Public figures want it both ways on privacy

xiaoecho says:

05:42pm | 02/11/09

“So why should a select few be protected…..”.........don’t you know?  Because they’re ENTITLED.  Because they live in a pink bubble of money, power and influence where ‘the rules’ are not made for ‘people like us’. Paul Keating is amusing because not only are his put-downs genuinely witty but he is seen as a larrakin—a boy from the wrong side of the tracks who beat them at their own game

Sam says:

05:45pm | 02/11/09

Give us a break Tracey.  There are real issues around privacy that the media won’t talk about. 

for all the talk of freedom of speech, the media don’t allow it on this issue.

we have seen countless examples where the freedom of the press is used to trample lives and trample over privacy.

like the 16 year old boy who earlier this year was bitten by a shark and whilst he was in surgery all of his facebook pics were downloaded and posted on major news sites (including news limited).  the same thing happens to every car accident victim.

then we have public figures where media organisations offer money to the highest bidder.  We don’t want to turn into the US where we have car chases with papparazzi, where the families of politicians are dragged into the spot light -and where sanctimonious journalists tutt tutt about the mistakes of others and cover up their own mistakes.

We also need a discussion about the behaviour of media in provoking outbursts…Im sure it would be pretty easy to provoke such an outburst from yourself.  A snapper would just need to say something nasty about you or someone you love to get the desired reaction.  C’mon Tracey you know how the game is played - or maybe things are a little different in the air conditioned newsrooms!

The fact is there is a dispute around this altercation are no one really knows what happened.  And whilst I’m not a keating lover in any way shape or form, Id back a Keating over a papparazzi any day.

Bob H says:

05:48pm | 02/11/09

If he does not like it - he should have thought about the consequences of seeking high office, fame and fortune that his family would have to suffer.  If he did not think about it at the time he really was quite dumb after all.

iansand says:

06:04pm | 02/11/09

Oh look.  The media and their fodder are having a spat.  How .... interesting.

Adam says:

06:25pm | 02/11/09

Here’s an idea, stop reporting his comments. Give him the privacy he craves. Oh, that’s right, can’t do that, he’s always good for a quote and sells copy.

Richard says:

06:45pm | 02/11/09

What a load of typical media self-serving rubbish this article is.  According to the media, just because a person goes into politics,  becomes a successful actor or enters some other role that involves some public notoriety, they are fair game to having their photos taken anytime, anywhere, having their private lives intruded upon without hindrance, having their family, including children, made a public spectacle of, being followed by paps as though they were criminals and generally having their lives raped by the media.  This is a very one-sided deal authored entirely by the media   Those who seek fame for its own sake and invite pubilicity of any kind (eg Paris Hilton) can reasonably be taken to have accepted that deal, but others to whom pubilicity is simply a necessary concomitant of doing their job - eg a politician performing his role, an actor promoting a film or play - is another case altogether.  We shouldn’t fall for the media snowjob on these issues - and this article is a fine example.

David says:

09:09pm | 02/11/09

I don’t know why but I always forget that Keating really was our Prime Minister for a while. Maybe its because he was so Sydney orientated. I dunno really.

ShaneO says:

09:33pm | 02/11/09

Slightly off topic - how hot is Katherine Keating!

I mean seriously!

Brett says:

09:50pm | 02/11/09

I really didn’t care too much about the blog until I read “political lobbying business”.
Political Lobbying is undemocratic and only serves self vested groups who have money or squeal the loudest. They only represent the views of the wealthy or corrupt.
Sorry, no respect for any Keating now.

Scott says:

10:54pm | 02/11/09

Come off it, Tracey.

I think you’re the one who’s the hypocrite. Katherine had no choice in the matter of fame and it’s a bloody joke to suggest anyone who enters politics does so for the fame.

Razor says:

12:53am | 03/11/09

Sam - on the specific issue of use of photos off facebook - it is a public forum.  If you don’t want your photos in public then don’t post them on facebook.

The press generally are pretty good at not reporting private stuff that doesn’t matter.

S.L says:

03:59am | 03/11/09

When Mr Keating lost his last election he did the honourable thing, he quit his position in the Labor party then retired from politics. He slipped back into private life. Never have I seen him at major sporting events celebrating with the winners or “at the opening of an envelope” as you put it. His coments are reported because you ask for them! I"ve never recalled an interviewer getting on top of him at all and his intollerance of “idiots” is legendary. As for Katherine I don’t know the girl and have no doubt and altercation occured as reported but you are taking the photographers word as gospal. The press wouldn’t lie would they?

melshanks says:

08:58am | 03/11/09

Great article Tracey. What a pack of hypocrites the Keatings are. Katherine Keating flaunts her wealth and privilege every weekend posing at every part known in the weekend papers. Do any of the Keating children actually have real jobs? Katherine Keating regularly poses in Harpers Bizarre and Vogue - is the Tele not good enough for her ‘IT” girl status. So much for Paul Keating and his Labor ethos - he has managed to bring up children who exhibit all of the Liberal party excess.

