Telegraph editor defends MP in photo row
Posted
Updated
Controversial: James Bidgood's photo on the Daily Telegraph website (www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph)
The editor of a Sydney newspaper has defended a Federal Labor MP over his decision to sell photographs of a man threatening to set himself on fire outside Parliament.
James Bidgood, who won the Queensland seat of Dawson in last year's election, snapped the photos of the incident yesterday and then gave the photo to the Daily Telegraph in return for a donation to charity.
Mr Bidgood, a former apprentice darkroom technician, has since been "heavily counselled" by Prime Minister Kevin Rudd, and made a statement to Parliament last night admitting his actions were highly insensitive.
Some Coalition MPs are calling on Mr Rudd to punish Mr Bidgood.
But Daily Telegraph editor Gary Linnell says while he understands the controversy, he believes Mr Bidgood's actions were reasonable.
"Given that the money is going to a charity, I don't think there's a big issue with that," he told the ABC.
"We pay our staff, we pay our reporters, we pay our photographers, and if someone is contributing a photograph that we think adds value to our newspaper then of course we will look at paying a fee of some sort.
"When it's a federal MP, that's another question entirely. I'm just glad that Mr Bidgood read the paper and got in touch with us."
Mr Linnell says the exchange was a simple and straightforward matter.
"Our reporter was approached by James Bidgood. He said he'd taken a number of photographs of the incident and he offered to supply those photos for publication in the Telegraph," he said.
"I got a call that came back, I think, within quite a few minutes to the office, saying that Mr Bidgood was keen to have the photographs in the Daily Telegraph, in exchange for a donation to a charity of his choosing.
"He was keen for the donation to be made to the charity of his choice."
Mr Linnell says the sum of money involved was $1,000. He says if Mr Bidgood ever leaves Parliament, he might give him a job as a photographer.
"I can tell you that if Mr Bidgood ever leaves Parliament we might have to offer him a job as a photographer because they were very good shots."
There has been a suggestion in another newspaper that Mr Bidgood only asked for the money to be given to charity after realising the consequence of the exchange.
But Mr Linnell says he has no information that substantiates that claim.
"My full understanding of this is there was no initial chat about a cash offer and by the time the offer was made to us and it was relayed to me in the office yesterday, it was solely delivered in terms that we had to make a donation to the charity of his choice and I said instantly yes, let's do it," he said.
"I am not fully aware, but all I know is the Sydney Morning Herald were very rattled and very annoyed they couldn't get the photograph.
"My understanding is that they're the ones who then engaged Mr Bidgood and tried to get a bidding war going, which we were not interested in and I told our people down there in Canberra we're not going to get into any bidding war over these photographs.
"We've made an agreement and that's it as far as I'm concerned."
Deputy Prime Minister Julia Gillard has told ABC2's News Breakfast that Mr Bidgood has done what he can to remedy his behaviour.
"Clearly he acknowledges that his actions were offensive, deeply offensive, and he's taken the appropriate steps and apologised," she said.
"I'm sure he's learned something from the experience. He's done what he can to make up for the harm by writing to the family with an apology."
North Queensland Senator Ian McDonald says Mr Bidgood's actions are an embarrassment to the whole parliament.
"We're all human, we all make mistakes but with Mr Bidgood it seems to be a continuation of a number of mistakes," he said.
"And that in itself isn't a striking out offence, but the real problem for us in Dawson is that we by reputation will be the laughing stock of federal parliament."
Search for news
ABC News Online takes a look at the big stories from 2008.
Comments (62)
Comments for this story are closed. No new comments can be added. If you would like to have your say on this issue, you can do so via the Emails section of our Opinion pages.
-
Di:
04 Dec 2008 11:08:10am
Good on the editor!
Now lets get on with running the country please!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
acker:
04 Dec 2008 11:23:02am
Hardly a recomendation reference anyone will give too much weight to, if any
The very new to the job editor obviously !
I remember the Daily Telegraph editor sacked story running on this site within the last week or so.
Gary Linnell says he understands the controversy, but by most of the reactions from Australians to this story he is not understanding the public outrage to MP Bidgood very well.
I just cannot see any logical defence of the MP's distasteful actions coming from any where.
There are things you just do not do when you are a elected parlimentary representative and this was one of them.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
04 Dec 2008 12:15:37pm
I'm not in the least outraged by this non-event.
