ACMA’s message is the end justifies the means
ACMA's finding that Seven's outing of David Campbell explained his resignation, sidesteps the point it prompted it in the first place.
- Published by David Knox
- on
- Filed under News
The Seven Network has been cleared by the industry watchdog after an investigation into its May 2010 report on NSW Transport Minister David Campbell, who was filmed leaving a sex on premises venue.
But Seven was found to have breached the privacy of Campbell.
The Seven report was widely condemned as an invasion of privacy by sectors of the media and viewers last year.
The investigation by the Australian Communications and Media Authority follows a newspaper report last month that indicated Seven would be cleared, because the story was deemed to be in the public interest.
ACMA received two unresolved complaints about Seven News which accused it of being homophobic and that sexuality should not be linked to ‘fitness’ for public office.
In a lengthy investigation report, ACMA acknowledged that the Seven story outed Campbell but ultimately says it was a justified story because it explained his resignation, and therefore was in the public interest.
Campbell resigned as Transport Minister before the story went to air at 6pm, after learning of the Seven footage.
In other words Seven’s story got the outcome that ACMA now claims made it newsworthy in the first place – the ends justify the means.
What if he hadn’t resigned?
ACMA also found that those in public office who act covertly may be subjected to compromise.
Nowhere in Seven’s submission, nor in ACMA’s investigation report, is there any clarification of what Campbell’s family did or didn’t know about said covert activities. In fact there is no input from Campbell at all -it is confined to ACMA, complainants and Seven.
The end result of ACMA’s investigation is that it risks perpetuating the dated view that being gay is shameful, “blackmail-able” conduct. ACMA has sidestepped the issue that Seven’s footage actually prompted the resignation of the Minister in the first place.
Worrying messages indeed.
Finally, even despite acknowledging a breach of privacy and conceding, “The Authority regards invasions of personal privacy as very serious matters,” ACMA has taken no action against Seven.
So what’s new?
You can read more on the findings at ACMA’s site.
Share
- Tagged with Seven News
19 Responses
Why do you hate ACMA, they gave out a great message and I approve of what they have said.
@James – that’s simply not true. I can recall plenty of comments on this very blog in support of both Andrew O’Keefe and Matty Johns, as well as others, after their well-publicised “disgraceful” incidents. If people in the public eye get up to a bit of legal mischief unrelated to their employment, we the public have no right to know about it.
The really disgraceful behaviour has been by certain elements of the media claiming that they have a right to make people’s lives hell in the name of “the public interest” (ratings to the rest of us). It’s even more galling when you understand that some of those people whose lives are made that much more unpleasant are the supposed victim(s) or innocent family members.
There’s no law to prevent anyone filming anybody in a public place and just about every commercial TV news program has done it. What is so different about this matter? If this was a footballer, tv or movie star no one would be complaining. Why are politicians so precious all of a sudden?
If this was an actor or footballer the story would be very different.
Almost makes you wish we had the FCC instead.
ACMA is useless – just get rid of them
What a complete Injustice.
What do you expect from a sleazy network.
Channel 7 you are vile.
ACMA are the most useless government agency in existence. They nearly always side with the broadcasters and in the very rare instances that they don’t, the penalties are non-existent. Disgraceful.
What a disgusting, tawdry piece of “journalism” that was. The facts of this man’s sexuality and that he breached his wife’s trust have absolutely nothing to do with anyone outside of his family, regardless of whether we see his actions as immoral or not. I can’t possibly see how knowing those facts is in the public interest. It doesn’t make him a better or worse politician. The fact that ACMA can’t help but trip over itself in its apparent ruling just proves once again that it not only has no b##ls when it comes to bringing networks into line but that it can’t even explain its own reasons.
What’s to be said has already been said. An absolutely outrageous decision by a complete waste of public funds, regarding despicable behaviour by an amoral outfit falsely claiming the moral high-ground.
if this was a story in a magazine or newspaper, i doubt there’d be this much fuss
If anyone wondered if the ACMA was a waste of space this ruling answers any doubts. An absurd decision by a useless organisation full of paper shufflers. No need to say anything more.
The Chairman of ACMA was on ABC Illawarra local radio this morning trying to justify or explain ACMA’s ruling. Came across as complete gobblygook and something from Yes Minister! Could not explain how the Sun-Herald had a copy of the ACMA report two weeks ago. “Not from ACMA”. If not from ACMA then who did ACMA send a copy to two weeks ago? How come Seven hasn’t staked out the King’s Cross massage parlours on Friday nights to see which politicians, TV executives, etc., come and go (excuse the pun).
The Chairman of ACMA was on ABC Illawarra local radio this morning trying to justify or explain ACMA’s ruling. Came across as complete gobblygood and something from Yes Minister! Could not explain how the Sun-Herald had a copy of the ACMA report two weeks ago. “Not from ACMA”. If not from ACMA then who did ACMA send a copy to two weeks ago? How come Seven hasn’t staked out the King’s Cross massage parlours on Friday nights to see which politicians, TV executives, etc., come and go (excuse the pun).
That doesn’t make any sense to me. I can’t believe ACMA let Channel 7 get away with it.
The story is Not justified because it “explained his resignation”. The story was the Direct Cause of his resignation. If there was no story, then there wouldn’t have been a resignation. And what if he’d committed suicide after the story was screened. Is the cause of a politician’s suicide in the “public interest”.
Can Channel 7 now place cameras in the bedrooms of Julia Gillard and Tony Abbott, screen the footage and as long as they resign afterwards, then it’s all okay?
I’d say it’s the two-decade unfaithfulness that’s more “blackmail-able”, and says something about the man’s character. That he is gay is not a fault in itself, but it did mean that the deceit of his wife was even greater.
What is the point of the ACMA? really when any of the networks cross the line they investigate and then do nothing!
ACMA are pathetic