Sky Sports presenters making sexist comments

dfx-

The last video is very very tame as Wolfe Tone says. Even the Charlotte Jackson one is hard to call without knowing the background. It's the assistant referee offside one where it is overt and vicious and pretty much inexcusable.

The other videos really only serve to reinforce that someone had it in for them..

fatmammycat

Yes the Sian Massey one is bad, but the others show the actual grubby tediously boorish attitude of the two senior member of staff.
Whether someone had it in for them or not is not the issue, had they NOT acted in the manner they did SKY would not have had the ammunition to fire Gray, and had Keys not shot himself in both feet today with a disaster of an interview it is likely he might not have had to resign.

Ickle Magoo

Or it just reinforces what cloddish boors they were - it isn't a matter of gravity nor "context" - at no point should a media professional be referring to women or speaking to people in their place of work in anything like those terms. It's not a few lads round the pub table, it's a media studio which will have lots of people in it and lots of people producing the programme witnessing the statements.

I see three females have come forward and given frank opinions on how much they didn't like Gray/Keys and their oh so hilarious banter...albeit anonymously. I think Sky were looking for any excuse and Gray/Keys stupidly handed them one.

fatmammycat

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Or it just reinforces what cloddish boors they were - it isn't a matter of gravity nor "context" - at no point should a media professional be referring to women or speaking to people in their place of work in anything like those terms. It's not a few lads round the pub table, it's a media studio which will have lots of people in it and lots of people producing the programme witnessing the statements.

I see three females have come forward and given frank opinions on how much they didn't like Gray/Keys and their oh so hilarious banter...albeit anonymously. I think Sky were looking for any excuse and Gray/Keys stupidly handed them one.

I haven't seen ANY colleague, male or female, come forward and defend them, that speak volumes to me.

Wolfe Tone

fatmammycat wrote: »

It IS that bad. It's actually disgusting.
The excellent Three and In explains better than I can why..

http://threeandin.com/2011/01/26/richard-keys-has-to-go-too/

No its not, its basically "did you tap that" for gods sake its pretty tame.

Ickle Magoo

fatmammycat wrote: »

I haven't seen ANY colleague, male or female, come forward and defend them, that speak volumes to me.

I heard big Ron reckons it all perfectly innocent storm in the tea-cup stuff. :pac:

Wolfe Tone

fatmammycat wrote: »

I haven't seen ANY colleague, male or female, come forward and defend them, that speak volumes to me.

Cause they would get the sack too probably!

Wolfe Tone

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I see three females have come forward and given frank opinions on how much they didn't like Gray/Keys and their oh so hilarious banter...albeit anonymously. I think Sky were looking for any excuse and Gray/Keys stupidly handed them one.

Whats to stop the paper making up these anon opinions?

fatmammycat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No its not, its basically "did you tap that" for gods sake its pretty tame.

If you think that's the way a professional man in a professional setting should be talking I feel very sorry.
'Did you tap that' by the way is boorish ****e too. 'Did you smash 'it', hang out the back of 'it'. Give me a break. Do you even take into account the people male and female who had to listen to that crap around them? Does Jamie RN look comfortable? Keys was ignored once, but kept going. Even Souness looks uncomfortable.

fatmammycat

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Whats to stop the paper making up these anon opinions?

Good grief. What an apologist you are turning out to be.

Good night Ickle, I have work to do.

parker kent

Chucky the tree wrote: »

Don't agree with this. Any examples? Seems to be easy to claim now, but I can't see how anyone would have thought sexism was very common in sky sports from just watching the channel.

Here's a few examples:

Watching the Christmas special of the quiz show Take It Like A Fan, Charlie Nicholas (AKA Champagne Charlie, a renowned womanizer) said that he was "looking forward to having Charlotte playing with him". All his fellow ex-pros let out typical matey laughs as she tried to get on with presenting. Since that made it on air, it is not difficult to imagine that worse could happen off-air.

Sky Sports News is renowned as a totty parade. Some of them are people like Millie Clode who has spoken in the past of her complete lack of football knowledge. Yet she presents news shows with Football as the main word. For every Charlotte Jackson who knows their stuff, there are plenty more who do not. As I said earlier, this is changing as more women are interested in sport than at any point in the past. But one look at the channel shows that sex sells.

