Oops Chris

[sherb]

"The odds are"

"Was"

With the implication that his West Indies captaincy mentality should still be in play somehow.

Sorry, but those days have gone.

It's all about money, partaaaaay and the chickiebabes for Chris these days.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

"The odds are"

So, just your opinion. I say the opposite.

 

[Gosha]

Again. Does this invalidate the Gayle scenario? What is the point otherwise? You can find thousands of flirtatious TV show bites and present them all. It changes nothing.

If you care, then I'd suggest it looks like an unwanted sexual advance. It is not undermining his professional career as he is not at work at the time, so it is not demeaning in that way. It could have been a heads up dialogue but probably not. Her job is to joke around with the guests so may be somewhere in the sphere of what is expected. Gayle's job is to play cricket and McLaughlin's job is to interview cricketers about cricket. What happened is far removed from Gayle's job description.

However, this guy might not have appreciated those comments. He may be married and felt embarrassed for himself and his wife. His wife might have felt embarrassed or humiliated.

There is a lot you can take out on every case one by one.

You wouldn't of given a shit about those incidents then so I don't know why you all of a sudden care now.

 

[Juddy88]

In her office? What are male toilets doing in HER office? lol

You mean at her workplace, don't you? Like a building the company that she works for runs their enterprise out of. HQ and all that.

Like if Channel 10 reporter Mel McLaughlin was at Channel 10 HQ Pyrmont NSW and her boss said

"For gods sake Mel, get out of the men's toilet here at your workplace, and get over to the SGC for an assignment."

Haha yeah, semantics. Her "office building".

What does her entering or not entering the dressing room have to do with anything though? Even if it wasn't considered her workplace, when she is a boundary rider and reporting from the boundary, it's still considered her place of work.

 

[ManWithNoName]

With the implication that his West Indies captaincy mentality should still be in play somehow.

Sorry, but those days have gone.

It's all about money, partaaaaay and the chickiebabes for Chris these days.

No my point is that he would've had a heap of media training. He would've done thousands of interviews. He knows how he should act. He knows what's expected. He's not some inexperienced young kid on his first tour. He KNOWS better. So none of what you said is a valid defence.

 

[DT_fanatic]

Yes, but why does it warrant a 10k fine and public apology rather than a simple private apology which was made after the interview if I remember correctly. That's the issue, Gayle has done something inappropriate, but not something that requires people to accuse him of being sexist (in this particular incident), requires countless news articles and demands a monetary fee to be paid. If she was offended by it then he should (and has) apologise to her, bit that should be it.
As we have pointed out when it swings the other way no one gives a shit. It's complete nonsense. Gayle was wrong, we get it, leave it at that.

Yeah that's fair enough, definitely blown out of proportion in the media but the relevant stakeholders probably felt like they needed to do something. So to that extent fining him (which isn't a lot to Gayle really) and making a public statement probably discharges that duty. I'm more annoyed at people saying it was harmless fun and shouldn't have required an apology etc.

Just for the record I've read that Gayle was going to personally apologise but wasn't able to last night.

The 'other way' argument IMO doesn't hold any weight because that would imply that men and women are at an equal footing when it comes to reporting about sport. That's just not true.

Anyway, as I said, it shouldn't matter how other scenarios may unravel if, in this particular incident, Mel felt uncomfortable. If a male felt uncomfortable about a similar situation then I'd say the exact same thing. It gets laughed off because the male involved does laugh it off - we would usually take it as a compliment. Interestingly, if a guy did feel uncomfortable in a similar situation no doubt both sexes would be giving him shit for being gay, not hardening the **** up etc.

 

[RegHickeyStand]

Haha yeah, semantics. Her "office building".

What does her entering or not entering the dressing room have to do with anything though? Even if it wasn't considered her workplace, when she is a boundary rider and reporting from the boundary, it's still considered her place of work.

Because inserting "workplace" into the narrative gives the "offense" more weight than it deserves.

 

[rippersnipper]

Yeah that's fair enough, definitely blown out of proportion in the media but the relevant stakeholders probably felt like they needed to do something. So to that extent fining him (which isn't a lot to Gayle really) and making a public statement probably discharges that duty. I'm more annoyed at people saying it was harmless fun and shouldn't have required an apology etc.

Just for the record I've read that Gayle was going to personally apologise but wasn't able to last night.

The 'other way' argument IMO doesn't hold any weight because that would imply that men and women are at an equal footing when it comes to reporting about sport. That's just not true.

