Category Archives: Media

Where the fault lies, from the top down

This whole Princess Kate topless photo kerfuffle has got the better of me. I actively searched last night on Google and easily found an eyeful. I didn’t feel a better person for having done so. But it wasn’t about titillation, even though I have now actively participated in a vicarious act of voyeurism on a female body, or just about being swept up in postmodern tabloid culture. I wanted to see how easy it was. It was easy.

So it’s obvious that today’s news about a French court blocking further publication of the topless photos is too late. The cat’s out of the bag, the puppies are out of the bikini top, and the online horse has bolted.

The Palace, I’m sure, knows this, but had to take some visible action. What’s caught my attention is the fall-out from the fall-out, which seems to be a lot about apportioning blame for this ‘incident.’ So who’s at fault? Let’s start at the top:

  • Princess Kate! What was she doing! A woman in her position! No matter where she was, she should have known better. Tsk tsk.
  • The alleged photographer, Ms Suau!* What a betrayal of the sisterhood! And what a demonstration of the callousness of the paparazzi who still haven’t learned how to be decent following the death of Princess Diana. And being her daughter-in-law and all. Shame on her/them.
  • The editor! Sorry, editors, because there’s three now: French Closer and Italian Chi magazines (owned by the Berlusconi media empire, which apparently explains everything), and the Irish Daily Star. How could they? These people have no conscience.
  • The media! Just leave it alone. Move along, nothing to see here (well, not a lot). You’re giving it legs as well. C’mon, there’s more important stuff in the world, no matter how ‘respectfully’ you’re dealing with it.
  • The public! Us. You. Me. Consumers of tabloid, popular culture, against our better judgement. Don’t buy into it, and don’t buy it!

* Interestingly, in earlier reports, reference to Ms Suau was accompanied with “rhymes with sewer.” I can’t find any references to those comments now.

So what a sorry mess this is. How can there be one person, agent or thing at fault?

And throughout it all, in public at least, under the knowing and known gaze of the lens, Kate has smiled and dutifully fulfilled her role accompanying William on their nine-day Asia-Pacific tour. Which is why, to end it all, I love the delicious irony of the photos accompanying her arrival at the Solomon Islands, where she was greeted by topless women.

In perhaps a depressingly-backfired attempt to give support to the Princess, some of the headlines for this picture were, “‘How are you baring up, your highness?’ Topless tribeswomen give Kate attack of the giggles:”

(Courtesy Herald Sun)

Problem is, she wasn’t giggling.  If you look at the opening second or two of the Reuters video from the arrival (as I’ve done a few times now, not just because I’m a pop culture consumer but I also want to make sure I’m right on this), you can see she’s actually lifting her hands to check her hair’s okay after having had the necklace draped over her. And is in complete control of her laughing gear. This is an opportunistic snap, used inappropriately, however with a sympathetic context its accuracy is overlooked.

Terrible, isn’t it.

Almost as bad as the last category of people to blame for all this: those pesky bloggers who can’t help themselves from wading into the stream of information that flows past us all, some of it murkier than the rest.

An open letter to Gina Rinehart

19 June 2012

Dear Ms Rinehart

Before I go any further, I should let you know I don’t work in the media industry (although for a brief period in the 2000s I was an ABC broadcaster in regional Australia, quite near to where you’re making your billions, in fact, so I get that bit), and I’m not a media expert or commentator, nor someone experienced in business takeovers or Board management. However, I’m someone with an interest in media and culture and stuff and that.

So about the Fairfax thing, I don’t quite get your play here. Have you really thought it through?

I can only assume that you want to  have more editorial control. Really, why else would you bother? You’re the richest woman in the world, with money from resources, not media interests, so your entry here can’t be for altruistic purposes to secure the future of an Australian media institution, or the fourth estate more generally.

If that’s the case, let’s look at some of the possible scenarios from your recent and growing share acquisitions.

First, if you don’t acquiesce to sign a charter of editorial independence, here’s some potential fallout:

  • Lots of hoo-ha from journalists and media types (internally and externally), pesky pressure from government etc. Not good for the share price = bad investment in the short term. But ….
  • If the hoo-ha is protracted, you lose key journalists from the SMH and Age which will be symptomatic of how abysmal it will be to work there because they value their independence after 170 years, readership goes down, share goes down, Fairfax Media goes down the toilet = bad investment = no influence = failed objective (I’m guessing).

Second, if you do sign a charter of editorial independence, here’s some more potential fallout:

  • even though you’ve signed the charter, everyone knows you want editorial control (see above), so when you begin to exert it, there’ll be lots of hoo-ha from journalists and media types (internally and externally), pesky pressure from government, Australian Press Council and things like, well, maybe you  know that Leveson thing happening in the UK at the moment with Rupert? Like that. Not very good for reputations, although that doesn’t seem to have bothered you so far, and I get that too.
  • If the hoo-ha is protracted, you lose key journalists from the SMH and Age which will be symptomatic of how abysmal it will be to work there because they value their independence after 170 years, readership goes down, share goes down, Fairfax Media goes down the toilet = bad investment = no influence = failed objective (I’m still guessing).

So far I’m not seeing a lot of win:win here. Again though, I can see the money thing isn’t an issue, but still.

In fact I’m trying to determine the value of the perceived influence against the risk of the failure. What influence could possibly be worth so much as to put the future of this media organisation at risk?

Is it really worth that much? And can you really buy it?

It reminds me of the expression about horses, water and drinking.

Or, as my wise mother once told me: just because you can do something (which, in your case, is because you have unlimited wealth at your disposal), doesn’t mean you have to.

What are you really trying to achieve here? If you didn’t have a billion squillon dollars to expend on this folly, would you?

I’d love to know.

Yours sincerely

JB

%d bloggers like this: