Even some senior journalists - including respected political reporter Andrea Vance - appeared disgusted by their own profession, that it had all come to this: reporting on scurrilous rumours that had absolutely no basis in fact.
But the actual stories about Clarke weren't the stories being reported, the police reaction was the story, because they very rarely take the step of confirming that somebody is clean. They've done it a couple of times in recent years, but it is highly unusual that the famously tight-lipped modern police force would take this step, and that alone was worth reporting on, because it showed how fucked-up the whole situation was.
It didn't matter what Gayford is supposed to have done, there was no way police were going to repeat the whispers publicly, and there was no way the media was going to repeat them without stacking them up. It was the police reaction that was unusual, and an easy to talk about the issue without casting any shade on Clark.
The fact is, all the big newsrooms had been hearing these stories for weeks, and had all made quiet inquiries, even though the stories had the stench of unmistakable bullshit, with details that didn't stack up to any kind of reality. Real life is strange enough that even things that sound preposterous can turn out to be true, so it's worth checking out, and nobody was surprised when the stories about Gayford turned out to have all the substance of stale cigarette smoke.
But the rumours have kept coming in recent weeks - literally dozens and dozens of emails and sly messages have flooded into newsrooms; and reporters who find themselves suffering the misfortune of being the only journalist at the BBQ have been told they should be looking into the scoop. They were rumours that spread through book groups and gossip in the pub and posts on social media, and they were fucking everywhere.
In fact, a lot of editors were actually bloody relieved that there was some kind of official statement from the police, because that might shut some of these motherfuckers up, and they can clear out their emails and go back to working on stories about things that are actually true.
They certainly didn't need that crabby letter from a lawyer telling them not to repeat the allegations, because of course they fucking wouldn't. Even if they lacked the moral clarity on the issue - and let's face it, there are a few high-profile editors who do - no legal representative was going to say the stories would good to publish, because they were so obviously defamatory and harmful. (The lawyer who sent out this letter knew this damn well, because she was a highly experienced journo before getting into law, so either forgot everything she ever knew as a reporter, or was just making an extremely snarky point.)
All of this has happened before, and will happen again, and there will be the same wailing and gnashing of teeth about the ethics of it all. There were even worse rumours swirling about Helen Clark's husband when she was in power, and Peter wasn't no DJ. John Key's charming wife got off pretty lightly on the rumour front, but that was probably because son Max was the source of most of the talk. (Obviously, there is a scurrilous anti-DJ agenda going on here.)
The official statement last week should, of course, put all the whispers to rest, but it won't, because people are selfish arseholes who like to hear and spread gossip, and see a goddamn conspiracy everywhere - of course the police would say that, but what are they REALLY hiding? - and there are going to be more whispered stories about Clark's sordid life, like it's any of our goddamn business.
But at least the police did say it was bullshit, and if it stops even some of the clever fuckers who keep messaging us, telling us about this terrible thing they heard about the PM's man, it'll be a relief.
- Margaret Tempest
Posts
