Oops Chris

[blackcat]

I dont even know where to start here. He shags heaps so its understandable, his workplace is different so how was he to know, its not unnacceptable (implying it was acceptable), other chicks will still shag him so who cares. Surely you can read your own comments and shake your head a little?

your logic was flawed. I am neutral. A double negative leaves an ambiguity.

I am saying, Chris Gayle's behaviour is enabled by the significant amount of fans of cricket, him as an individual, and the Windies. That does not mean everyone is a fan of Gayles who is a fan of cricket, nor are they an enabler of his behaviour. You can respect him as a cricketer, love his cricketing ability, but abhor his behaviour off the ground. I understand how that is. I think a significant proportion of people will.

But they pay him the big bucks, and no one has pulled him up on this and the guy is an adult. He is not a criminal.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Maybe the power structure in her industry makes this impossible to do and keep her job. Whistle-blowers aren't popular.

Likely. Even the woman (Neroli Meadows ? Melinda something ?) conceded, "We probably accept things we shouldn't".

If Chris Gayle is merely reflecting what is commonplace in the industry, it's the industry that needs to be looked at, not Chris Gayle in isolation. He has become a lightning rod for female frustration at not being taken seriously. The same angst was present in Michelle Payne's Melbourne Cup acceptance speech.

 

[Plugger35]

The exact quote was "ten times a day, without fail", "and that's just a fact". Sounds like a horrible job.

You would think if sexual harassment of female journos/reporters was as bad as they are saying then they wouldn't stay in that line of work or there would be more complaints made about it.

As I said I don't see that happening on air very often, maybe there is more that goes on off air like back in in the office or in the studio, but sexual harassment laws are pretty strict these days so you would think if it's a major problem it would have been cracked down on.

It's a bit of a grey area though, what some people might see as harmless flirting others see as sexual harassment, generally speaking though if someone crosses the line then they are usually disciplined or pulled back into line before it gets out of hand.

 

[Flameboy]

It is interesting regarding what Neroli Meadows (and the other girl) said on ABC regarding how often it happens. As has been pointed out they were saying it happens every day, without fail. Then you get Mel Mclaughlin with her interview on the project saying it basically never happens. And that's why the Gayle interview shocked her.
Interesting...

 

[blackcat]

Fine ignore that and address the clearly defined line that should still be expected in a field such as sports journalism whose primary focus is sports not sexual attraction.

if you merely seek to intepret thru MM's lens.

CG switched the dial to sexual subtext when the interview was clearly supposed to be about his innings. P'raps McLaughlin should have stared him down and insisted on cricket matters and then invoked some clause in his contract, even if she was unaware of any clause existing. She could have pulled leverage on an intellectual level.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

Likely. Even the woman (Neroli Meadows ? Melinda something ?) conceded, "We probably accept things we shouldn't".

If Chris Gayle is merely reflecting what is commonplace in the industry, it's the industry that needs to be looked at, not Chris Gayle in isolation.

Which is why people shouldn't be concentrating on Gayle and sarcastic remarks such as 'execute him' and instead look at the issue at large.

 

[The Old Dark Navy's]

if you merely seek to intepret thru MM's lens.

CG switched the dial to sexual subtext when the interview was clearly supposed to be about his innings. P'raps McLaughlin should have stared him down and insisted on cricket matters and then invoked some clause in his contract, even if she was unaware of any clause existing. She could have pulled leverage on an intellectual level.

No, because calling him out on air makes a farce of the coverage and her professionalism. Very few journos would do that on air unless they couldn't wrap up the interview without doing so.

 

[Ron The Bear]

Which is why people shouldn't be concentrating on Gayle and sarcastic remarks such as 'execute him' and instead look at the issue at large.

So who monitors these things? Surely there is a governing body or union which oversees the rights of media employees? Can't they be prodded to do something like WorkSafe belatedly did at Essendon?

 

[blackcat]

It is interesting regarding what Neroli Meadows (and the other girl) said on ABC regarding how often it happens. As has been pointed out they were saying it happens every day, without fail. Then you get Mel Mclaughlin with her interview on the project saying it basically never happens. And that's why the Gayle interview shocked her.
Interesting...