Plus my biggest example is that many of these sports shows feature ex-pros with very dubious histories with women. As I referred to earlier, Andy Gray is a serial love-rat, fathering numerous children with numerous women. Plenty of his colleagues have similar histories. It would not take Sherlock Holmes to put the pieces together and realize it was ripe for a sexist working environment.

I'm not trying to be wise after the fact. Plenty of people have raised issues with Sky Sports and sexism in the past. Also, the Womens FA Cup final video from 1998 is another good example.

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

I see three females have come forward and given frank opinions on how much they didn't like Gray/Keys and their oh so hilarious banter...albeit anonymously. I think Sky were looking for any excuse and Gray/Keys stupidly handed them one.

In any similar situation, you'll find people who come out of the woodwork to only criticise, especially anonymously. More interestingly, Sam Matterface put his name to his view of the general attitude towards the two of them in Sky, now that he has left Sky.

Wolfe Tone

fatmammycat wrote: »

Good grief. What an apologist you are turning out to be.

Good night Ickle, I have work to do.

Im not saying they arent true, Im honestly wondering.

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Im not saying they arent true, Im honestly wondering.

It is The Guardian we are talking about, not The Sun. They are a far more reliable source of information.

Wolfe Tone

I'm not trying to be wise after the fact. Plenty of people have raised issues with Sky Sports and sexism in the past. Also, the Womens FA Cup final video from 1998 is another good example.

In fairness that was hilariously bad.

Wolfe Tone

parker kent wrote: »

It is The Guardian we are talking about, not The Sun. They are a far more reliable source of information.

So it is just the broadsheet rep then?

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

No its not, its basically "did you tap that" for gods sake its pretty tame.

If it's so tame and acceptable, next time your having a work meeting and discussion of a female colleague crops up, or perhaps at the next family gathering when talk turns to a cute cousin, announce you'd smash it and be found hanging out the back of it and come back and let us know how you get on...

:pac:

Wolfe Tone wrote:

Whats to stop the paper making up these anon opinions?

Well, nothing - which is why I added the caveat. It would perfectly easy for those who worked with either presenter past and present to state that although what Gray/Keys said/did was out of order they were a complete pleasure to work with - yet they haven't - and the tin-foil hat brigade claims of gagging orders just don't stand up to scrutiny - 20 years in the business and both are painfully lacking in support and defenders.

I do think the almost universal agreement that the two commentators fully deserved their fate is interesting - and I'm pleasantly surprised there isn't more trying to pass it off as a load of nothing. I guess there comes a stage when it would be defending the indefensible.

Wolfe Tone

Would you have sacked them just for that last video?

I don't think they should have been sacked, could have tried to have them as poster people like they had reformed people for the kick racism out of football.

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

So it is just the broadsheet rep then?

I'm not going to get into a debate about whether The Guardian would make up a story. Saying the The Guardian would invent the sources has about as much credibility as David Icke saying that lizards were running the world. It is a loony, conspiracy theory.

I'll just ask this question, which is likelier? Option 1: That two men would be disliked at Sky by fellow employees and that some of those employees would speak anonymously to a renowned newspaper. Particularly given that the video had to be released by an employee. Look at their behaviour, it is entirely believable that they would not be liked.

Or option 2: The Guardian (and a well regarded sports journalist) just made up sources and invented quotes.

Wolfe Tone

I dont trust any of the media personally.


I wasnt saying they made it up at all. I was just wondering if there was anything preventing them from doing so, or another paper making up positive quotes.

These things should always be questioned in my opinion.

Ickle Magoo

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

Would you have sacked them just for that last video?

I don't think they should have been sacked, could have tried to have them as poster people like they had reformed people for the kick racism out of football.

If they were anything like their reputations, I would have sacked them years ago.

You've made it abundantly clear you don't think they should have been sacked - I'm not sure if you can possibly be serious about pandering to them and pityingly ship them off to some kind of misogyny reform club. Let's be serious. They are middle-aged professionals paid millions to talk about football, nothing more. The onus is on them not to be offensive boors in their place of work to the point the dislike by the general staff is palpable.

Wolfe Tone

I just think it is not fair to make examples out of people.

parker kent

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I dont trust any of the media personally.


I wasnt saying they made it up at all. I was just wondering if there was anything preventing them from doing so, or another paper making up positive quotes.

These things should always be questioned in my opinion.

