Fridae

The Australian Communications and Media Authority (ACMA) has decided that although Channel Seven had invaded the privacy of former NSW transport minister David Campbell when it outed him as gay in a news programme last year, the broadcaster did not breach the Commercial Television Industry Code of Practice because the reasons that led to his resignation was ultimately of public interest.

Channel Seven faced a barrage of criticism when it aired secretly filmed footage of David Campbell leaving a gay sauna. Watch video here.

It did not address the fact that Campbell's resignation was BECAUSE of the story and that if Campbell had not resigned, Channel Seven might have had no defence.

ACMA chairman Chris Chapman explained in the Sydney Morning Herald: "In this case, the resignation of the minister meant that the broadcast, which would otherwise have been an invasion of privacy, was justified, but solely because it provided a deeper explanation of the circumstances behind the resignation."

Seven News showed Campbell – a married father of two adult sons – leaving a gay sex club in Sydney. The report focussed on Campbell's use of his state-funded government car to drive himself to and from the club despite the fact that ministers are allowed to use their ministerial cars for personal use.

Campbell resigned from his ministerial post an hour before the report was aired after Seven sought his comment about the footage. Although he is still a Member of the New South Wales Legislative Assembly for Keira, he announced last September that he will not be seeking re-election at the 2011 NSW election.

In the full report made available on its website, ACMA said it received two formal complaints about the story from members of the public who were concerned that Campbell was being "ridiculed" on the grounds of sexual preference and that the broadcaster's decision to air the footage as being "homophobic" as well as a "political and moral attack" on the politican.

Seven has previously said it is justifiable to broadcast the story because the minister's private conduct was at odds with his public persona as a family man. However, unlike other high profile outings of anti-gay politicians, Campbell is known to have a long history of support for gay issues and for those in same-sex relationships when speaking in Parliament as detailed in an article in the Sydney Morning Herald last year.

The TV report last year report drew severe criticism from various quarters, including media industry professionals and academics, gay activists and openly gay former High Court Justice Michael Kirby, who labelled the network "serial homophobes"  for their coverage of the story. "Really they should be hanging their heads in shame, invading his space, invading his family … anything to humiliate and destroy. Well, it’s not acceptable, and the community is increasingly telling them that it’s not acceptable," he said at a TEDx Sydney conference last May.

Many academics and journalists issued a public statement: "We know that sometimes the private lives of public figures need to be exposed for public good, in the public interest. But you exposed this man for no public good; nor was it in the public interest. It was shameful and hurtful – not just for Campbell and his family; but for all of us. It demeans journalism."

Australian Marriage Equality's Alex Greenwich says the secretly filmed footage rams amounted to a gay witch hunt: "Whether he is gay, bi, curious or confused we need to appreciate that anyone of his generation grew up in a very homophobic Australia, both in terms of social attitudes and laws. Any gay person knows how hard it still is to come out. This man has dedicated much of his life to public service, and without any understanding of the psychological issues associated with someone of his generation being able to be comfortable with his sexuality, he is being condemned by the media for walking down the stairs of a gay establishment."

In May 2010, The ACMA also found that the news report did not breach clause 1.9.6 of the code as it was not likely to "provoke intense dislike, serious contempt or severe ridicule against the Minister on the ground of sexual preference."

Excerpts from the full report made available on acma.gov.au: 

Personal or private affairs (pg 9)

Information about a person’s sexual preference and activities is generally regarded by ACMA as ‘material relating to a person’s personal or private affairs’.

Invasion of privacy (pg 9)

It is true that the Minister entered and exited the KK Club via a busy public road, and he could have been observed inside the club by other club patrons. However, the ACMA is satisfied that the footage and information relating to the Minster’s out-of-hours conduct attending premises offering sexual services is something that an ordinary reasonable viewer would consider private, Although a limited number of people may have been aware of the Minister’s conduct, there is no evidence that these matters were in the public domain. 

According, in this case the ACMA is satisfied that the broadcast used material relating to the Minister’s personals or private affairs and invaded his privacy. 

Whether there was an identifiable public interest reason for the broadcast of private material (pg 11)

Although the ACMA considers that the Code and Guidelines provide privacy protections to everyday individuals and public figures (including politicians) alike, the Authority also accepts that those holding public office will be open to greater and more frequent scrutiny in their personal lives than other citizens as a very consequence of their public office. In these cases, the public interest exemption to the prohibition of the broadcast of private material is more likely to apply. 

To the extent that the Minister’s activities were secret, the ACMA also accepts that engaging in covert activity while in a position of public responsibility or administration could make a personal vulnerable to being compromised…

However that mere vulnerability cannot be sufficient to permit the broadcast of otherwise protected material in the absence of, for example, any identifiable basis upon which to apprehend actual compromise (which absence was the case here).

Given, however, the then existing public criticism of the Minister and prior questioning about his discharge of his office, the sensitive public roles he held and had recently held, the suddenness of his resignation and the lack of insight that the explanation for his resignation (that is “for personal reasons”) provided, a relevant and legitimate public interest arose (namely the need for a deeper explanation of the circumstances behind the resignation)/ This is so because the community could then be better able to assess whether or not the Minister’s discharge of government and/or public administration had or had not been improper or had or had not been comprised.

On balance, the ACMA accepts that in these particular circumstances the linkage between the private material and an identifiable public interest was provided.