THREE views … courtesy of http://www.crikey.com.au/

Catharine Lumby, Associate Professor, Media and Communications Department, University of Sydney:

“I think the fact that the story was held back is evidence that there was internal debate about whether the information was properly private or of public interest,” says Catharine Lumby. “The comment about Helena Carr was genuinely offensive and showed, in the very least, an extraordinary lack of judgement on Brogden’s part. And in that sense it was of public interest. The claims, however, that he sexually harassed two journalists in the pub do not stand up to the same scrutiny. One journalist has publicly stated she didn’t take offence and the other makes it clear that Brogden did nothing after she made it clear she wasn’t interested. I think we are watering down the definition of true sexual harassment if we make it a hanging offence for someone to flirt while they’re in a bar socialising.”

The past two decades, says Lumby, have seen “a very clear shift to a growing focus on the private lives of political leaders. This is partly because we have politicised many behaviours formerly seen as private matters, like sexual harassment. Competition between media outlets is driving these stories as well – there has been an undoubted tabloidisation of the mainstream media in the past two decades.” But, she says, “you can’t draw a hard and fast line between the public and the private, you always have to ask in every instance: Why is this information of public interest. If a politician is cheating on his wife but running a campaign against no-fault divorce laws then that might be of interest. But if he’s just having an affair then I think that is arguably his (or her) own business.”

Has this episode changed the “ground rules” between journalists and politicians? “I think politicians will be on their toes in the future when they drink around journalists,” says Lumby. “But they’ll eventually relax because journalists and politicians feed off each other and end up socialising together (and flirting and drinking it must be said).”

Malcolm Farr, chief political reporter, Daily Telegraph:

The Brogden matter wasn’t taken too far, says Malcolm Farr – “it was active as an issue affecting state politics and voters were entitled to know about it. In short, there was a public interest factor at play.” If private activity clashes with public posturing, says Farr, “reporters should reveal it. Voters deserve to know when a politician says one thing and does another. For example, the politician who preaches commitment to family and has a series of affairs; or one who condemns certain business practices but does the opposite in private.”

And he believes that “reports of Brogden’s private/public doings did not force him to harm himself. That was one of several options available to him, and he chose it. At this point I do not know why he did it, and I am not aware of anyone who does. I do know there are a lot of people who think they know, and it might be good if they just shut up.”

Hugo Kelly, Crikey:

Sadly, Brogden’s extreme reaction to his travails shows he still didn’t get it. Was he really so naive as to think the media wouldn’t boot him, and boot him as hard a possible, once he was down? Are there really any politicians left who want the media to regurgitate their lies – but don’t think the beast won’t bite back once the muzzle is off?

The Media Report …

… this morning ran a very balanced analysis …

Read the transcript (when it’s published shortly): HERE