What has been an open secret for months, the Murdoch Press through its mouthpiece ‘The Daily Telegraph’ has chosen to make public the sordid details of Nationals leader Barneby Joyce’s marriage breakup, by splashing it across the papers front page. Not only giving details of the mans marriage collapse, the paper made public the details of a former Joyce staffer’s pregnancy to Joyce. The justification from the ‘Telegraph’ for this gross invasion of the mans private life, is as a public figure, the public have a right to know.
Should public figures be subjected to detailed investigation of their private lives. It helps sell trashy magazines and newspapers like ‘The Daily Telegraph’ but does it serve the public good?
Not known as a political ally of the Nationals, Greens MP Adam Bandt descried the reporting as “Disgraceful”.

http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-02-07/barnaby-joyce-speaks-about-new-relationship/9406352

Paul1405 asks : "Should public figures be subjected to detailed investigation of their private lives."

The simple short answer for politicians is absolutely YES.

The reason why is because politicians make the laws which encode the morals of our society, so their own morals MUST be open and available to scrutiny by the public. Every aspect and detail of their whole life needs to be accessible to the public.

But this should not only be limited to politicians. Also the past history and current life of judges need to be available since they often make judgments regarding what they perceive the morals/standards of our society.

Along with these people the lives of leaders of religions, academics and public "thinkers" who extol to the general public from an elevated position what is morally right and wrong needs to be available to examination without restriction.

However, as an example of people that we don't require the right to intrude upon their personal lives are the likes of sportsmen, celebrities and the wealthy (unless they have a habit of telling us/dictating to us how we should live). These people, just like the common everyday person, have a right to privacy.

I'm not sure on this one. My first reaction was - Yes - it
should remain private - especially if it does not concern
his constituents in any way. Who are we to judge? But then -
heck - a politician willingly enters the public arena -
so he's got to be
prepared that what he does in private will have a ripple effect
eventually.

Am I wrong? Don't know. Anyone else like to have a say
and convince me why it should or should not be kept private?

Public figures give up their privacy the minute they go public, and the public has the right to know just how seedy some of them are. Joyce has revealed that he is, at the very least, a hypocrite. He was right to talk about the sanctity of marriage between a man and a woman, and right to speak against SSM. But he was trashing his own marriage at the same time. I can't do anything about the grub, but I hope voters in his electorate do. He now has two big strikes against him: his dual citizenship, now this. He should not remain on our payroll.

Dear ttbn,

You argue a good case. I know that Barnaby has received
a lot of criticism from people for some of his actions.
However, as far as I can tell - many in his electorate
support him. He won hands down when he ran opposite
Tony Windsor - so he must be doing something right at
least - as far
as his voters are concerned.

Foxy,

It's up to the people in his electorate. As far as beating Windsor, I would vote for Barnaby if that was the choice. Hell, I would vote for Mickey Mouse before Windsor. I hope he is no reason no relation to Elizabeth Windsor.