On 25 January I wrote Surviving in an age of outrage - the personal space. I have the second post on the public space almost ready to go, but my thinking there took me in new directions that I'm still working through.
The genesis of the 25 January post was in fact a conversation about Barnaby Joyce in Armidale prior to the by-election. I wasn't thinking, I was relaxed, had forgotten other views. My friend suddenly said I must go. I realised he was going to avoid what might have become a fight. This is a very old friend, someone whom I really value. I know his views, I disagree with him in many cases, but I do not wish to lose his friendship. I really value it. Better to exercise discretion and shut up. I wish I had done so sooner.
A little later, I realised that I was censoring my public views as well. This came as a bit of a shock. I am not a cultural warrior. I always try to be fair. I want to encourage discussion, to untangle issues. There are certain contested areas such as Aboriginal history and policy where I am very cautious indeed. But to realise the extent to which I am now self-censoring made me very uncomfortable indeed.
I will complete the second post. For the moment, I am providing a context for the brief remarks that follow.
In the two weeks that followed my post on Mr Joyce I watched the deluge of publicity as issue after issue was picked up and thrown into the mix without balance or time for analysis.The original issue of morality as it related to sexual conduct and relations was still there all the time even when denied, aided by the PM's response.
This also became clear at a dinner Wednesday night where the only real issue was the response to to the morality of the affair. The PM's ban was also supported on the grounds that this was no more than the private sector was already doing.
Thursday morning my attention was drawn to this piece of sleaze misreporting from the Canberra Times repeated in the Age. As you might expect given my background, it left me somewhat unhappy.
On Friday morning came the allegations of sexual misconduct. Apparently the lady in question is unhappy that her complaint was made public. I would have thought that inevitable in the circumstances. That morning, the front page of our new guardian of public morality, Sydney's Daily Telegraph, carried Barnaby Joyce on one side of the front page, a story on sexting between two NSW state Liberal MPS, a story later repeated in the Australian.I can't give links. They are now behind the paywall. I looked at the story and thought here it comes.
Later that morning, Mr Joyce resigned as party leader. Then the Northern Daily Leader ran an editorial: This hasn’t been about the affair for a while. I really flipped, tweeting "As an exercise in cant, hypocrisy and back covering this editorial takes the cake. The Joyce matter was everything about sex and what was appropriate to report. Other things were then thrown in. We will all be the poorer for this". Over the top perhaps, but I leave it to you to judge.
Clearly, all the issues that have been ventilated over recent weeks will require some clarification. For that reason, the whole thing is likely to roll on for a while yet. I won't comment on these or the political ramifications at this point because I have no idea how all this will unfold.
I finished my 9 February post on Barnaby Joyce and the question of public versus private morality with these words:
While reporting might not have affected the election result at the time, I do think that the current controversy will have some adverse political effects on Mr Joyce and the National Party. Of more importance, however, is what the case might mean for the dividing line between public and private morality. Are the Daily Telegraph and the other newscorp outlets in their role as "defenders" of public morality taking us down the path previously followed by the British tabloids with their sometimes salacious coverage of moral, generally sexual lapses, by British public figures? Alternatively, will Australia follow the route that the US seems to be going of outright bans on sexual relations between elected officials and their staff? Or maybe both, since the second is likely to lead to the first anyway?
I don't know. I can't answer these questions. The current sometimes febrile debate around relationships suggests a continuing shift in attitudes towards morality, the emergence of new views on what constitutes acceptable behaviour, new views increasingly enforced by various forms of social and legal sanctions. The effect appears to be a progressive widening of the scope of public morality at the cost of private morality.I think that the two weeks since I wrote have largely answered these questions. I may not like it, but we do seem to have entered the domain that what the public are interested in constitutes the public interest, that this now determines the shifting line between public and private morality in a way that we haven't seen before in this country.
Postscript
The Australian provides more information on the sexual harassment claims against Mr Joyce.
Postscript
Discussion in comments referred to the selection process for APVMA HQ in Armidale. While it's peripheral to this post, this is my response: Canberra Times sleazes over Armidale and APVMA
33 comments:
Hello Jim
I personally couldn't care less about Barnaby Joyce's affair, what I dislike is this:
why did he not go public about his marriage breakdown during the Armidale election last year? Even I heard about problems in his life - why did he not tell the truth? It smacks of expediency;
further, why the outrage about the media intrusion into his life? He invited the press into his "home' last week while he was on leave. Why?
he wants his private life to be private - fair enough - so why did he apologise to his family PUBLICLY?
