Wednesday, March 18, 2009

Those Pauline Hanson photos *vomits into bin*

Yes, whether we liked it or not, most of us have been exposed to those Pauline Hanson photos. 

 Like her or hate her, heads should roll after this weeks latest media smear campaign. 

 The defense for publishing the 'lewd' photographs seems to hang on the opinion that the media has a duty to publish these as she is a public figure (running for a public office) so anything that she does deserves to be scrutinised: there is a public interest.

 But what public interest does anyone have in seeing photos of Pauline Hanson, 30 years ago, in private - long before she ever came into the public eye?

 In defense of her actions, the Sunday Tele used exactly this argument AND astoundingly, also the next:

 If we didn't do it someone else would have.

 I can hear my mothers voice "If so and so jumped off a bridge..."

 There are a myriad of responses to these ridiculous arguments, but bottom line: This is not public interest, it’s News Limited’s commercial interest, but the question I want to ask is, where was the fact checker for this story?

 I don’t personally like Ms. Hanson, but it would be good to see her press the point home by suing.

 For a fantastic wrap up of this story see Monday’s Media Watch  (One of my favourite programs)


  1. Couldn't agree more! Missed Media Watch this week but I'll have to catch on ABC podcast.
    PS - I'm still not convinced the photos in question even are Pauline Hanson, which makes it even worse!

  2. Night before last I saw the man who sold them on TV confessing they may very well not be her at all.

    What really got my goat was that his face was blanked out. Why does he deserve anonymity when she wasn't allowed it over images that aren't actually her??