I think some folks are using this to push their own barrow and raise their own profile. The thing is, when you employ a PR firm to get your mug on ABC's QandA, or on that C10 show HUBPA (have you been paying attention), then you are clearly on the make. Nothing wrong with having ambition, if you meet it with work ethic and talent I have no gripe, it is to be respected in that case. But some folks are using this to increase their own profile. This may have hurt MM in the long run, (she has attempted to keep her head below the parapet, so I am not referring to her). The production and editing suite could have handled d'affaire Gayle with more finesse surely.

 

[Chief]

yeah, so there should be a proactive strategy.

And how did Warnie sleep with the thousands, and the captain sleep with 50 in the Caribbean. It was not because they were backward in coming forward. This is the milieu these men perform in. I am not approving, nor am I explicitly disapproving them. But it is a bit much when the ABC sports journo talks about Peter Moody and Black Caviar and never talks about the doping, and then comes out with the motherhood statements re: Gayle and this issue. There is no universalism in their position. Call out Brand, call out Franklin, call out Warne, call out the hypersexualised milieu of professional sport.

I am neutral on all of this. It is outside my orbit, and I am content with this.

Strictly consistent people are boring.

 

[Nikita Blue]

You would think if sexual harassment of female journos/reporters was as bad as they are saying then they wouldn't stay in that line of work or there would be more complaints made about it.

As I said I don't see that happening on air very often, maybe there is more that goes on off air like back in in the office or in the studio, but sexual harassment laws are pretty strict these days so you would think if it's a major problem it would have been cracked down on.

It's a bit of a grey area though, what some people might see as harmless flirting others see as sexual harassment, generally speaking though if someone crosses the line then they are usually disciplined or pulled back into line before it gets out of hand.

Maybe the did not complain because they did not want to be characterised as whining women who can't take a "harmless joke"?

 

[blackcat]

No, because calling him out on air makes a farce of the coverage and her professionalism. Very few journos would do that on air unless they couldn't wrap up the interview without doing so.

no, not calling him out. You repeat the question for a third time, then you resort to some other tactic.

 

[Chief]

(she has attempted to keep her head below the parapet, so I am not referring to her)

She has welcomed the discussion, but doesn't want it to be about her specifically as that will define her career - that girl that spat the dummy when Gayle tried to bang her.

 

[Chief]

if you merely seek to intepret thru MM's lens.

CG switched the dial to sexual subtext when the interview was clearly supposed to be about his innings. P'raps McLaughlin should have stared him down and insisted on cricket matters and then invoked some clause in his contract, even if she was unaware of any clause existing. She could have pulled leverage on an intellectual level.

And you accuse others of being unrealistic

 

[blackcat]

Strictly consistent people are boring.

Gerard Whately aint exactly an exciting media commentator. He is the epitomy of boring. mogadon missionary position.

 

[Feerits Elf]

It is interesting regarding what Neroli Meadows (and the other girl) said

Woman.

 

[krisholio14]

A round, qualitative number rather than a specific count. Some days it would be much more, some much less.

I spent a bit of time working in the sports department of a large media outlet many years ago, when there were a lot less female journalists involved, and what you would consider chauvenistic behaviour was far more commonplace throughout society. After spending a few days on the job with a couple of prominent female journalists, I can say without hesitation that the figure quoted is highly exaggerated.

What I can also add is that I was shocked at the absolute filth that comes out of most journos mouths any time they aren't doing their job, and that's coming from someone who isn't easily shocked. It's no surprise the famous Sandy Roberts 'Leanne Dick - utensil' incident happened, I guarantee the crew were making jokes about her name all the way to the event. And that's lightweight compared to most of the talk that flies around most news departments. What I was even more shocked at though, was that the dirtiest stuff I heard while I was there were from the females. It wasn't just a case of fitting in with the boys I can tell you, you don't come out with some of the stuff I heard if it's just for show. They could more than hold their own in the lewd stakes with any male journo, and quite often exceeded it. From that experience, I became particularly cynical when one of the female journos made consistent references in interviews in the following years about how much sexism and 'harassment' she was on the receiving end of as part of her job.

So I have no doubt that Mel and her female colleagues have been exposed to far far worse than Chris Gayle, but I also have no doubt worse has also come out of their mouths at points in time as well. For mine, whether it is in public or not is irrelevant. My comments are not about what I think is right or wrong, or what actually is right or wrong, it's more trying to illustrate that there's a shitload of hypocrisy here from certain sides of the argument, and that continually shifting the goalposts to suit one's own position at any given time leads to even more clouding of the actual issues at hand.

 

[JackOutback]

Strictly consistent people are boring.

And are mythical.

 

[blackcat]

And you accuse others of being unrealistic

no, I mean use rhetoric, speak of this possibility of his employer sanctioning him because he failed to meet his professional duties

I am not saying MM invokes the Renegades contractual clause

 

[Flameboy]

Woman.

Shush boy.

 

[phantom13]

your logic was flawed. I am neutral. A double negative leaves an ambiguity.

I am saying, Chris Gayle's behaviour is enabled by the significant amount of fans of cricket, him as an individual, and the Windies. That does not mean everyone is a fan of Gayles who is a fan of cricket, nor are they an enabler of his behaviour. You can respect him as a cricketer, love his cricketing ability, but abhor his behaviour off the ground. I understand how that is. I think a significant proportion of people will.

But they pay him the big bucks, and no one has pulled him up on this and the guy is an adult. He is not a criminal.

Ambiguity is defs where you wanna sit on a matter like equality or workplace sexism or even your own views on harassment in general especially when you take the road of swapping flawed arguments and comparatives to rapists. I'll admit I was wrong about you, I thought you were one note but you're actually just scatter gunning a million tried and true blokism and hoping one sticks

 

[eth-dog]

Gerard Whately aint exactly an exciting media commentator. He is the epitomy of boring. mogadon missionary position.

Gerard Whateley is the best commentator in Australia by a fair margin.

 

[krisholio14]

It is interesting regarding what Neroli Meadows (and the other girl) said on ABC regarding how often it happens. As has been pointed out they were saying it happens every day, without fail. Then you get Mel Mclaughlin with her interview on the project saying it basically never happens. And that's why the Gayle interview shocked her.
Interesting...

I was going to mention there has been a lot of contradiction in this regard.

 

[Chief]

I spent a bit of time working in the sports department of a large media outlet many years ago, when there were a lot less female journalists involved, and what you would consider chauvenistic behaviour was far more commonplace throughout society. After spending a few days on the job with a couple of prominent female journalists, I can say without hesitation that the figure quoted is highly exaggerated.

What I can also add is that I was shocked at the absolute filth that comes out of most journos mouths any time they aren't doing their job, and that's coming from someone who isn't easily shocked. It's no surprise the famous Sandy Roberts 'Leanne Dick - utensil' incident happened, I guarantee the crew were making jokes about her name all the way to the event. And that's lightweight compared to most of the talk that flies around most news departments. What I was even more shocked at though, was that the dirtiest stuff I heard while I was there were from the females. It wasn't just a case of fitting in with the boys I can tell you, you don't come out with some of the stuff I heard if it's just for show. They could more than hold their own in the lewd stakes with any male journo, and quite often exceeded it. From that experience, I became particularly cynical when one of the female journos made consistent references in interviews in the following years about how much sexism and 'harassment' she was on the receiving end of as part of her job.

So I have no doubt that Mel and her female colleagues have been exposed to far far worse than Chris Gayle, but I also have no doubt worse has also come out of their mouths at points in time as well. For mine, whether it is in public or not is irrelevant. My comments are not about what I think is right or wrong, or what actually is right or wrong, it's more trying to illustrate that there's a shitload of hypocrisy here from certain sides of the argument, and that continually shifting the goalposts to suit one's own position at any given time leads to even more clouding of the actual issues at hand.

And you heard them talk about the things they do to laugh it off.

There is no doubt that this behaviour is indulged in by members of both sexes.

But there are lines that people have. And they have different lines with different people.

All Gayle had to say was "I was playing up to the cameras like I always do, but it got out of hand and I said something offensive. I am truly sorry and I'm sorry for any hurt or harm I caused."

Not "If someone was offended by my joke..." blah blah non-apology.

 

[Chief]

It is interesting regarding what Neroli Meadows (and the other girl) said on ABC regarding how often it happens. As has been pointed out they were saying it happens every day, without fail. Then you get Mel Mclaughlin with her interview on the project saying it basically never happens. And that's why the Gayle interview shocked her.
Interesting...

Yes that would be a good issue to explore. Why does it happen to some and not others? Did she mean during interviews or day to day? Did it happen in the past and stop once she was experienced in the industry? Did it never, ever happen to her?