David Campbell latest victim

Date: 21-May-2010

Everybody is talking today about Channel 7’s questionable decision to publicly out NSW Government minister David Campbell in the worst way possible – by filming him leaving a gay sex-on-premises venue.

Was that decision, which cost him his front-bench position, motivated by homophobia? Or was it, as they claim, in the public interest because it exposed the double standards of a man who campaigned on family values?
One point worth throwing into the debate is that Channel 7 has a track record with this kind of thing.
Remember, this is the station that brought us the outrageous and outright defamatory allegations against high-profile barrister John Marsden in the ‘90s, claiming he paid under-aged boys for sex.
Those reports were the subject of Australia’s longest-running defamation case, with 229 hearing days and 113 witnesses, that ultimately resulted in Channel 7 paying more than half a million dollars in damages and an estimated six million in costs.
Even when it was all over, executive producer Peter Manning refused to accept responsibility for the damage he had caused. “What Channel 7 has done is to put the evidence before the public, and in the public interest and I think that was the right thing to do,” he said at the time. “I don't have regrets about that,”
The real question we need to be asking is not whether the images should have been published but whether there’s an anti-gay agenda, or at the very least a homophobic culture, at Channel 7.

4 comments, 4417 views, last reply:22-May-2010 1:29


I feel sorry for him. How about some compassion?

posted by smooch on 21-May-2010 13:05


David Campbell has not committed a crime by going to a M2M sex on premises venue. Had Mr Campbell been seen leaving a heterosexual brothel would he have been hounded by Channel 7 and the rest of the brown-nose media salivating over the story? I doubt it.

posted by clanchief on 21-May-2010 13:34

Although there are programs I enjoy watching on 7 I choose not to any more. Are they inferring that because he had M2M sex that he can't have family values or the fact that he was unfaithful to his wife contradicts his family values? Funnily enough the concept of infidelity was overshadowed by venue. I hope the publicity is improving the business for Ken's - such wonderful free advertising!

posted by nailuj101 on 21-May-2010 23:38

For sure, what is exactly a sex on premises site, anyway? Can't family values include such places? That would be the best position. (Besides the one you get into in Ken's)

posted by rbghawaii on 22-May-2010 1:29

to top