Lexi says:

09:31am | 03/11/09

Great article Tracey!  This event was, after all, a “media launch”.  I think it’s a fair guess that there will be plenty of media there, taking photos and reporting on what was worn, who was there and any misdemeanours.  It’s kind of the point of the event.

Keating and his family are just one example of “celebrities” who seem to think they can pick and choose when the media is allowed in.  If Keating had his way and the media only reported what its subjects endorsed, you wouldn’t sell papers.  In fact, they’d just be full of advertising and positive propaganda.  We’d also have even dodgier people in office or public positions.  Sounds like a communist or fascist state if you ask me - not the politics but the media control.

The media, like it or not, has a role of providing some sort of accountability for public figures.  Like democracy, it’s not perfect, but it’s better than nothing.

Let he who never buys a trashy mag or tabloid be the first to cast a stone, I say.

davido says:

10:35am | 03/11/09

You are way out of touch. Everyone supports Ms Keating on this.

You display the apalling ethics so common in the media.

Chris O'Regan says:

12:19pm | 03/11/09

What a strange perspective.  Katherine Keating has never publicly criticised journalists, so her father has to stand substitute so journos can whinge about their hurt feelings. Now who’s being sensitive?  The fact that Keating criticised journalists is neither here nor there when we’re talking about what allegedly took place that night.

The reference to journos “Just doing their job” is really code for “trying to *create* news and controversy”.  Cigarette company executives and munitions manufacturers have jobs too, but, one hopes, they are given to occasional reflection on whether their conduct is appropriate.

Put simply, people have a right to complain when they are treated unfairly by the press - (as happens all the time).  Being feted and glamourised unjustly doesn’t remove one of one’s basic right not to be mistreated.  And

I wasn’t there and I don’t know what happened that night - but Katherine Keating is entitled to complain if she felt physically uncomfortable.  She’s not some criminal, and journalists are not police officers armed with warrants.  And the cheap shot in the caption is just simple malice.

Knightyme says:

06:11pm | 03/11/09

Razor: Granted the photos are on a public site.  I think the irritation was that the photos had nothing to do with the story at hand.  Aside from the profile picture, all other photos on most FB profiles cant be seen by those not on a friends list, so to that extent the photos are only there to be seen by a friend and not for publishing to the world in general, particularly form an organization that is making a profit from the photos, not selling as the photos but within a publication.  And then there is the copyright issue, I’m betting neither the author of the photos or FB management authorized the use of those photos.

On the issue of Privacy, If your high profile, in whatever profession, it is par for the course to be photographed.  That said, I would suggest that the media only report on an individual during their ‘on job’ time, and when a person is realistically ‘off job’, ie at home, on holiday, doing the weekly shopping, they should be off limits, everyone should have an expectation of some basic privacy.  If person X is at an opening / screening ect, snap away as they are by virtue of being at that function, on the job, even as a guest, if they are sunning themselves at home or on a beach, that is their off job time so leave them alone.

Family of the famous - particularly children - if you can see them through anything (eyes, telephoto lens as examples), your too close.

Now those Paps at my front door, back away slowly and no one gets hurt.

Peter of Adelaide says:

06:31pm | 03/11/09

Further up was the comment that a 16 year old lad was attacked by a shark, and that the journos found his face book profile and downloaded and published his pictures.  I would have to wonder at the thinking of the editors, what does the pictures on face book have to do with a shark attack?  Unless they were pictures of the attack or soon after.

If your in the public eye them you should expect to be photographed from time to time.  The more events you go to the more you will be photographed.  One of the main reason I’m not famous is that I detest having my photo taken, that and I’m too lazy.  lol

Heléna says:

09:13pm | 03/11/09

it doesn’t surprise me that Paul Keating is trying to change the law to suit himself,  harden up Katherine! I think she should have expected to be photographed at what was after all a media launch

Snapper friend says:

03:18pm | 04/11/09

Well said Tracey…. well said

MikeyMike says:

04:44pm | 04/11/09

I think the issue here is that the camerperson accused Ms keating of kicking her and threatening them, not having the photo taken, which makes this article so far off topic as to be ludicrous. However, it is true that one of the main reasons socialites attend these parties is to have their photo taken, and usually get upset if ‘snubbed’. Any socialite who says otherwise is lying to themselves. Not all attendants are socialites, and the camerapeople are usually very polite,and almost always respect someone’s wishes to not have a photo taken. But a known figure is known for a reason, its that simple. I agree with the sentiments that any public figure who claims invasion of privacy at a public event is being hypocritical and up themselves. Noone should ever be snapped in their private life, how its become such a huge industry is how history will judge this obsessed culture of ours…