Going to "the footy"

is apparently not on - if you are the Prime Minister.
There was a rather extraordinary article in our national newspaper over the weekend. It criticised the Prime Minister for going to "the footy" when he was on leave.
According to the writer the Prime Minister should not have been on leave and, if he was on leave, he should have been home with his family  - because that is where he said he would be.  In the writer's book these were cardinal sins. Add in a trip to the football and you apparently have someone unfit to lead the nation.
Of course the Prime Minister is, like everyone else, entitled to some leave. It is not however the sort of leave many other people enjoy. He now takes a mobile phone with him wherever he goes, in fact he has two. One is for the usual purposes. The other is a phone dedicated to work. Before the advent of mobile phones the Prime Minister of the day was expected to be accessible by phone too - at all times. 
This is part of their job. It is something that other people often forget - or choose to forget when it is convenient to do so. The Leader of the Opposition is in the same position. There are people filling the roles of "Acting Prime Minister" and "Acting Leader of the Opposition" but, if needed, then the Prime Minister returns to work. 
If the phone had rung while our present Prime Minister was at the football match he would have left immediately. That's his job. 
But this was not good enough for a journalist who decided that the situation was too good a chance to criticise a man she clearly loathes.  No, he should not be on leave "during a pandemic" because the Premier of the state which has a major outbreak is not on leave.  She completely ignored a number of issues - such as state based responsibilities. She did not state what she thought the Prime Minister should actually be doing - apart from the vague "show leadership".  
And yes, she criticised him for not being home with his wife and daughters when he had said that was why he was taking leave. I can only presume she had spoken to the Prime Minister's wife and she had complained about this...or had she? It is much more likely that it was, "Do you want to go the football with me?" If his wife and girls had any sense they would have told him they had better things to do. His two daughters are probably tired of the disruption to their lives and the way things happen when they go out with a dad who just happens to be Prime Minister.
Oh, he didn't do the "social distance" thing either? I really can't comment on that. The photograph in the article made it look like that but I know it is easy to manipulate a photograph so I would like to know more before commenting on that.   
My reason for writing all of this? It isn't because I particularly like or dislike Downunder's current Prime Minister. He is better than some we have had, worse than others.  I would actually also say the same about the Leader of the Opposition if it applied to him. I am saying it because, much as we like to criticise  these people, they do have a job to do. Unwarranted and deliberately biased criticism of them doesn't simply harm them but all of us. 
If the current Prime Minister and his party lose the next election because of the way they have handled the economy and the security of the nation that is one thing. If they lose it because a journalist abuses her position and criticises someone for attending a football match that is another thing altogether. It is particularly so when the journalist in question knows that the Prime Minister of the day is always available.