Agree (2) Alert moderator
-
-
Oz:
04 Dec 2008 11:23:40am
Yes, exactly.
A complete non-story.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
PaulB:
04 Dec 2008 11:43:14am
Full support from the Telegraph editor, Gary Linnell, to a point.
Mr Linnell says the exchange was a simple and straightforward matter. "Our reporter was approached by James Bidgood. He said he'd taken a number of photographs of the incident and he offered to supply those photos for publication in the Telegraph, (FOR PAYMENT)" he said. (INSERT FULL STOP & LONG PAUSE HERE)
(NEW PARAGRAPH) "I got a call that came back, I think, within quite a few minutes to the office, saying that Mr Bidgood was (NOW) keen to have the photographs in the Daily Telegraph, in exchange for a donation to a charity of his choosing.
Hmmm and he's an editor who has the facts in front of him. You'd think he could detail them in order, without omission?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Reg:
04 Dec 2008 11:16:11am
A mountain out of a molehill, this is a non issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:28:35am
A non issue to who - the victim, the Honourable member - or the people that elected him?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 11:46:31am
A non issue for everybody, except possibly the charity, who will be very grateful.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:59:35am
You are wrong. There were people present who took exception and by now, a whole lot more are probably rather unhappy, remember - we are paying this man an awful lot of money so isn't it lucky he remembered that and after a bit of a delay...the money then went to charity? So what is the "non issue" please?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
04 Dec 2008 12:40:15pm
If a freelance photographer happened to be the bystander, s/he would have taken the pic and pocketed a bunch of money.
It just so happens that someone else took the photo and the money went to charity. I cant see anything in that to get worked up about. I'm sure the charity appreciates it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Gilligan:
04 Dec 2008 12:21:37pm
Assuming that they actually get the money and its not just another politicians promise!
Now, non payment really would be a story!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
acker:
04 Dec 2008 12:19:29pm
I think the people that elected him are pretty embarassed right now, and if anyone thinks that those same people in his electorate will forget this next election are deluding themselves.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 12:40:31pm
Don't be ridiculous. In 2 years time from now, not only will they not remember, but even if they did, they'll be voting for the political party that they think would be best in power, not a single incident of their local rep taking photos and selling them for charity.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 12:49:50pm
I think recent events particularly in NSW prove you wrong.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Tank:
04 Dec 2008 11:30:53am
You mean you see no moral imperaitive on the part of this appalling Federal Labor Parliamentarian to put down his camera and try and help the poor deluded man trying to kill himself?
You don't think he should be respecting this sad psychiatric patient rather than flogging images of him and his distress?
You are as bad as Garry Linnell, you really are, and share his lack of moral compass.Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Reg:
04 Dec 2008 11:37:05am
The poor deluded man was planning on a stunt to get publicity to get the visa he wnats.
What do you expect the MP to do ? Go and rescue him and maybe get burnt in the process.
Seriously, get a grip. Taking a photograph is not such a war crime that you make it out to be.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 11:47:39am
If you look at the photo, he's having police poor water over him at the time the photo was taken, and he's not alight. I don't know what you expect the minister to have done. It's obviously better that trained professionals deal with a burning man, then a politician.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
04 Dec 2008 12:05:57pm
to put down his camera and try and help the poor deluded man
---
Going by the small and grainy photo atop this page, it looks like services personnel were already on the scene, rendering assistance, at the time the photo was taken.
As any emergency services person would tell you, it is vital that members of the public stand well clear while they are engaged in their vital work.
By the longness of the shot, it would appear Mr Bidgood was not physically close enough to the scene to inhibit their work.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:16:17am
The Honorable Member is being defended by the Editor of the Daily Telegraph?? No one needs that surely!
Agree (1) Alert moderator
-
Gilligan:
04 Dec 2008 11:20:05am
I guess he's in really BIG trouble now!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
LesterQ:
04 Dec 2008 11:17:13am
"Defended" by the Telegraph, now that in itself is a worry !!!
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Tomarto:
04 Dec 2008 11:17:25am
Wasn't the purpose of the protest to get publicity for his cause? Isnt that what happened?
Id believe that the bureaucracy has taken a closer look at his case because of the media attention a positive outcome for the poor fellow Id say.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
acker:
04 Dec 2008 11:25:46am
That publicity opportunity has been lost as James Bidgoods actions are sucking all the oxygen out of this story.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 11:18:40am
Its a sad day when I agree with the Telegraph...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:27:15am
There there, you don't have to you know. After all, not many people ever do - I think it is supposed to be read for entertainment. Which is why they must have loved these pictures....
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 11:58:47am
And how important pictures can be. Remember the one from vietnam of the monk setting himself on fire? I wonder if people are asking that photographer, who captured a very important moment, to apologize?
Like the editor said, the money went to charity, so really, what is he apologising for?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 12:06:49pm
So the Ends justify the Means do they? Actually I seem to recall that there was some controversy over that picture - even though it was probably taken by a professional photographer rather than one of our elected representatives - no matter how skilled?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 12:13:31pm
The end: a photo. An important one really.
The means: someone took the photo. Someone who happened to be a MP, and someone who donated the money he made of the photo to charity.
Yep, the means are definately justified, although I don't see why they need justifying in the first place.
Those against the vietnam war photos were usually people who did not want the masses to know what was happening, Ishmael.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 12:48:22pm
Careful there - the Means have an awkward habit of influencing the End. Too much exposure to such stuff and we become blase about what we see. For instance nowadays far too many TV shows dwell lovingly on autopsies and mayhem at its most gruesome. What happens? People can see nothing wrong with what happened outside Parliament the other day....judging from the posts, an awful lot of people have become desensitised....the Means have become the End?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:24:10am
Well, if with eyes wide open you bought something from someone and then there was an ensuing stink over the material concerned, you would probably try to defend the vendor - and thereby yourself. So just how valid is such a defence?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 12:02:17pm
The person who set himself on fire wanted media attention.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
steve:
04 Dec 2008 11:24:13am
If any one else had sold the photo to the press no one would have commented, no one would have cared
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Stev0-P:
04 Dec 2008 11:33:47am
Suits me fine ... "any one else" need not draw the same scrutiny as this Bidgood fellow.
"Bidgood" who? before this episode. Clearly, backbenchers need to be given more work to keep them occupied.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 11:42:23am
Wrong. It simply would not have received the same exposure. There were doubtless others in the vicinity who would have been offended to see someone calmly clicking away at what must have been a harrowing spectacle - and without knowing his identity. I know I myself have felt outrage seeing cameramen shoving lenses into the faces of stretcher victims. It is just that there is seldom any outlet for this anger. Am I alone in this I wonder? Aren't we all entitled to a modicum of dignity - perhaps even that poor sick publicity seeker, and here I emphasise "sick" in the hope that some will get the message?
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 12:01:33pm
You might well be, look at it this way. Do the famous pictures from vietnam, of the monk burning himself, of that poor kid running down the street burning from napalm offend you? Well I hope the answer is yes, but not because the photos shouldn't have been taken, but yes because what the photos showed.
There are many more examples of such photography, of capturing sad and horrific moments to show the world. Because the world wants to be shown, and should be shocked sometime, lest it live blissfully unaware.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whsaxon:
04 Dec 2008 12:27:04pm
I agree here, and doesn't anyone else get the point that there are two issues of concern here, and the Telegraph editor totally missed one in his corporate-sales response?
These people never miss an opportunity to be selling or shamelessly dancing their company jig in the media limelight.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Walter :
04 Dec 2008 11:27:57am
I was ouside parliament house yesterday when this terrible incident took place and I believe the issue is that the MP's actions were perverse and offensive given the seriousness of the situation.
When someone pours petrol over himself and tries to burn himself to death, the first response shouldn't be to take pictures for a newspaper, regardless of giving the payment to charity.
People were shocked at the incident, and to see an MP taking snaps was inappropriate - hence the uproar about it.
By the way, the AFP did an excellent job, which should have been the focus of the story.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
04 Dec 2008 11:33:17am
I don't get it. What did he do wrong, exactly?
He took a photo of something happening at a public place. He sold it to a newspaper that was interested in it. In fact, he didn't even benefit, because the money went to charity.
SO WHAT?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 11:49:42am
Agreed, and what an incredible waste of tax payer money to investigate this issue.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
anonymous:
04 Dec 2008 11:51:08am
I'm also puzzled by this.
Lots of people take photos of unpleasant events. Often you could claim that they wasted time and effort that could have been spent helping those in need. Why is there not outrage at every such newspaper photo? How is it different that an MP was involved?
