How many journos would like a dose of their own medicine?

We’re sorry, this feature is currently unavailable. We’re working to restore it. Please try again later.

Advertisement

This was published 13 years ago

How many journos would like a dose of their own medicine?

By Lisa Pryor

Many professions have a mythology explaining why they should be subject to less scrutiny than those they scrutinise. Barristers are among the worst. No matter how badly they stuff up, they cannot be sued for negligence, even though many of them make a living suing other professionals - engineers, architects, surgeons, pilots.

This immunity was confirmed by a 2005 case heard by a High Court composed entirely of former barristers.

Journalists have their own mythology: democracy demands the powerful must be held to account, except for the media because that would curtail freedom of speech. This mythology has been called upon in the past week by the small number of journalists giving the thumbs up to Channel Seven's exposé of the bathing habits of the former minister for transport David Campbell.

The reporter Adam Walters and his boss, Peter Meakin, went on radio defending the story, with justifications about public interest and taxpayer funded cars. Also in defence was David Penberthy, former editor of The Daily Telegraph. On The Punch website he wrote about why a politician has less right to privacy than others, including that "his entire existence is underwritten by the taxpaying public … to an extent which massively eclipses the average wage earner" and that "he wields enormous and direct power over the way we live our lives, even own financial status".

I don't want to get into finger pointing about the private lives of journalists, even though mine is squeaky clean and I haven't had a gay lover in months. Much has already been said about the private failings of Meakin and Walters. Let me simply coin a phrase: if politics is showbusiness for ugly people, journalism is showbusiness for people with private lives which would not stand up well to tabloid scrutiny.

What interests me is the way powerful media players can wax lyrical about the privileges and power of others, when they enjoy salaries considerably larger than the average member of parliament, let alone the average citizen, and just as much power. These salaries are not public. But here is some indication of what they might get:

David Penberthy was previously editor of the Telegraph. We know from the wrongful dismissal case brought by the former editor-in-chief of the Herald Sun that the position came with a salary of $390,000.

Peter Meakin is head of news and current affairs at Channel Seven. The affidavit of the journalist Mark Llewellyn, filed in his case against Channel Nine, stated he was appointed to the equivalent position at that network on a salary package of $750,000.

Adam Walters was hired by Channel Seven this year. The Australian reported he was offered about $250,000.

By contrast, ordinary members of the NSW Parliament are paid $130,540. The Premier is on $311,350. Senior ministers are on $251,942. These figures include expense allowances.

Advertisement

While it is true politicians are paid by taxpayers and journalists are not, they still belong to the same tiny elite, in terms of salary and power. And if taxpayer funding were really the issue, wouldn't journalists be advocating scrutiny of the nocturnal doings of all those teachers, doctors and bus drivers whose salaries are paid by us too?

The issue at stake is not simply the ability of individual politicians to conduct saucy private lives. It is about the quality of people attracted to office.

When a minister can keep his job regardless of how badly he performs, then lose it over failings which have nothing to do with their work, can we really be surprised when the only people willing to go into politics will eventually be ideologues, masochists, fruit loops and incompetents?

Being sceptical about power means being sceptical about your own power, not only the power of others. I was reminded of this watching Ken Crispin, former Supreme Court judge, on the 7.30 Report on Thursday.

Kerry O'Brien asked: "How did it feel to have power over the lives of others in the way a judge does? Did you ever get used to that, I wonder, and are you ever troubled by a case, or cases, where you felt later that perhaps you might have got it wrong?"

The answer was unexpected. "I think judges should always be troubled by the exercise of power." The same should go for all professions.

Most Viewed in Politics

Loading