Alex Wadsley
The question is then why has this story been released now. Normally such activities, journalists and their subjects doing things that they both think is fine but which segments of their audience disagree with, stay off the record. What goes on tour stays on tour.
THE revelations associated with Kevin Rudd’s visit to a New York strip club show the desperate levels to which the election debate is likely to descend.
I personally have no problem with Kevin Rudd visiting a strip club while in New York. Sexuality is a broad church, heterosexual male voyeurism is perfectly natural, although not for everyone. It is consensual, but the more the business is ostracised, the more likely that workers in those industries will be exploited. I’ve known a few girls that have worked in strip-clubs, generally they like to dance, they like to show and the money is better than other parts of hospitality. They are fully entitled to be represented by unions, and their affiliated political representatives.
The question is then why has this story been released now. Normally such activities, journalists and their subjects doing things that they both think is fine but which segments of their audience disagree with, stay off the record. What goes on tour stays on tour.
This rule seems to be breaking down. Laurie Oakes broke the open secret on the Cheryl Kernot-Gareth Evans affair after Cheryl attempted to sell her political story without including the revelation. The journalist thus protected the public from being defrauded, and probably rightly so. A similar argument might go for the recent revelations about Peter Costello. The original storyline was only made off-the-record after the event, which puts journalists in a very difficult position; their duty is to the public, not their subjects. Clearly if information was only released on the basis of confidentiality then the public benefits from ‘off-the-record’ conventions. If the effect is simply to protect politician’s ability to manage public debate, then we are all losers. The original story only became good news when it started looking like Costello was right … that Costello might be able to win while Howard couldn’t … that’s when the story was run, the backgrounder does its job. The rest of the revelations come from Costello’s foolishly attempted denial.
Which brings us back to Kevin Rudd, now improved in my estimation as he no longer looks as much of a God-botherer as he did two weeks ago. Presumably shadow-foreign ministers, diplomats and journalists, like Australian soldiers, are entitled to “let off a little steam”. The revelation may provide political opportunities for Howard, or more likely one of his lieutenants, but it also causes some political head-aches.
First in the spot-light must be Steve Fielding, Senator for Family First, whose party is now deep in preference negotiations with the Labor Party. Senator Fielding must be asked the question:
a) is Kevin Rudd going to a strip-club OK?
b) if No, will he back away from doing a preference deal while Kevin Rudd is leader?
Or can we assume that political advantage trumps Christian morality for Family First.
The second question is why has News Corp chosen to reveal this issue now. Is it simply to return to “fair and balanced” coverage after the Costello affair, where Rudd pays the price to regain the ‘trust’ of the Liberal Party. If this is so then we can expect to see tit for tat revelations right up until the election; it will sell a lot of newspapers.
Let’s go straight to the end-game. Does or did John Howard have a mistress in Canberra? And is that why Janette Howard insisted that the official residence be in Kirribilli rather than the Lodge?
The story is very much ingrained in the rumour mill, so the Canberra correspondents presumably know the truth. If we are to find out about Costello’s ambition, Cheryl’s lover, and now Rudd’s strip-club, it’s about time we, the public, found out the truth about old eyebrows himself.