An alternative view is that the man at the centre of these events got exactly what he wanted, publicity, and was actively assisted in that by the photographs we are discussing. It seems as if our MP is a very helpful chap indeed.
What is everyone on about with their "outrage"?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
bmwynn:
04 Dec 2008 11:54:05am
Exactly. As far as I can tell, the guy didn't set himself alight - just threatened to - so who is the victim? Even if he had set himself alight - who is not interested is seeing the photos? Personally I would have been more interested in puting out the fire than taking pictures but I can understand a photographer doing what they do.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
a r b o:
04 Dec 2008 11:55:49am
Whether an MP, or anyone else, including a salaried reporter working for The Telegraph, should have taken photos of the man trying to kill himself in public, is a matter of public interest, or lack thereof, and a matter of the man's best interests..
It isn't a case of the public's "right to know". Newsworthiness of such photos is the issue. The man trying to kill himself was a newsworthy story in itself, but publishing pictures of him doing it is not really in the public interest or in the man's best interests.
If the person taking the pictures had not been a member of parliament there would have been less fuss and we would not be hearing about it thru the ABC news services. If the photographer had been a salaried news photographer working for the news business there would have been far less public outcry but The Telegraph's decision to publish the picture(s) would have been every bit as tasteless and against the man's best interests.
> SO WHAT?
Shouting won't help.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Patch:
04 Dec 2008 12:10:13pm
How is the pictures 'not really' in the publics best interest? Or the mans for that matter?
If the photographer had been a professional he probably would have got an award for capturing a moment of desperation, that was directly because of political decisions being made.
The photo makes the story so much more real arbo.
Why are you in favour of censorship arbo?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Kocsonya:
04 Dec 2008 12:21:53pm
Your argument applies to almost everything you see in the paper and on TV. The monk setting himself alight, the student in front of the Chinese tanks, the person being shot in the head on the street, people collecting the maimed and the dead after a suicide bombing - they are all exactly the same thing.
We accept those photos, in fact, we praise them. I don't know if you've evern seen a World Press Photo exhibition, but about half of the pictures are like that: a man falling from a balcony, ten rapid shots until he hits the pavement. A naked child walking through a field of disfigured, bloody bodies in Vietnam. So on and so forth. Now *that* is a reality show, not Big Brother.
As per the right to know: Yes I *do* have a right to know what happened in front of the Parliament House. Why wouldn't I? The right to know has very little to do with newsworthyness, the latter meaning "would a large proportion of people be willing to pay for the paper if we put it in".
I wasn't shouting by the way, didn't look for help, the capitals were used for emphasis. So, I rephrase it: *So* *what*?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Remark:
04 Dec 2008 1:09:37pm
Mr Bidgood was a photojournalist (or the like) before entering politics.
You can take the man out of photojournalism, but you can't take photojournalism out of the man.
Multitasker!Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
-
The Gawker:
04 Dec 2008 11:39:50am
well well, the moral depths we have sunk to as a species now see an MP voueyerising himself when a man is about to die. No surprises there, can he get it all on facebook soon so we can all sit around and gawk and not take any action too . How i wish we had more Andrew Fraser's to run the country.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Steve:
04 Dec 2008 11:57:02am
About to die? What version of the story did you read? Look at the photo - there is a police officer pouring water over the man. Nobody was in danger of death.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Peter Barnes:
04 Dec 2008 12:15:29pm
Maybe my moral compass is broken, but I fail to see why the MP's actions are "offensive, deeply offensive". Sure, if he chose to take photos in the absence of anyone else trying to stop this person injuring himself, but that is not what is being claimed. It is the act of taking the photo that seems to be deemed offensive, not that of failing to help. Just imagine that instead of being an MP, he was an employee of the ABC, a video camera operator, and he took footage of the incident. Would that also be deeply offensive behaviour? I suspect not. But what is the difference? (let's assume the MP is being truthful about not wanting any personal monetary gain)
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
thebeefy:
04 Dec 2008 11:58:14am
What a beat up... If Mr Bidgood was a Dark room tech, stands to reason he has an interest in photography. The motoviation for taking these shots is possibly the same as any news photographer.., genuine interest. Not solely, profit or voyourism.
The Libs are setting themselves up for a nice long period in oppostition. The polls show, people are just not buying this rubbish even when they wheel out their best salesperson, in Hockey to front it.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Ishmael:
04 Dec 2008 12:12:09pm
This isn't about politics, it rather concerns ethics. If in a previous life the Honourable Member was a dark room technician and feels unable to constrain his activities then perhaps he should resume that occupation? Mind you his behaviour even then would be unconscionable. I note however that others appear to find it acceptable...
