the presenters insisted that he had. At the end of the day, if Chantelois wanted to tell her story, Seven and New Idea would have been mad not to take it. As with most scandals, the major political damage comes from the cover-up rather than the original sin. Rann’s credibility with women has been shot and it will be interesting to see how long the blokey factional heavies in South Australia stand by their man. In this situation, it is important to discount the credibility of other political or media figures with strong records in the pantsman department. As Premier of the state, Rann has a duty to all current and former public servants. In this case, his behaviour has caused enormous damage. When Rann was assaulted by Chantelois’ estranged husband Rick Phillips a few weeks back, he should have come straight out with his version of events and expressed his regret. Instead, we’ve seen all the grubby elements of denial, legal smoke-screens, obfuscation and now attempts to imply improper financial motivation. Chantelois has now even been sacked from her job as a public servant at a high school in the Premier’s own seat. Why is it all too often the woman who loses her job and the powerful bloke who survives unscathed? It’s time for the South Australian Labor caucus to step in and select a new premier. |
|
|
|
22 Comments
Although on the face of it, the affair may be true, isn’t it best practice to insert ‘alledged affair’ when talking about it?
But yeah, too true about the last paragraph.
Why on earth should Mike Rann resign? What he did in his private life is his own affair. We should not import the United States’ puritanical and hypocritical moralising. The whole media beat up on this has also damaged Ms Chantelois and her marriage.
Yeah, yeah, what ever … But don’t you just hate kiss and tellers??!!
Whether it’s true or untrue, it is an abject betrayal of trust’
Whatever it was, it was between consenting adults
I’m sick to death of women becoming the victim - hell hath no fury and all that but pleeeeze!! You want to have a sexual relationship with a man - powerful or otherwise - accept the consequences and don’t give me that luddy guff about about inequality!!
Outside of domestic violence or rape, sexual exploitation cannot occur if the woman says no - not only says no but behaves no!!
I wouldn’t want to work with Chantelois either - she has demonstrated that she will, when it suits her, betray your trust.
Affairs cannot happen if both men AND women say no - so don’t come this ‘poor me, come clean’ crap.
I’m a woman and I say yes or no - and I accept the consequences. In my view that’s what all women must do.
And further, what’s this sanctimonious rubbish the press just cannot wait to get their grubby little paws on? All of you beyond reproach? We know the answer to that question!!
Mind your own business all of you and keep your interest in things sexual for enhancing your own relationships - what this woman has done is exploit a relatonship!
We all have ‘issues and frailties’ Chantelois and Mike being no exception - personal responsibility is our only saviour.
Stephen is right that it shouldn’t always be the woman who loses their job in these situations - but he doesn’t really convince me that ANYBODY lose their job over this. Sure, he is almost certainly guilty of some obfuscation - but why should he have to give a detailed account of consensual sex he had years ago? We are all entitled to obfuscate about our sex lives, unless we have broken the law in some way. That’s what privacy is all about. There is preci0us little public interest in knowing who Mike Rann has slept with, and the media’s collective sense of entitlement over cases like this is getting a little hard to stomach.
And I don’t see why Rann’s credibility with women has necessarily been shot - although as usual, nice to see that Crikey is willing to get a man to argue the point. Women, no less than men, are capable of deciding a case on the merits, and the merits of this particular beatup seem decidedly lacking.
| When Rann was assaulted by Chantelois’ estranged husband Rick Phillips a few weeks back, he
| should have come straight out with his version of events and expressed his regret.
Why on earth should he have done that? It’s not a matter of public relevance. Only someone obsessed with sexual details would ask the question or be interested in answer. Most reasonable thinking Australians would suggest that this event does not impact Rann’s ability to govern the state.
Very poor article Stephen Mayne.
When politiicians are on their way out, their alleged indiscretions are publicised.
Rann is clearly on his way out but if replaced by another of the same ilk what’s the difference?
SA is already home to many an outrage if only the public knew.
I don’t agree with this. It may be true that obfuscation has damaged Rann politically, but I don’t see why he should have to answer questions about his sex life. Chantelois does not say that any of the alleged affair was non-consensual, so there are no legal issues involved.
I find it strange that you are prepared to rally against women losing their jobs in such situations and yet you rest your argument on the dubious assumption that women will turn against Rann because he may have had an affair. If you’re going to make that claim, back it up with something solid. I’m a woman and I would be more inclined to vote/not vote for Rann based on his policies, not who he sleeps with.
No wonder the mass media are held in such low regard. This is a media scandal not a political one. It’s none of our business or theirs. Sleaze, pure and simple.
Some of the best regarded Australian and UK Prime Ministers, plus US Presidents, could not have survived this kind of sleazy reporting.
Perhaps we should start asking company directors about their private lives at AGMs especially those in the media stokes, oops … stakes.
Some time ago when discussing another similar affair with a regular Crikey writer, I was dismayed to hear him express the attitude that powerful men should know better than to have affairs with the “downstairs classes” as they will always go to the media when they are “dumped”.
So its refreshing to see another commentator, and a male at that, recognise that the power imbalance between the genders, especially in recent examples, means that the woman suffers the most. Not only is she screwed over once by the man in a position of power using her to satisfy his own need for ego boosting but if she doesn’t keep his lying and cheating quiet, she suffers again - from the media, social attitudes (the old ‘he is a stud she is a slut’ chestnut) and often vindictive legal action. Theophenous is taking legal action against the woman who claimed he raped her, Rann is reported today as saying he will take legal action for defamation aganst Chantelois. Della Bosca is the only one who had the decency to not confound the lying and cheating by lying about it once it was exposed, and instead stepped down gracefully to avoid any further damage to him, his party or either of the women involved.
