Political operatives are trying to intimidate me. It's not going to work – Amy Remeikis

Being an outspoken and critical female journalist often draws unwanted attention

Photo by Michael – Parliament House, Canberra

Every now and then, I’ll get a call from a political contact alerting me that operatives are ‘looking for dirt’.

This is par for the course for anyone even tenuously linked to politics. It’s part of the operating manual – once you are in politics, no matter how slim the link – you are considered fair game.

Which is, to be honest, whatever. I’ve been called pond scum, a temptress and everything in between by politicians at different times, and most of it just rolls straight off. I pay as much attention to it as I do the Daily Mail – it exists, but also, is largely irrelevant.

This most recent heads up came from a contact who was a little worried. The political operative in question and their apparatus (not named deliberately for legal reasons because our defamation laws are stacked against truth) has had a few runs at me previously, so they knew I knew the score.

But this time, I was warned, it was more ‘vicious’ than usual.

In that, I am also not alone. The entire political landscape is more vicious than usual. And I know I am not the only journalist to be getting calls that political operatives are looking for dirt. It’s endemic at the best of times, but an epidemic presently, driven by the emboldened who feel the times suit them.

With me, it’s usually looking for any sexual history I can be hit with – the unsubtle imputation being I must have slept with a politician or few in my time covering politics. And even though I haven’t, that doesn’t stop the rumours. I recently had coffee with a politician, which is part of my job, in full daylight, at a public cafe. I received a call a few hours later to be told I had been ‘seen’ and just to ‘be careful’ as ‘that’s how these rumours start’.

So this isn’t my usual column, but these are not usual times. And people should be aware of the intimidation tactics which are being ramped up behind the scenes, in attempts to shut people up or at least cow them into submission.

It speaks volumes that these people seek to find ‘dirt’ on those they consider their enemies. If every accusation is a confession, then those who play in the muck assume that those they wish to silence do as well. And so the calls asking for ‘anything you have on her’ start.

For women, it’s usually probing who they may or may not have slept with, as if our vaginas are dictating the nation’s policies. It remains one of the easiest ways to discredit a woman. Men tend to emerge from these things fairly unscathed, but women are still marked with the scarlet letter of rumours – it doesn’t matter if it happened or not. Enough people in a circle of influence just have to believe it could have happened.

These people also want you to know they are snickering behind your back. They want you to second guess how you act, who you speak to, how you engage in interactions, what messages you may have sent which could be problematic if seen beyond the intended audience. Again, this is not unique – I am not the only journalist to experience this, nor am I anywhere near the first, and it will continue happening for as long as there is the perception of leverage.

But there are other ways journalists are intimidated, which are not quite as murky but intended to have the same impact. Companies and vested interests pay media monitors and their own lackeys to trawl through media mentions looking for anything they can use for an apology, correction or retraction.

This is something deployed against local radio and newspapers quite frequently, knowing that they don’t have the resources to push back. Failing any mistakes, journalists will be sent ‘important context’ with the sole aim of letting you know they are watching.

Obviously, this on its own shouldn’t be enough to stop public interest journalism or debates, but it adds up. ‘Do I want to do this, knowing it will invite X or Y?’ For those already under attack, that can be the difference between doing or not doing.

Just like there is no real official blacklists for most media organisations – it’s just known that speaking to certain people or organisations, or highlighting a particular angle will invite more work. There is rarely any basis to the scrutiny, but it has to be examined and answered and accounted for, and for many already overworked producers and journalists, that can seem more work than it’s worth.

You can see that in how issues concerning Israel or the lobby are handled. Stories critical of Israel bring with it the whirring of the Israel lobby’s complaints machine, and so for many media organisations, it is just easier to leave the story alone entirely.

It used to be the same with climate, although the irrelevance of the Coalition has slowly lessened that pressure. But that is not to say that political complaints don’t still carry weight – on the whole, most media try to avoid the Eye of Sauron by avoiding their flashpoints.

And it has the same effect as some little snivelling pustule walking around snuffling for dirt: to silence voices. But it only works if people let it. The easiest way to push back is to not give it power. Easier said than done, I know, because who doesn’t love gossip. But when it becomes an attempt to spook people into submission, lines have to be drawn.

---

Got a tip? Send an email to tips@deepcutnews.com or send an anonymous Signal to @deepcut.25.