★★★★★ 0/5

ACMA clears Seven News of Campbell outing

ACMA clears Seven over its story in which a former NSW minister was filmed exiting a sex on premises venue.

17
Leave a comment

Seven News has been cleared by the Australian Communications and Media Authority after it received complaints about a 2010 story in which former NSW transport minister David Campbell was filmed exiting a sex on premises venue.

The news has been published by the Sydney Morning Herald ahead of a public statement of findings by ACMA.

It claims ACMA has found there was an ”identifiable public interest” in broadcasting the story, reported by Adam Walters.

”ACMA also accepts that engaging in covert activity while in a position of public responsibility or administration could make a person vulnerable to being compromised. This would be so even when that secret or activity pertains to something that is not unlawful or criminal,” it states.

Yet as Media Watch pointed out last May, Campbell had not been Police Minister for some time. ACMA must have concerns about a Transport Minister being potentially blackmailed.

Seven’s director of news and public affairs, Peter Meakin, who defended the network’s role last year, claims the story tested a number of public issues.

”Although some of the heat has gone out of the issue, it was very contentious and a considerable number of people went out on a limb to condemn us,” he said.

The findings about being ‘compromised’ also appear to be at odds with Adam Walters’ initial report that said the issue was about the use of a ministerial car to visit the venue.

Campbell declined to comment.

Source: smh.com.au

17 Responses

  2. ACMA can’t rule that the story wasn’t in the public interest just because most sensible people realise that a politician’s sexuality isn’t something we need to know about. Doing so would require them to make a partisan judgment on the issue. If they ruled against Channel Seven, they would have to justify it by explaining why half the Australian public are wrong to take interest in the story.

    Unfortunately, over a quarter of Australians still believe homosexuality is immoral, so they would clearly view the story as being within their interests. If you’re a religious nutter who believes homosexuality is literally “evil”, you’re probably going to be a bit concerned to find out that your elected representative is gay. I’m not condoning the beliefs of these people, but you can’t just omit the views of a certain segment of the public when you’re discussing the public interest.

    Furthermore, most people rightly believe that cheating on your wife and kids is immoral. I personally don’t place a great deal of emphasis on the private lives of politicians, but a lot of people do, so I can understand why people would be concerned about it.

    Ultimately, we shouldn’t need ACMA to determine what is and isn’t in the public interest. We already have the public to do that! Instead of blaming ACMA for this, blame the people who demand this sort of trashy journalism, and boycott Seven for pandering to the needs of the lowest common denominator.

  5. Secretly filming someone entering an adult club and broadcasting it on national tv – WTF. Come on ACMA, this is bulls**t!
    This “story” had less public interest than ACMA does!

    1. Their reasoning also strikes me as outside their domain. Who is ACMA to decide if a person can or cannot be blackmailed? ACMA’s ruling might be one for the gay community to take to Anti Discrimination Board as it reeks of the 1980s. While bodies such as theirs reinforce the notion that to be gay is to be the stuff of blackmails, we will never change this. But first we need to wait for the full statement as the SMH article is only news in part.

  7. funny but i always new it would end up like this wonder if seven would be so quick to put one of there own in the spot light for being a gay man
    they are in a position of responsiblity and can be easily blackmailed as well and and i bet there are quite a few roaming the hall of seven with familys who dont know

  8. Low act Channel 7 … bottom of the barrel, although nothing new for them! Bet if it was someone related to their network the footage would never see the light of day.

    Boo to the ACMA too – powerless waste of time… even if they were found guilty, what would happen? Some staff training and a “we’re dissapointed in Seven” statement? Worse case scenario, a small fine? Useless!

  9. Really, what is the point of ACMA? So why is Julian Assange in so much trouble but it’s perfectly OK to destroy people’s lives? So it’s in the public interest that he was visiting a gay sauna? I really don’t understand why and I really didn’t need to know that. Perhaps it is in the interests of the staff at ACMA but it isn’t in my public interest. Pathetic outcome. Shame on you, ACMA.

Leave a Reply