The guiltiest, sleaziest, most damaging party of all though - in all cases - is the media.
Sorry Stephen but on this one you are dead wrong. This is no one else business and I believe Chantelois should have kept her silence. The question should be - why now after four years? Still…. she is soooooo much richer now.
Oh Stephen, you are the one sounding like a woman scorned, grow up.
Stephen , grow up. You can’t run with the fox and hunt with the hounds.
Her estranged husband said on TV news tonight that Rann took advantage of her ‘youth and inexperience’??? WTF? she was old enough to get married apparently?
As a former South Australian the idea that Premier would be bonking next to the busiest public golf course in the state on his lunch hour… or in his office in the middle of a sitting week just fails the most basically ‘reality’ test.
When you add to that picture the fact that the story concerns matters due before the court in less than 2 weeks, but, apparently, the Seven reporters were unable to even log into the court website and see the matter due for mention…. well… it’s pretty sloppy at best.
There probably will be resignations, but I wouldn’t be pointing at the Premier who is alleged to have had an affair while he was single… almost a decade ago.
Worst article you have ever written, Stephen. None of anyone’s damn business.
Jenny: Your comment seems to imply that a woman has no choice if a man who is rich/a public figure/businessman/politician, approaches her in a sexually suggestive way. As though being approached by a ‘powerful’ man means that a woman must submit. I find that problematic.
Of course there are situations where there is a clear gender imbalance. I’ll be the first to skewer a power imbalance if I see one, but in this instance you’re not talking about a woman who claims she was forced into a situation. The rape allegations made against Theophanous are an entirely different case. Chantelois doesn’t allege that she was forced, she alleges that she had sex with Rann on multiple occasions. Conflating the two is deceptive and inappropriate.
I don’t think that this should be a story and, of course, the media feeds off of it, but I think it’s simplistic to say that Chantelois has just been ‘victimised’. No one seems to know what sum she was paid, but there’s no disputing that she was paid to tell that story for a commercial television network. I draw a distinction between someone whose private life is invaded and someone who sells their ‘story’ willingly and for money.
I think the point is that Mike Rann has apparently lied to the public about this alleged affair. If this is the case, he seems to be quite willing to lie to the public about it. So how can someone whom one can not trust to tell the truth to the electorate be allowed to run the state? What other lies has he spread? Why is he so resistant to an independent crime and corruption commission? (Not that anyone who is not a fool would believe what a politician says anyway!)
Jon Hunt…your use of the word ‘alleged’ means you cannot logically then proceed to announce that the alleged perpetrator is a liar. ‘Allege’ means ‘to assert without proof’. Its antonym is ‘deny’.
Thus the allegation and the denial stand on equal [uncertain] ground. Best to shut up until either
is more firmly established. The same goes for Stephen Mayne. And everybody else.
I’m not normally a Herald Sun reader but there is a good article today from Susie O’Brien where she points out its the lying that’s the issue not the sex. Rann wasn’t “single” at the time of the alleged affair - he was living with the woman who is now his wife. Plus he claims to have not known the man who assaulted him at the time of the assault but later came out and claimed everyone was friends with everyone.
“In March 2002 The Advertiser, Adelaide’s daily paper, called Carruozzo his “current closest friend”. In December 2003 she was his “girlfriend of two years”. In March 2004 she was his “long-term partner” and the couple bought a house together.
Now does this sound like the situation of a single man?
The relationship hit the headlines when Chantelois’s estranged husband, Rick Phillips, hit the Premier with a rolled-up magazine at a function last month.
At the time, Rann said he didn’t know his attacker. It’s difficult to know why he would say this. In defending his relationship with Chantelois, the Premier’s camp has said Rann was friends with both her and her husband, even inviting them for dinner.
As I say, it’s not the allegations of sex, but the possibility of lies that are the problem.”
http://www.heraldsun.com.au/opinion/vital-issue-is-truth-not-sex/story-e6frfhqf-1225802684209
This only got published in the general media for the prying into private lives and gossip. Shame. Shame. Shame.
I don’t buy any of this. Further I want to say this - when I worked for a big law firm 20 years back in Sydney I was openly accused by a loud mouth at drinks of having an affair. She was married. It was wrong. WRONG. It was vindicative. It was outrageous. It put the woman in a terrible position for simply being a colleague/friend.
Sure it’s somewhat different but it does show the evil angels the dominate some people’s obsessive gossip and boring lives.
Don’t do this. It’s no way for Australia to proceed with this rubbish.
On reflection, I think Mayne is right about some damage to the female vote, although I’d like to think that it can’t be so easily generalised. He’s also right about the cover-up causing the most damage, but I still don’t think that anyone should lose their job over this. It doesn’t affect Rann’s leadership.
Rann was in jeopardy from the start!!
It is no-one’s business but those involved - he could publicly shame his friend(s) who were obviously under enormous pressure with their marriage crumbling around them - that’d be unkind and disloyal
- he could neither confirm nor deny knowledge - that would have sent the media into a frenzy of scuttle butt and innuendo
- he could simply fob the media off with a “no” and continue on - which is what he did if you saw the grab
- he could tell the media he had an affair with the man’s wife and the man was p*ssed off and bopped him on the head with a magazine - but that wouldn’t have been the truth
It is nobody’s business except the 4 people who are effected by the revelations. We all need to mind our own business and leave them to mind theirs!!