I don't take every word in the media to be gospel. I did after all add that the article was based on hearsay when I posted it. But in this instance, logic would dictate that the story is accurate.

Chucky the tree

parker kent wrote: »

Here's a few examples:

Watching the Christmas special of the quiz show Take It Like A Fan, Charlie Nicholas (AKA Champagne Charlie, a renowned womanizer) said that he was "looking forward to having Charlotte playing with him". All his fellow ex-pros let out typical matey laughs as she tried to get on with presenting. Since that made it on air, it is not difficult to imagine that worse could happen off-air.

Sky Sports News is renowned as a totty parade. Some of them are people like Millie Clode who has spoken in the past of her complete lack of football knowledge. Yet she presents news shows with Football as the main word. For every Charlotte Jackson who knows their stuff, there are plenty more who do not. As I said earlier, this is changing as more women are interested in sport than at any point in the past. But one look at the channel shows that sex sells.

Plus my biggest example is that many of these sports shows are presented by ex-pros with very dubious histories with women. As I referred to earlier, Andy Gray is a serial love-rat, fathering numerous children with numerous women. Plenty of his colleagues have similar histories. It would not take Sherlock Holmes to put the pieces together and realize it was ripe for a sexist working environment.

I'm not trying to be wise after the fact. Plenty of people have raised issues with Sky Sports and sexism in the past. Also, the Womens FA Cup final video from 1998 is another good example.

So there's actually only one incident you can remember and your basing the fact that Grays and Keys behaviour was common place because they hire attractive females? That's some massive leap. As you say, sex sells. You make it sound like Sky sports are the only company that do this. Everyone other company does it. ESPN have Rebecca Lowe and UTV Gabby Logan. Sky News there job is to read off an auto-cue, I don't think you liking sport or soccer makes any difference. Mot of the male presenters are young guys as well.

Ex-pros and dubious pasts go hand in hand unfortunately. I'd say trying to get 20+ ex-soccer players who are good on TV and don't have some ghosts in their closet would be a pretty big struggle. In saying that, they aren't all bad. The womens FA cup video is just Gray and Keys again. If you look at the other video, Redknapp, Guillt and Souness all don't seem impressed at all by what Keys said. You can see Souness even kick him as probably a way of telling him to shut up.

dfx-

parker kent wrote: »

Or option 2: The Guardian (and a well regarded sports journalist) just made up sources and invented quotes.

There are some very poor sports journalists and also some of the best at the Guardian. I also listened to Keys' attempted apology on talkSPORT this afternoon on the Guardian site with their sub-heading "Amazing remarkable interview". That was invented. I didn't find it amazing or remarkable.

I'd regard fellow Sky Sports Jim White's past comment of the potato famine and Celtic supporters as worse than the individual videos. He is still employed. The audio on the offside call is a 100% sackable offence of itself, so they were not harshly treated, but it's impossible to say that there was no campaign behind the scenes.

Do I think Sky would've wielded the axe without the other videos? No. So I'd think they have served their purpose..

parker kent

Chucky the tree wrote: »

So there's actually only one incident you can remember and your basing the fact that Grays and Keys behaviour was common place because they hire attractive females? That's some massive leap. As you say, sex sells. You make it sound like Sky sports are the only company that do this. Everyone other company does it. ESPN have Rebecca Lowe and UTV Gabby Logan. Sky News there job is to read off an auto-cue, I don't think you liking sport or soccer makes any difference. Mot of the male presenters are young guys as well.

Ex-pros and dubious pasts go hand in hand unfortunately. I'd say trying to get 20+ ex-soccer players who are good on TV and don't have some ghosts in their closet would be a pretty big struggle. In saying that, they aren't all bad. The womens FA cup video is just Gray and Keys again. If you look at the other video, Redknapp, Guillt and Souness all don't seem impressed at all by what Keys said. You can see Souness even kick him as probably a way of telling him to shut up.

I hardly keep a notebook and jot down examples whenever I see it on TV. My point is still relevant, it should not be a surprise the sexist behaviour happened. I have given one specific example and referred to others I have watched in the past. There are examples of sexism on Sky. I didn't say it was overt, I just said it was there in some forms.