What I respect about you is that you are fair-minded and measured in your public comments; I think BJ has not been as fair-minded.
The whole episode has been unedifying and tawdry.
Sue
oh, Jim, Jim, Jim
Why do you choose to defend the indefensible? The CT times article is hardly 'sleazy'. Anyone who even shares a cup of coffee with Torbay is doomed by association, and of course, wanna be developers will be champing at the bit. Every schoolchild in Canberra understands that the removal of the PVMA or whatever the heck it's called is a textbook example of pork barrelling; perhaps an unfortunate term, considering the Beetrooter's current predicament.
The 'moral' outrage is not about the bird and the baby; it's about the circumstances surrounding it. Marriages, relationships break down; a newer, more exciting prospect appears on the horizon, and whether for better or worse, one partner leaves. You and I both know the truth in that. Barney's sleaze is manifold. He didn't have the guts to tell his wife and kids it was over. He didn't have the guts to announce his new partner as such; oh no, my wife is my partner I'm already paying for a house in Tamworth (or somewhere. He even had the effrontery to turn up at the Midwinter Ball with Mrs J (who, I must admit, must be a bit naïve), at which time the non partner was already well and truly pregnant. He made such a carry on about his defence of traditional marriage (while all the time making a mockery of it), while identifying himself as a conservative upholder of moral, in the same way as T Abbott, read Catholic family values. Bet he hasn't been near a church for years. He went on record as saying that the best thing he could hope for his daughters was to end up in 'traditional' marriages, whatever the hell that means. He also famously opposed the widespread release of Gardasil, because it would lead to female promiscuity. No, it is a public health measure that will prevent millions of women (including, I hope, your daughters, any potential granddaughters, and my gorgeous poppet the second she is old enough to have the shot) from dying from a largely preventable disease. The person (note; I don't call him a man, because he fails every criterion of reputable manhood) is a hypocrite, Jim, of the lowest and sleaziest level. Your mismatched loyalty to the Nats (note, I don't use the old abbreviation for the Country Party)has totally stuffed your sense of perception. The past is another country; they do things differently there. This has nothing to do with your grandfather, who, I'm sure, would have been shocked - not because the Beetrooter chucks it around, although that may have upset him, who knows, but because from whatever I have heard, or read, or learned about DD, he believed that honour and probity were important. BJ displays neither attribute. yours in loving debate, Kate.
This is all getting very tribal - not to mention a severe lack of crlf's - so let's get back to what binds us rather than divides:
https://twitter.com/Holbornlolz/status/967147488980463619
Defy you not to smile :)
kvd
I did laugh, kvd. That poor bird! A few brief responses.
Sue, I think that Mr Joyce should have released a short statement as soon as the separation was finally confirmed providing brief details and asking for the privacy of the others involved. He is a public figure. They are not. I also agree with you that that Armidale interview was quite unwise.
Kate, the Canberra Times/Age piece was Canberra sleaze. I will write something on the New England blog on it. Richard Torbay, for f's sake. It will be four years next month since Richard was forced to withdraw his New England candidature opening the way for Barnaby Joyce. This was followed by those spectacular ICAC raids. We are still waiting for ICAC to take any form of action. There is no evidence that Richard has any connection with this tended. To get him into the frame, the paper had to imply guilt by indirect association.
I won't comment on your remarks about Mr Joyce, I am talked out on this matter, beyond noting that on the chronology we know Ms Campion could not have been well advanced in pregnancy at the time Mr and Mrs Joyce attended the Midwinter ball on 30 June 2017.
