The latest “debate” about media and privacy, triggered by last week’s television expose of NSW Minister David Campbell leaving a gay club, is a sham conducted by people who are paid extremely well to legitimise something that is nasty and indefensible.
Public interest
Feeding the gossip hordes isn’t “public interest”
David Campbell’s actions were embarrassing, but entirely legal. It’s a sad state of affairs when politicians resign not because of political bungles but irrelevant personal ones, writes Jonathan Green.
Were journalists right to publish the hacked Climategate emails?
Both old and new media outlets have come under fire for publishing large extracts, and directing readers to entire downloads, of the stolen Climategate emails. Did they do the wrong thing? And more importantly: did they break the law?
Sorry Mike, but your integrity counts. We need to know
Like many politicians, Mike Rann has been perfectly happy to exploit his private life when it suited him. Yet the moment there’s a hint of sex, he suddenly demands silence.
Crikey Says: No neutral territory between Mike Rann and the media
The murky controversy surrounding SA premier Mike Rann is now a public, not a private, matter. The demilitarised zone between Rann, the media and the voters has been well and truly breached.
Public servants serve the public interest, period
Public servants have a direct responsibility to act in the public interest in all aspects of their work, writes former public service commissioner Andrew Podger.
Surveillance: an unregulated part of our everyday lives?
There are concerns that because the line between genuine news and entertainment has become blurred, surveillance isn’t always carried out in the public interest, writes Neil Rees.
The West takes the public for fools over public interest
The West Australian got fundamental facts wrong in a story about the hospital system and refused to correct. Their defence? You guessed it – writing stories about inadequate health services is in the “public interest” and this means that the errors “were immaterial to the issue”, writes Margaret Simons.
Shooting the messenger over the AFL drugs scandal
Leslie Cannold in The Age online today wheels out the good old cliché deployed any time the media come under attack for anything: “Are we shooting the messenger”? The question is raised over Channel 7’s conduct in publishing material from the medical records of two AFL players.
The Australian‘s strong ethical justification over Haneef
It is now clear that there was strong ethical justification for The Australian’s, decision to publish the leaked transcript of the interview of Dr Mohamed Haneef and the Australian Federal Police, writes Dennis Muller.
Leak puts The Australian in the ethical frame
Serious ethical as well as legal questions arise from the publication in The Australian today of excerpts from an interview by the Australian Federal Police with Dr Mohamed Haneef.