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
anonymous:
04 Dec 2008 12:42:17pm
I reiterate that this hubbub is truly puzzling to me. Since you are so adamant that this act as "unconscionable", perhaps you can explain why.
What is so unethical about being a dark room technician that one must "constrain" one's activities?
What is so "unconscionable" about taking a photo of a man threatening self-harm while others are attempting to prevent him from self-harming?
Why is it unethical to make money on the side taking photos if you happen to be an MP, but not if you have a different profession?
Why is there no outrage about other bystanders who were not helping and not taking photos who may or may not have been MPs?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
-
Numbat:
04 Dec 2008 12:08:40pm
I cmmend Mr Bidgood for his action.If the situation had deteriorated a photograph would have been invaluable to investigators.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
whsaxon:
04 Dec 2008 12:36:50pm
Maybe, but he then sold the picture (regardless of whether he profited or not) to one of the most sensationalist publications in this country, who we all know couldn't give a toss if it was insensitive to publish it the very next morning.
Besides, Bigwood has a responsiblility that ought not to include controversial activites such as this one, to compromise his image or reputation in the eye of the public and colleagues. Take pictures of the landscape sure, but not personal moments of crisis and then sell to drama rags.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
Chris:
04 Dec 2008 12:13:35pm
Firstly this is so trivial it's almost painful to tolerate the petty whinging about it.
Secondly, ignoring knee-jerk reactions based on one's perception of what one _should_ find distasteful, based on what one thinks the rest of society expects...
The morality of this action by Mr Bidgood should be objectively assessed on the basis of suffering. Did his action add or detract from the greater good, all things considered? Who suffered because of his actions?
The Telegraph probably sold a few more copies for having the photo in question on their front page. Their shareholders would therefore benefit.
The man involved was already well and truly in the public eye, which after all would seem to be his intent in the first place, anyway. His degree of suffering was not altered by the photo being taken or published.
And a worthwhile charity has been given $1,000 that they would otherwise not have had.
Wowser-esque arguments about perceived rules of decorum aside, I fail to see a problem.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 12:26:47pm
Well said. There are so many genuinely terrible things going on in the world, it's amazing that this is what people can find to complain about.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
pseudomonkey:
04 Dec 2008 12:33:53pm
I see the word charity dropped everywhere but not a mention of the actual charity the money is going to, lets at least find out where the money stops before we praise him for donating it.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
annquinton:
04 Dec 2008 12:23:21pm
The only thing that desturbs me about this matter is that the MP was able to overcome the natural human urge to help someone in distress, and take a photo instead.
However in this age of instant mpbile phome photography, it seems this is part of the normal reaction.
As to 'selling' it to a newspaper, he obviously was not seeking personal reward... I imagine he thought it was legitimate newsm and so a newspaper had a moral right to have it.
I believe the opposition is so involved in critisism of absolutely anything except themselves, that they cannot be taken seriously.Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Danielsydney:
04 Dec 2008 12:37:05pm
I think what the focus should be is this mans horrific situation and why his personal immigration matter isnt being looked at ot handled properly?
Why cant this poor family get a hearing with the Minister?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Pedro:
04 Dec 2008 12:46:30pm
I think there is a story here... a federal MP taking a photo - of an obviously distressed individual - with a view to making money from it. Hardly a compassionate response to this man's plight. If he wanted to do something charitable then why didnt he go over to the man and offer his services as a public offical to help bring him some hope.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
John:
04 Dec 2008 1:08:02pm
The picture you are trying to paint does not match the evidence - the photo itself.
The man was already being attended to by police. You think they would want a pollie shouldering his way in to save the day?Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
Jeremy:
04 Dec 2008 1:12:13pm
There's no evidence he had a view to make money from it, and he made no money from it. It's illogical to make such assumptions.
Agree (0) Alert moderator
-
-
bitrich:
04 Dec 2008 1:12:50pm
Come on Mr Linnell. Did he initially ask for money for himself or for a charity? Looks like he threw in the bit about charity once he realized the whole thing stunk.
And how does everyone feel about someone emotionally blackmailing our government? And a parliamentarian colluding in these efforts to make a Minister's already difficult job more so?Agree (0) Alert moderator