Anyway, as I said, it shouldn't matter how other scenarios may unravel if, in this particular incident, Mel felt uncomfortable. If a male felt uncomfortable about a similar situation then I'd say the exact same thing. It gets laughed off because the male involved does laugh it off - we would usually take it as a compliment. Interestingly, if a guy did feel uncomfortable in a similar situation no doubt both sexes would be giving him shit for being gay, not hardening the **** up etc.

I agree partially with the reporting thing. Its disproportionate within certain sports but then again, I'd expect a male dominant sport to have more males reporting, just like a female sport would have more females. That's why the Sharapova thing is very similar, because she's a female player and so you'd expect more women to be reporting on her matches than men. I agree with most of your points however.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

You wouldn't of given a shit about those incidents then so I don't know why you all of a sudden care now.

Firstly, you wouldn't know what I would give a shit about it so it's a weak argument.

Secondly, looking at harassment issues is part of my job so I have a vested interest in it.

Thirdly, the examples being given do not compare with the main reason I object to this and female journos who have commented object to it. That being that talking to her like that while she is doing her job shows a lack of respect for her as a professional journalist and puts the focus on her as just an attractive woman to be hit on. Those other examples did not do that. However despite that, I did suggest that those examples are quite possibly inappropriate too but I needed more information.

 

[sherb]

No my point is that he would've had a heap of media training. He would've done thousands of interviews. He knows how he should act. He knows what's expected. He's not some inexperienced young kid on his first tour. He KNOWS better. So none of what you said is a valid defence.

I am not actually trying to defend him. I'm interested in looking at the underlying reasons for this.

My point is that even if he knows better, he simply doesn't care any more.

He just wanders around different countries, slogging the ball for heaps of money and glory and gets treated like a God for it.

No responsibility, no cares, just money and adulation. And it's gone to his head.

The 20/20 "circuit" is going to do this to some cricketers.

 

[RAPPA]

Big Footy really needs to be promoted as the forum to hone in our high school English essay-writing skills: we have analytical, argumentative and descriptive posts to boot.

 

[ManWithNoName]

I am not actually trying to defend him. I'm interested in looking at the underlying reasons for this.

My point is that even if he knows better, he simply doesn't care any more.

He just wanders around different countries, slogging the ball for heaps of money and glory and gets treated like a God for it.

No responsibility, no cares, just money and adulation. And it's gone to his head.

The 20/20 "circuit" is going to do this to some cricketers.

He's still a dick.

 

[sherb]

He's still a dick.

I agree with you.

I'll put it this way. If you put a partaaaaaaaaaay boy into a partaaaaaaaaaaaaay, then don't be surprised by the results.

 

[ARES]

The whole incident and reaction is a load of crock

The guy was fooling around, no harm intended.

Mel, says this does not need the reaction or the air time it has received.

Move on people, nothing to see here.....

 

[RAPPA]

The whole incident and reaction is a load of crock

The guy was fooling around, no harm intended.

Mel, says this does not need the reaction or the air time it has received.

Move on people, nothing to see here.....

Prepare to be shot down

 

[spinynorman]

The whole incident and reaction is a load of crock

The guy was fooling around, no harm intended.

Mel, says this does not need the reaction or the air time it has received.

Move on people, nothing to see here.....

I agree it probably doesn't need the reaction or air time it has received, but given how many people have said "He was just fooling around, having a bit of fun, no harm done" indicates it probably does need an airing.

She was working. Most reasonable people accept she was working.

Most people's workplace isn't broadcast on national television, but if you were in your office and a female associate came up to you to ask you a work-related question and you, in front of her workmates, replied in the way Gayle did, do you honestly think you would not get a severe sexual harassment warning? It's completely unprofessional and she was clearly uncomfortable, although he persisted.

Ricky Nixon has said it was "a tongue in cheek entertaining interview that was funny". If I agreed with that, I'd be pretty concerned that my moral compass seems to be in line with a douchecanoe like him.

 

[Gosha]

Firstly, you wouldn't know what I would give a shit about it so it's a weak argument.

Secondly, looking at harassment issues is part of my job so I have a vested interest in it.

Thirdly, the examples being given do not compare with the main reason I object to this and female journos who have commented object to it. That being that talking to her like that while she is doing her job shows a lack of respect for her as a professional journalist and puts the focus on her as just an attractive woman to be hit on. Those other examples did not do that. However despite that, I did suggest that those examples are quite possibly inappropriate too but I needed more information.

The fact you're totally oblivious to the very famous Sharapova incident says enough. I'm sure you heard about it at the time but most likely didn't bat an eye. So no, my argument is not weak. You trying to take a stance on a matter that you've apparently got a "vested interest" in yet can't even recall a famous incident involving an Australian journalist is weak.

