We don’t need to know

Christopher O'Leary writes that Rex Hunt’s marital woes have been made public only to make him accountable to his audience.

When is someone famous a public figure? Someone who’s every action is judged to be newsworthy in the public realm? Well, read on all you media consumers and students out there, as a new definition for fame has developed. Behold! The consumer figure!

A consumer figure is similar to that of its public counterpart. Their actions find fame and admiration within society, and they are often considered models for people to live by.

However, a consumer figure works for businesses, independent organisations that provide services to its consumers rather than the public as a whole.

Journalists and program presenters are an example of this. They are not accountable to Joe Public directly (unless their actions do affect the community), and provide to their wants rather than their needs.

This definition is necessary when considering the issue surrounding football icon Rex Hunt, who recently announced that he paid three women for sexual favours since 1997.

A former footballer, Hunt is a commentator for Melbourne 3AW’s football coverage and a columnist for the Herald Sun. Both are family friendly media groups.

Hunt is a married man, but any media expert will say the issue is essentially a private matter because adultery is not a criminal act.

This is unlike the case this month of a Melbourne Magistrate finding certain Channel Seven and Sunday Herald Sun executives in contempt of court for publishing a minor’s name that separated from his parents.

However Hunt’s self-proclaimed ‘‘moral atrocity’’ would have caused outrage akin to Shane Warne’s incident last week had he not made the issue public on his own accord.

His actions initially were given such large press coverage as it allowed his employers the pious right to hold Hunt accountable to their market.

Hunt consulted with Sun reporter Russell Robertson, who broke the story, and further aired his shame on talk back king Neil Mitchell’s program yesterday when the report broke.

Some people called in after Hunt’s interview to say that he was a hypocrite for being publicly against adultery. Though Mitchell rightfully attacked them, saying that he did not consider the issue newsworthy because it was matter between Hunt and his wife Lynne.

The people don’t have to feel hurt or betrayed by his actions, though people may now think twice of turning down their televisions to match Hunt’s ‘‘Yibbida’s Yibbida’s’’ with game coverage.

In contrast people had a right in 2003 to judge Governor General Peter Hollingworth when he was accused of protecting priests from claims of committing sexual assault on young children. His case was newsworthy as his actions influence society’s stand on any kind of sexual abuse.

It is impossible also to provide a definitive answer whether sportspeople or consumer figures are public or consumer figures.

People were enraged with someone like Wayne Carey or Warne’s acts of adultery over the years, and it can be argue either way that both men represent public groups.

However, while such figures are not directly accountable to the public the way a politician is, it is difficult for a kid who mimics their on field heroics not to see it that way.

Hunt is a consumer figure, so his actions do not warrant public opinion. But sometimes you have to air your dirty laundry to look squeaky clean again.

•  Have a view on this story? Send us your feedback!