Sunday Telegraph in late, late change of heart over Pauline Hanson photos
The Sunday Telegraph last night took a deadline-busting decision to admit that its so-called nude photographs of politican Pauline Hanson were not her – and to apologise. The decision was taken so late that the version of the paper’s editorial comment that went online at midnight does not include the apology or admission that the pictures were not real.
In a move virtually unprecedented for an Australian newspaper, the Tele this morning gives over its entire editorial column to the apology, which is signed by editor Neil Breen.
And the paper’s decision to shift the blame onto photographer Jamie Fawcett, who brokered last week’s pictures, also appears to have been a late one. In the final edition version of the editorial (which at the time of writing is in the paper’s online archive, although its home page is still mistakenly linked to the old version), Breen says:
“Pauline Hanson: I’ve said all week that I’d be the first person to apologise to you if you if it were proven the pictures we published last weekend were not of you. I am now convinced we have the proof they were presented to us as part of an elaborate con. So Pauline, I am sorry. We should never have published them.”
He goes on to claim that the man who sold the photos, Jack Johnson, had told Fawcett he also had pictures of another, unnamed Australian celebrity. He adds that Fawcett “did not disclose this vital information to The Sunday Telegraph. If he did the paper’s approach to the pictures would have been quite different.”
The earlier edition of his editorial did not admit the photos were not of Hanson, and carried no mention of Fawcett. The rewrite also saw another change – in the early edition, the paper acknowledged readers did not feel that publication was in the public interest anyway, saying:
“We accept many readers disagree and many of you believe that publishing the 30-year-old pictures served no public interest.”
In the final edition, this is toned down to:
“We accept that decision was made on a flawed premise.”
The issue of the difference between the public being interested in something and the public interest was raised by last week’s Media Watch, which reported the paper’s deputy editor Helen McCabe as saying: “That will be determined by the number of people that buy the paper.”
The paper also ran out of time to change today’s letters page – the first one begins: “Isn’t it great to see Pauline Hanson is a real person. So what if she let a friend at the time photograph her with no clothes on.”
Mr T, how could you?
This terrible affair was tawdry beyond relief
I’m sure that you will with me agree
That better men don’t go so low beneath
The gutter for standards like these, Mr T.
Is public interest served by hurting publicly
A woman who in her time was brave
Who tried honestly, though unpoliticaly
To to do her best, One Nation, ours, to save.
We did not all agree with what she had to say
But when the pressure was on, she took it all and more
And came away as one who’s courage did display
Genuine character, yet you portyayed her as a whore.
Your falling sales reflect the rue of your wretched rag
Meeting neither readers’ needs nor standards
A despicable desperate dumb detour to drag
A fine woman down to your gutter level you bastards.
User ID not verified.
Breen specifically said his job should be called into question if the photos were fake. This is incredibly embarrassing for News papers right around the country. Is anyone in Sydney questioning his editorship? Hello? Anyone there…?
User ID not verified.
Whilst it’s big of The Telegraph’s editor to apologize for taking the Pauline Hanson Photo Con seriously, I think the point should be made here that nude photographs of anyone – whether they be celebrities, serious politicians or political jokes like Pauline Hanson – are really not appropriate in our news media.
Isn’t it enough to just write an article about it? Why do you have to publish grubby, revolting images of someone as physically unattractive as Pauline Hanson, in the nude? (It’s enough to put a person off their lunch, quite frankly.) Couldn’t you just have compared their faces?
I’d also like to point out that I’m not in any way a holy roller or a prude. I like sex and scandal as much as the next person. But really…EW! YUK! BLAH! Seeing naked images of someone like Miss Hanson is a bit like being given a naked calendar of Octagenarians for Christmas. Or a pair of used underpants from your grandma.
Really, you will save yourself a lot of trouble in the future if you simply show a little good taste. Just to be specific, I don’t want to see naked photos of K.Rudd, Mr. Brumby or Kim Beasly either. So if you ever get any, PLEASE, PLEASE don’t publish them.
Thanks.
User ID not verified.
I thought we were free from this tabloid-esque behaviour we see in other countries. The apology doesn’t quite cut it for me.
User ID not verified.
I suspect most people think that Neil Breen didn’t belive the photos were genuine, but it was worth the risk for him.
User ID not verified.
Editors make judgements every day; and on a deadline. Sometime they get it wrong, as in this case. They certainly don’t always apologise. It was a big mistake and a big apology. It’s very easy to not apologise; most of us do it every day. I think this Editor got the balance right.
User ID not verified.