The Sharapova incident was also almost identical to the Chris Gayle incident - they're both flirting with journalists who are asking about their respective performances. How are you so morally outraged at one incident yet you've never even heard of the other? It just seems like you've jumped on the political correctness bandwagon like every other do-gooder on this page.

But whatever, continue being outraged. I couldn't imagine you'd live a very enjoyable life if you get so offended by something so minor.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The fact you're totally oblivious to the very famous Sharapova incident says enough. I'm sure you heard about it at the time but most likely didn't bat an eye. So no, my argument is not weak. You trying to take a stance on a matter that you've apparently got a "vested interest" in yet can't even recall a famous incident involving an Australian journalist is weak.

The Sharapova incident was also almost identical to the Chris Gayle incident - they're both flirting with journalists who are asking about their respective performances. How are you so morally outraged at one incident yet you've never even heard of the other? It just seems like you've jumped on the political correctness bandwagon like every other do-gooder on this page.

But whatever, continue being outraged. I couldn't imagine you'd live a very enjoyable life if you get so offended by something so minor.

Are you being deliberately obtuse?

I have an interest in workplace harassment, not media reports on flirtatious tennis players.

I had zero knowledge of it until today and I gave an opinion on it when asked. I said that on the surface it is not appropriate but she may skate by because her compliments him on something that is actually a tool of his trade, his manner of speaking. She then talks about paying attention to his form, which is probably flirtatious in the way she said it, but could still be talking about his manner of speaking. It is further muddied by the fact that he reciprocated the compliments so it appears whatever was happening was mutual.

I asked you on a couple of occasions if these other examples you raised invalidated the McLaughlin example and you ignored it.

Oh and it's not a case of being outraged. It's a case of recognising why a female journalist would be offended.

It's in your best interests to make the opposing argument sound extreme however, because you haven't got much aside from rhetoric to support yours.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Ricky Nixon has said it was "a tongue in cheek entertaining interview that was funny". If I agreed with that, I'd be pretty concerned that my moral compass seems to be in line with a douchecanoe like him.

Pretty weak argument. It's not politics, nobody needs to be automatically opposed to every Ricky Nixon opinion.

Rita Panahi writes a lot of tripe but her perspective on this is sensible IMO.

 

[2006_Eagles]

Did I just hear some Renegades suit at the presser say:

"We've done some research today and we're sure it's a one off"?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

The whole incident and reaction is a load of crock

The guy was fooling around, no harm intended.

Mel, says this does not need the reaction or the air time it has received.

Move on people, nothing to see here.....

Actually Mel says she doesn't want it to be about her but is glad people are talking about it.

The issue isn't Gayle. He was ignorant, he was punished severely for it, maybe too high a price. The issue is those saying it isn't an issue. That it's just a joke. That no offense should be taken. Those that ignore other female journos who have come out and said it is an issue for them and has to stop.

How anybody can tell them to get a life or a sense of humour is beyond me. Has anybody ever taken offense to something that affects them? How do you feel about people telling you that you are overreacting without having any idea what it is like to walk in your shoes?

Geez, I hope that sounds like a rebuttal point to people, not an attack. Who am I to tell them how it should sound though?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Big Footy really needs to be promoted as the forum to hone in our high school English essay-writing skills: we have analytical, argumentative and descriptive posts to boot.

Love it or hate it, you certainly find things discussed from all angles. It serves a purpose.

 

[Doss]

I agree it probably doesn't need the reaction or air time it has received, but given how many people have said "He was just fooling around, having a bit of fun, no harm done" indicates it probably does need an airing.

She was working. Most reasonable people accept she was working.

Most people's workplace isn't broadcast on national television, but if you were in your office and a female associate came up to you to ask you a work-related question and you, in front of her workmates, replied in the way Gayle did, do you honestly think you would not get a severe sexual harassment warning? It's completely unprofessional and she was clearly uncomfortable, although he persisted.

Ricky Nixon has said it was "a tongue in cheek entertaining interview that was funny". If I agreed with that, I'd be pretty concerned that my moral compass seems to be in line with a douchecanoe like him.

Nail on head.

Also, 'douchecanoe'. Great insult, need to remember that one.

 

[Shiv]

Would you guys still be outraged if Mel 'flirted' back or responded more 'positively' ?

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Would you guys still be outraged if Mel 'flirted' back or responded more 'positively' ?

Outraged seems extreme. Not sure why people keep using it.

I think it would still be inappropriate workplace behaviour technically but harassment is unsolicited and unwelcome advances. Her reciprocating would show she wasn't embarrassed, humiliated or disappointed as she put it and so it wouldn't be much of an event.

The wider story is Gayle has offended others in this way and the accounts of other journalists shows it is not limited to Gayle. The concern is really the bigger issue aside from Gayle.