Jim
I didn't say advanced, I said well and truly; there's a difference; you are pregnant (well, not you specifically, but you know what I mean)or unpregnant, and by 30 June, the little beetroot was well and truly planted. Torbay and his conduct! If there's a shonk going, especially with Hanna, you can expect a fine 'italian' hand to be stirring something somewhere. He was an incompetent sleazy dolt when he became CEO (for goodness' sake!) of the UNE Union. Remember when it was the Warden and at least a Bachelor's degree was required? Torbay was a short order cook who never got past year 10. For someone who sees himself as a political animal, I truly wonder at your sense of outraged innocence. Darling, you would not have lasted 15 minutes in The Bearpit, even less in the House on the Hill. Kate xxx
Kate, the references I have seen say the baby is due in April. Count back. I really don't want to talk about this level of detail. On APVMA you have led to a full response attacking your local rag's reporting. I was sorely tempted to quote you. The link is now included as a post script. Based on the Times' reporting as opposed to their innuendo, Philip Hanna may have asked about one site, prepared the response lodged by his brother on a second site owned by the family. In the absence of further evidence to the contrary, its just Canberra sleaze.
On your last point, I concluded a long time ago that while I would have enjoyed and been a good local member, while I would have been good on policy and fighting for my causes, I would have been hopeless at putting the boot into people for the sake of political advantage. And I don't know that my personal life could have survived the scrutiny that has become so prevalent. I'm a human being with just too many flaws.
I read that linked NE post. It's quite amazing what you can get from the government if you live in a dodgy, moveable, unstable 'government' seat :)
Armidale pop. 23,000 - have a read of Jim's link for the largess. This AMPVXYZ thing is indeed small stuff.
Nowra/Bomaderry - 35,000 - got a new jail, or gaol if you wish.
What's the bet that NE or the State equivalent will move sideways (or not) next election? And thereby, quite unconnected (of course) carry on doing what it seems to do best?
Fibre to the home; fibro is the norm.
kvd
The good thing about the Barnaby Joyce kerfuffle is the number of politicians of all parties, state and federal, who have looked at it thoroughly, and eschewed snide and salacious commentary about people's private goings-on. Chastened, they have instead publicly sworn off maximising their own entitlements funded at the public expense, to bring back respect for politicians and democracy.
Oops, sorry, wrong universe. Do carry on.
I had to laugh, kvd, for you are just so wrong that I don't know where to begin!
Welcome back, 2t! When the dust has cleared a little, I want to come back to some of these issues. I suspect that I have different views from you on some of the allowance issues, but it needs a proper discussion.
Perfectly happy to be completely, sublimely wrong - if I had anything to do with provoking 2t into providing such an astute comment :)
Jim - the proper putdown terminology is "not even wrong" - or so I'm led to understand :)
kvd
https://www.annsudmalismp.com.au/achievements/
Leaving out the Navy Helicopter thing, most of it's roads and err... more roads. On a 'highway' that's been a goat track for about maybe eons, and still kills people at an outstanding rate. But you got me on the gaol - State initiative.
Way to go!
kvd
Morning, kvd. The projects I cited were intended to put the scale of the APVMA build into context. The Uni college extension is funded by the university. Stage 2 may not proceed now because the recent uni funding cuts have pushed the place into 7.2 million deficit. The TAFE Hub, rural medical centre and new high school are I think state funded. The medical centre is connected with doctor training under the joint UON/UNE rural medicine program, providing training facilities Two existing High schools are being combined into a single new high school on the site of Armidale High school. The Duval High school site will be sold.
Points are taken Jim. I was only trying to move the discussion away from the 'trimester debate' with a little healthy trolling :)
kvd
Laughs. Quite right!
The press was navigating unexplored terrain, too. Anonymous sources seemed to emerge almost daily with new (and often false or meaningless) revelations. There was a new commingling of traditional news, talk radio, tabloid television, and online rumor mills (fake news, anyone?). With the introduction of the World Wide Web (in 1992-93) and two new cable news networks (Fox News and MSNBC in 1996), the lines began to blur between fact and opinion, news and gossip, private lives and public shaming. The Internet had become such a propulsive force driving the flow of information that when the Republican-led Judiciary Committee of the House of Representatives decided to publish Ken Starr’s commission’s “findings” online—just two days after he had delivered them—it meant that (for me personally) every adult with a modem could instantaneously peruse a copy and learn about my private conversations, my personal musings (lifted from my home computer), and, worse yet, my sex life.
- Vanity Fair - https://www.vanityfair.com/news/2018/02/monica-lewinsky-in-the-age-of-metoo
But of course, this "public/private thing" is a new phenomenon.
kvd
I dunno if she wrote that piece, but ML actually makes some good points:
One useful viewpoint is that of cognitive linguist George Lakoff. In his book Moral Politics: What Conservatives Know That Liberals Don’t, Lakoff observes that the connective fiber of our country is often best represented through the metaphor of family: e.g., “our Founding Fathers,” “Uncle Sam,” the concept of sending our sons and daughters to war.
Lakoff goes on to argue that, “for conservatives, the nation is conceptualized (implicitly and unconsciously) as a Strict Father family and, for liberals, as a Nurturant Parent family.” Addressing the scandal itself, he asserts that Clinton was widely perceived as “the naughty child” and that, in line with the filial metaphor, “a family matter [had turned] into an affair of state.” Thus, in many ways, the crack in the foundation of the presidency was also a crack in our foundation at home. Moreover, the nature of the violation—an extramarital relationship—struck at the heart of one of humanity’s most complicated moral issues: infidelity.
Open to rebuttal, of course, but at the least - food for thought - and I respect her perspective.
kvd
Morning kvd. She writes well, but it left me sad. So much damage. The point about the early impact of the internet is interesting. Since then, we have had a further explosion via social media. I wonder how President Kennedy would have gone?
I didn't want us to go down the US path. The difficulty now is just where is the dividing line between public and private. Is there one?
Jim,
The circumstances were different, but the declaration "Caesar's wife must be above suspicion" indicates that the dividing line between public and private morality has not been a strong one historically, if it existed at all.
Frankly, I don't believe it ever has.
Mr Joyce has always put on display his maverick nature. Like Bob Katter Jr, it's been a very successful retail display. The question it leaves behind is: Is he really a National? Is he really suited to high office (Acting PM)? He, more than most, has displayed a disregard for party and political norms and policy and has done very well doing so. He can hardly complain when extending that to other facets of his life comes back to bite him.
You raise an interesting point, 2t. It may well be that I have phrased the issue in the wrong way.
That phrase is an interesting one. The original is reported as "my wife ought not even to be under suspicion". He divorced her not because she had done anything wrong but because events cast a shadow on he Ceasar. From there it morphed into the form you cite with the common meaning that those in positions of authority should avoid even the implication of impropriety. I think, I haven't been able to check,that it became fashionable in Victorian times as a moral aphorism, dropped out of favour, and then came back in the last few decades.
Views on morality vary between cultures and shift with time, as do questions of what constitutes acceptable behaviour. I have questions in my mind here that I cannot quite resolve at the moment.
Coming back for another short go. I think that there is a distinction between public and private morality that dates back to the emergence of governing structures. There have been two aspects to public morality. One relates to the way that institutions work, the second the extent to which the polity should dictate private behaviour.
In Australia, there has been a long standing convention that politicians private lives have been to a substantial degree off-limits. The significance of this convention can be gauged simply by the way people can list the times it has been broken starting with the allegations over Ainslie Gotto. Since the sixties, we have also had campaigns to get the state out of private lives especially on sexual matters. Both have the effect of maintaining or widening the private space. Both are now in reverse as society becomes more puritan.
Regards public -v- private morality, Archbishop Pell might agree with you wholeheartedly.
Or, if not him, then have a re-view of "Spotlight" to see the damage done by the entirely artificial barrier/divide you are seeking to place between "acceptable" public -v- private 'morality'.
For mine, that's not the main point of where we are at; I'm more disgusted (yes, that's the word) by the apparent role lovingly adopted by our fearless press.
Those guys and gals who sip at the cup, and somehow get to decide what is "fit" for public consumption: "Well, of course, we all knew; it was common knowledge".
kvd
I'm struggling with this comment, kvd. I don't see what Cardinal Pell has to do with this. You will have to explain.
In a way, your last comment captures some of my concerns. I agree that there is a degree of back-covering, but you seem to be saying that the only rule governing publication should be what the public might be interested in. I think, actually, that that rule has now been established. If so, we come back to the appropriate nature of reporting.
So what do you belive the press should have reported and in what way?
Jim
1) Your talk of some difference btw public as opposed to private morality; I don't accept that divide.
2) "you seem to be saying": I said nothing of the sort. Discussion only continues so long as both parties accept, at face value, what each might say.
You suggest some sort of difference (in terms of morals) between what is public and what is private? I don't accept that - but perhaps I've got your thought wrong?
About your last question: "press". I honestly no longer care. They have no continuing relevance in my worldview, I am sad to say.
kvd
Cardinal Pell [is alleged to have] decided what should and shouldn't be reported, and in deciding and as a consequence [is alleged to have] did things which were very much matters of public interest.
The press, made up of people who rate ahead of politicians but behind used car salesmen in terms of public confidence, have shown themselves to be prurient and gun shy at the same time. Only when one reported it did others follow suit. The Guardian didn't report it when they could have because "they didn't have evidence". Hasn't stopped opinion writers in the past. Bolt within the same week called for BJ's resignation and then said that he'd been assassinated by leaks. Both pieces were aimed squarely at Turnbull.
The press should have reported important things. Their focus on character assassination for the period at least since Howard rather than on policy should tell us a lot. BJ's alleged misuse of public funds is small beer compared to Defence's screw-up on fuel purchases. Defence rates about 5 column inches, compared to more like 5 miles for BJ.
You will have to bear with me a little, kvd!
2t, leaving aside this latest case, this relates to Cardinal Pell's personal behaviour, the Cardinal is alleged to have placed the interests of the institutional church ahead of victims. In so doing, he was occupying a senior institutional position and was responding on behalf of that institution. That makes the matter a matter of public importance and a legitimate subject for reporting. To argue otherwise would come close to saying the press should never report. The current case is also a matter of legitimate reporting since it involves a court case.
I think that one of the practical difficulties with the media now, and Mr Bolt is a good example, lies in the admixture of reporting with commentary and opinion. Mr Bolt is not reporting but opining. I would argue that one of the reasons why people have lost trust in the media is not so much that the papers don't report but people don't trust the reporting.
On Pell, I was not talking about 'reported" in terms of the press. I was addressing the issue of public vs private morality. Pell argued that the Church had a right (a moral right) to conceal "private" matters from society and the police, that such a divide exists and that he and his institutions had absolute call. I'd agree that the press only has the right to print what it can get hold of - no-one is obliged to report to them. Pell's original arguments (this has zero to do with his court case, I am talking about people other than Pell) reeked of special pleading to protect the Church's reputation.
I would never presume to speak for kvd, but this what I took his comment on Archbishop Pell to mean: that the Archbishop asserted that there is such a thing as private morality and it is entitled to special and absolute protection.
Politicians who try to partition their private lives from their public lives also reek of special pleading, unless they have done the same partitioning themselves. As soon as they use families, or religion, or service medals or anything as props for election or moral authority, their relationship to what they have offered up is open to examination. My local member sends a happy snap to all in his electorate of himself and his happy family each Christmas. He has implicitly chosen to publicise his relationship; he'd better not be found compromising it.
On Pell, 2t, am I correct in assuming that you are talking about the confession issue?
Jim, tanners has me right - and no, not 'the confession issue". The wider issue of priests under his direct or indirect authority, and his reported actions in what seems like protecting them in the name of (I assume) protecting the church.
kvd
Thank you 2t. I misunderstood your earlier comment, kvd. I apologise. I will respond in a little while.
At the time I wrote the last comment, the latest Barnaby Joyce matter was jut breaking. Its quite bizarre from the original Canberra time line calculations and rumours that then surfaced in the press followed by that interview.
Since then I watched the feeds and made a few responses. It's been very unpleasant with people putting the boot in and then saying how sorry they are for all those involved.On the other side of the equation, the sex lives of those on the Labor side plus some journos are now being ventilated. My view remains that we will all pay a heavy price for what has happened. That thin dividing line relating to personal privacy and lives has been broken and probably cannot be restored.
I'm sorry but I'm putting this conversation on hold. I would like to address the issues raised about Pell et al, but prefer to do so independent of the original starting point. For the moment, I would prefer to think about more pleasant things. Today's exchanges have left me feeling slightly grubby.
Jim, given that both tanners and I have been talking about your public/private morality concept, I'm assuming that by your "today's exchanges" you are referring to discussion elsewhere. At least I hope so.
kvd
Thought for the day:
The problem with these elastic definitions of everything - gender (see FB), consent (see Weinstein), privacy, morality - is that sooner or later you reach maximum stretch.
And here we are.
kvd
That's right 2t. Twitter in particular. Nothing wrong with you two! Agree with your last point!
Post a Comment