Public interest

22 November 2009, 5:17pm
Comments (6)

The Adelaide Advertiser has disallowed comments on its website regarding reports of Premier Mike Rann's alleged affair.

Michelle Chantelois is expected to reveal her claims of a steamy sexual relationship with the Premier on Adelaide television tonight.

Why is this a matter of public interest?

Mr Rann holds the highest elected office in the state. Whether he likes it or not, he lives in a fishbowl and that's not unreasonable.

And Ms Chantelois' husband is facing an assault charge over his alleged attack on the Premier.

The Advertiser can't have an each-way bet on this.

Either it's a matter of public interest (which it is) and should be openly discussed, or report nothing.

The website moderators should simply decline to publish anything which relates to the alleged assault.

Everything else is fair game.

The Advertiser is arguably showing political bias in refusing to allow discussion about the Premier's personal behavior.

As for the political impact of the allegations, I don't know. Let's wait and see what the man in the street says.

My own views will depend on whether Mr Rann admits or denies the claims and how he handles it.

Rann, Adelaide, newspapers,

Comments

Michael 23 November 2009, 5:17pm

Michael The Adelaide Advertiser has now allowed comments on the broader issue of the relationship between Mr Rann and Ms Chantelois, with a note: "AdelaideNow welcomes comments on the issue of the relationship between Mike Rann and Michelle Chantelois but will not accept comment on the alleged incident at the National Wine Centre as criminal charges are pending."

Mr Rann has categorically denied having a sexual relationship with Ms Chantelois.

I believe him. What motive does he have to lie, apart from protecting his moral reputation?

Ebony 23 November 2009, 5:17pm

Ebony If we are to believe Michelle Chantelois, a lot of athletics were involved.

That would require extreme physical fitness and a lot of imagination.

Telling whoppers always gets messy, and you have to have such a good memory to pull it off.

Ebony 26 November 2009, 3:15pm

Ebony The Advertiser is getting to be a bit like a magazine.

I never buy magazines because they are pointless, gossipy, pathetically sensational, overt the top, and a tad boring when you read nothing but recycled crap.

I am over the sex scandal because of all the drama queen stuff that was yesterday's headline; with Michelle trotting out all her emotional baggage.

Like I said the 'Advertiser' is getting to be old school crap.

Adam Naiova 19 December 2009, 10:22pm

Adam Naiova You may find this surprising, given that I'm a generally a Labor supporter, but I do believe Michelle Chantelois' story.

It's hard to put my finger on why, but her claims in the interview seemed to 'ring true' so to speak, more so than Mike Rann's denials did.

Not that this in any way changes my political views on the Rann government or how I will vote, as it is completely un-related.

It is interesting and in my opinion surprising, now that this story is almost a month old, to reflect how the media hasn't 'run' with the story and has gone rather silent on the issue.

It reminds me of something I read on another internet discussion board on the topic of South Australian politics.

It was commented that in the 1970's, Don Dunstan would never had a successful premier in any state other than SA, because the media would have delved too much into Dunstan's various personal 'eccentricities'.

It was claimed that the SA media have always tended to have a more circumspect approach to reporting about the private lives of politicians.

Do you think the media varies in these sorts of ways between states?

I know for instance, talkback radio is much more influential in NSW and particularly Sydney than anywhere else in Australia.

Ebony 20 December 2009, 3:15pm

Ebony It is interesting Adam you lean towards Michelle's side of the story.
Don Dunstan was fortunate to live in such a nanny state as SA.
Even back in the 1970's homosexuality was a bit too hot to handle.
The media in the other states are less conventional on taboo? topics.

Michael 20 December 2009, 5:17pm

Michael I thought the media coverage of the whole issue was unusually soft until Channel Seven stepped in. In Victoria, NSW or Western Australia the story would have broken much earlier and run much harder.

The Advertiser online disallowed web comments until Fairfax websites interstate woke up to the issue and started a national discussion.

I think it's a symptom of lack of competition in the print media.

Write a comment

* = required field

:

:

:

: