Media women name and shame sexual predators … unless they are politicians
Further allegations have been made against Deputy Prime Minister Barnaby Joyce, including multiple sexual harassment and molestation claims dating back to 2012.
One of the allegations concerns a 17 year-old girl.
On ABC TV’s The Drum yesterday evening, a segment was devoted to the latest alleged high-profile offender, banished by Conde Naste from practising his profession as a fashion photographer after allegations of serial sexual harassment and assault of his model subjects. Katherine Murphy was one of the panelists, and the host was Julia Baird.
It is becoming increasingly difficult to watch Australian political journalists comment on sexual harassment by powerful men in every workplace other than the Australian parliament. The elephant loomed large in the studio as Baird and Murphy discussed a topic over which journalists have thrown a cone of silence when it concerns Australian politicians.
It’s increasingly difficult to avoid the conclusion that Australian journalists are complicit in, and enable, sexual harassment and worse in the parliamentary workplace.
The situation for alleged victims of Australian politicians’ sexual impropriety is a dire one. At the best of times women (and victims are predominantly women) struggle to be heard and believed when we complain about sexual harassment and assault. It’s been obvious for some time now that the media play a significant role in bringing harassers to everyone’s attention, giving victims a voice, and making it difficult or impossible for perpetrators to continue their behaviour.
Yet none of this support is available to women harassed in the parliamentary workplace, because the media will not investigate, and will not report on sexual crimes and misdemeanours occurring there.
How ironic that there is currently a name and shame campaign under way, led by high-profile journalist Tracey Spicer, against men who harass women employed in the Australian media, while at the same time, media women protect politicians from scrutiny. This selective approach to outing sexual harassers in the workplace damages the credibility of every woman involved in the campaign, particularly those who comment on politics.
This post by J.R. Hennessy on the Press Gallery convention that protects politicians from scrutiny of their “private lives” is excellent, and well worth a read.
I continue to ask the questions: why are politicians given the freedom by journalists to sexually harass and abuse women, a freedom that exists in no other Australian workplace? Why don’t the Press Gallery care about women in the parliamentary workplace?
The idea of protecting perpetrators because they are “entitled to privacy” has kept women and children in violent and abusive situations for centuries. That it continues to hold sway at the heart of our democracy is absolutely shameful, and every political commentator should be absolutely ashamed if they support this long out-dated convention.
This article was originally published on No Place For Sheep.
9 comments
Login here Register here-
Mark Needham
-
diannaart
-
Jamesss
-
etnorb
-
Mark Needham
-
Joe Roskell
-
jimhaz
-
paul walter
-
diannaart
Return to home pageSpot on.
What else is “sub judice”, in the reporting of politicians?
Some one, some where, has a beaut photo album, of compromising photos, methinks….?
Zoom, focal-plane shutter, F6
Mark Needham
Jennifer
#MeToo
Me thinks the Shit is going to hit the Fan.
Why is it deemed “necessary” to cover up any sexual indiscretions etc by ANY politician? Do they all think that “their shit doesn’t stink”? For far too long now ANYONE in the entertainment or political or so-called Christian fields have had almost all their wrong-doings (?) kept silent. So much for an open & free media etc! It is beyond time for all these perpetrators to be named, shamed & tried in Court!
Somehow, our collective vote, is not being wisely used.
Or,
The problem is, that we vote, for the wrong question. The correct question is never asked.
The critical mass of our discontent is shredded, disjointed and non specific. I wonder why.
What is the ONE right question…?
Buggered if I know,
Mark Needham
Yes I read Katherine Murphy’s shameful defence of politicians the other day. Then again, it was a Tory pollie she was defending
The complaints against Chris Gayle and Charles Waterstreet seem rather pathetic to me.
Things like that take away most of my sympathy and make me dislike the modern mentally fragile spoilt brat females that seem to exaggerate the offense far too much.
It becomes an interesting piece in light of revelation that Cash may have been a victim of abuse as a child, as an explanation of her behaviours as evidence of psychological trauma.
I guess if I counter Jimhaz’s generalisations about women, that I will be painted as a “modern, mentally fragile female who exaggerates (sexual predation?) offense (sic) far too much.”
I also guess (I may be wrong, I often am) that others agree with JimHaz’s latest outpouring of hate-speak aimed at women. The silence is, well typical, and why SOME men feel free to continue their tirades against women, whether such behaviour be merely verbal, as in JH’s case, or worse, a lot worse.