I have also referred to Sky hiring numerous people who are likely to be sexist given their history. I'm not saying they should not hire pros with dubious pasts, nor am I saying they are all bad. I never said "all ex footballers are sexist" as that would be a ridiculous and false exaggeration. But they have definitely hired some with such views. Again, sexist behaviour is not unlikely issue given they have hired SOME ex-pros with such pasts. They clearly play up the "dressing room" mentality on TV. It is not a stretch to imagine it extends to off camera conversations. Footballers are hardly renowned for being the most open minded of groups (Again not every footballer is a prehistoric sexist).

As for liking sports, of course it matters when it comes to presenting sports shows. They do more than just read an autocue. When interviewing people, it becomes obvious when people know what they are talking about. Others such as Charlotte Jackson want to present other sports shows. If the hiring process consisted of hiring women based purely on looks, then it is far less likely they will climb the ladder as knowledge of sport goes hand-in-hand with such progress. Similarly, she is less likely to climb the ladder if she is just viewed as totty and having senior colleagues making sexist remarks about you is hardly going to change that view.

dfx- wrote: »

There are some very poor sports journalists and also some of the best at the Guardian. I also listened to Keys' attempted apology on talkSPORT this afternoon on the Guardian site with their sub-heading "Amazing remarkable interview". That was invented. I didn't find it amazing or remarkable.

I'd regard fellow Sky Sports Jim White's past comment of the potato famine and Celtic supporters as worse than the individual videos. He is still employed. The audio on the offside call is a 100% sackable offence of itself, so they were not harshly treated, but it's impossible to say that there was no campaign behind the scenes.

Do I think Sky would've wielded the axe without the other videos? No. So I'd think they have served their purpose..

Your amazing and remarkable quote is a bit ridiculous. It is hardly an example of invention, it is a matter of semantics. You would not use the same words as they used. That is not an invention, a poor choice of words perhaps. Some minor (and I mean minor) sensationalism. Also, it depends what area of the site you were on. The Fiver is an example of a satirical column on their website. Also, I hardly said every journalist in The Guardian was fantastic. I said it was a reputable newspapers (which it is) and the article was written by a well renowned sports journalist (which it was).

The Jim White issue is not relevant to this debate. He was on dodgy ground and could easily have been sacked. As for this potentially being an example of a behind the scenes campaign, we don't know. All I can say is that there is a good chance the guys were not liked. Also, Sky have sacked (or stopped featuring people in the past such as Rodney Marsh or Frank McLintock or on and off air remarks.

I'm on record as saying Sky have sacked Gray as a PR move. The drip-drip effects of the videos was making their positions untenable. They had lost respect, credibility and had become a liability. I disagree with their actions, but that it is not why both men are now gone.

Stheno

Wolfe Tone wrote: »

I just think it is not fair to make examples out of people.

Keys resigned, he hasn't been made an example of, and he had the good grace to apologise.

Gray, on the other hand didn't seem to think much of his behaviour, didn't apologise and is now selling his story as to how devastated he is to lose his livelihood (due to his own personal actions)

In a lot of the companies I've worked in (and yes I've worked a lot in multinationals) their behaviour would be treated at least as gross misconduct for which one of the penalties is being fired.

In others, it would be considered serious misconduct, and the person committing the misconduct would have been subject to disciplinary procedures once one single report was made of such behaviour.

I don't think either has been made an example of, I think that both of them have essentially loaded the guns that shot them.

micro_dot

Page one of The Sun: "Gray Sacked For Perving Over TV Girl".

Page three: News in Briefs (Staci, 21, is so curious to see who "comes out on top in today's Fianna Fail leadership vote" she only remembered to put her knickers on.

Maybe it's a distraction from the phone tapping scandal? A controlled explosion?

Stheno

micro_dot wrote: »

Page one of The Sun: "Gray Sacked For Perving Over TV Girl".

Page three: News in Briefs (Staci, 21, is so curious to see who "comes out on top in today's Fianna Fail leadership vote" she only remembered to put her knickers on.

Maybe it's a distraction from the phone tapping scandal? A controlled explosion?

I'm not sure I get the correlation? On the front page you've details of a guy being sacked for crude, boorish and sexist behaviour, and on the third page you've a caption above a woman who chooses to pose semi naked for a living?

Is it the hypocrisy of the paper that you are posting about?

Ickle Magoo

Don't you see - the paper making sexually suggestive comments about a women they employ to show her breasts on page three is exactly the same as a sports presenter making lewd comments about their colleague or games officials or colleagues ex partners so they are nothing but hypocrites...

...no, me neither.