THERE should be no debate over media fundamentals when it comes to the John Della Bosca story, which was broken by The Daily Telegraph on Tuesday this week.
Mr Della Bosca is a public figure and when his private life and the performance of his public offices come into conflict, that is indubitably a matter of public interest, so the newspaper’s editor, Garry Linnell was more than “at liberty” to publish the story – morally and ethically, he had no choice. His inescapable duty was to publish the story for his readers’ legitimate information.
And maybe along the same lines, Mr Della Bosca felt he had no option other than to resign as a minister. While he dismissed claims his relationship with 26-year-old “Kate” had affected his work, there could be no doubt the public revelation of his affair would act as an almighty distraction from his ministerial responsibility. So, he had to go. Probably. Maybe. How long he wanders the wilderness remains to be seen.
But here’s another question: which is why did “Kate” - or “Harmony”, or whomever she prefers to known - get to keep her anonymity, albeit briefly, when poor old Della was been left dangling in the breeze, his privacy bared for all to see, for all to jeer and sneer at?
Okay, you can’t have a story about a State Government minister’s extramarital affair without identifying the guilty party – but why is one of the participants more guilty than the other? What - did “Kate” get forced into the predicament in which she finds herself? Did she not know who Mr Della Bosca was? Did she not know he was married? Was she a victim of any illegality? The answer to all of the above would appear to be an unequivocal “no”, so the question surely arises: What motivated her to make the unedifying details of tryst public in the first place? And having been kissed, and having told, how is it she remains unidentified.
Now, “Kate’s” desire to remain anonymous was probably always going to prove a pretty forlorn hope. Indeed, by as early as Wednesday evening - barely 36 hours after the story broke – she had been revealed as Kate Neill, a 26-year-old occasional stand-up comedienne, whose career highlights include at least one appearance with the Victorian comedy duo, Flacco and the Sandman. Whose laughing now, we wonder?
But there’s a moot point here, is there not? Why was Neill allowed to set off her bomb from a position of concealment?
Now, the newspaper will argue that there is no discernible public interest in revealing Neill’s identity, and that is both right and proper.
But for all that, surely there was a moral obligation on Neill herself. By her decision to expose Mr Della Bosca’s infidelity, she cut short his political career and deprived the State - if you’re inclined to believe some of the more breathless endorsements broadcast and published since his resignation this week – of a wonderfully talented and dedicated servant of the public. Yes, well, maybe, but leave that to one side.
The point is, if Neill’s identity had remained secret, what consequences would have followed for her in the aftermath of her explosive revelation? Presumably, her closest friends and family knew of the “betrayal” she had endured and no doubt in that circle she felt – still feels - humiliated and belittled. No doubt, there have been tears in torrents. But for Mr Della Bosca, his shame is universal. And because his name is well-known, we’ll not soon forget the events which led to his downfall. Neill, on the other hand? Presumably, she was hoping to nurse her sorrow in secret. Would that have been entirely fair?
Someone suggested to me yesterday that since Mr Della Bosca was the married one, there was a greater obligation on him to be truthful and trustworthy. Having said to Neill – on her version of events - that his marriage was broken and that he was leaving his wife, he was duty bound to do that, wasn’t he? After all, Neill had no-one else to consider, so far as we know. Wasn’t she entitled to take him at his word? It’s a view with which many will agree.
But it’s perhaps also a pretty naïve view. For it’s not entirely unheard of, is it, that people will say and do all sorts of extraordinary and unbelievable things under the pressure of an aching heart? Who knows, maybe Mr Della Bosca meant everything he said to Kate, only to find himself not possessed of the strength to follow though on his alleged pledges.
But all that is immaterial. On the face of it, Neill acted like “a woman scorned”, motivated - it seems - by nothing more than the old-fashioned desire to inflict pain, to exact risk-free revenge.
Well, she got her wish – for a day. And now she knows universal truth; few secrets last for long.
Give her the benefit of the doubt. Maybe she knew that all along, and just wanted a day’s grace to prepare. But however you look at it, neither Mr Della Bosca nor the previously anonymous Kate Neill come out of this looking too flash, do they?
Don’t miss: Get The Punch in your inbox every day
Facebook Recommendations
Read all about it
Punch live
Up to the minute Twitter chatter
In my sports column on The Punch tomorrow: why Eurovision was easily the best game on the weekend. Mummy bloggers, you'll like this one!
Recent posts
The latest and greatest
Abbott’s crass logic: trash the Parliament in order save it
An email was sent to almost every politician in Australia this week saying that someone should cut off…
Our special forces don’t always need special treatment
We admire them, but we’re not entirely sure why. We allow them to operate in the shadows; we rarely…
A good holiday is about unrest, not rest
Like a fat full-stop, it lay in my hand. A small orange – not exactly fresh, but purchased anyway…
Gentle jabs to the ribs
They must pay for one’s bitter disappointments
A private school girl’s family is sueing her elite, extremely expensive private school for not… Read more
Most commented