Sky Sports presenters making sexist comments

MyKeyG

WesternNight wrote: »

But even if your suggestion is correct, it's still possible to find someone attractive and not demean them at the same time.

I wish you'd tell my sister that:)

kerash

amiable wrote: »

I'm off from this thread. No point in discussing it with people who don't understand football. Cheerio:D

I had to quote this post!

The topic of this thread does not require any knowledge of football in order to enter into the discussion.

Ickle Magoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

I see what you mean Magoo but here's my issue. One thing I'm not sure I agree with is the context with which it's being dealt. I read a very interesting comment in the Star today written by a woman by the way, for whom such a thing may concern.As a male if I considered some of the things said to me by women in jest in the same light as this I'd have had them crucified by management but I usually just accepted it for what it was. A joke! Sometimes a joke in bad taste but let him without sin cast the first stone.

That's just it though - where do you think the line should be drawn? Would you consider "joking" about someone's skin colour in the middle of the office inappropriate? What about their disability? Is that okay? It's all very well to bemoan it's all just a joke but we are talking about singling out a colleague for sexually motivated comments and gestures - I don't know many professional outfits that would agree with your summation of "joke" given the context. Your mate while down the pub = joke. Colleague at work = unprofessional and highly inappropriate.

MyKeyG wrote: »

I'm not saying what AG and RK said was right or wrong and I do agree that when in the media your comments carry much more weight than normal but I refuse to accept that they are the personification of sexism in the workplace just because they had the misfortune of making comments made by many, Male and Female, with a microphone lurking. I think a lot of people need to tone down the sanctimony a little and realise the reality of the workplace.

It's not just a microphone lurking - it's an entire studio filled with people! It's the equivalent of making a knob gag at your colleagues expense in the middle of a meeting. I would actually agree that people need to realise the reality of the workplace because I suspect many would get into very hot water for doing likewise.

parker kent

donfers wrote: »

I understand the point but unfortunately the reality is that many people out there tend not to compartmentalise things like that, if I was a primary school teacher and made some extra money on the side as a porn star I'm not sure many people would think it reasonable to do both jobs concurrently

what Gray said to her was disgusting and wrong and there is no excuse for it regardless of Jackson's raunchy photoshoots, however if she wants respect as a sports journalist then she should focus more on her sports media career rather than taking her clothes off

Surely you see the difference between an example of a school teacher in porn and a media personality doing photoshoots for a magazine?

Jamie Redknapp (ignoring his obvious flaws as a pundit) has done topless photoshoots as have many other men on TV. That does not take away from their sports media career. He is not open to same complaints about "getting his kit off". She should be no different. Photoshoots are just a way to make extra money and increase awareness of the person. Sky Sports obviously benefit from such exposure.

I also found this remark in this column to be interesting. Like many have said in this thread, it was not a private conversation. It may not have been on-air but they were still on-the-job.

Many will question the fairness of leaking a so-called "private" conversation to the press. Let's be clear here, this was not a private conversation. As anyone in television or radio knows, the very definition of "private" is stretched to its limits when you are on the job speaking into a microphone shortly before a live broadcast. Even a first-year journalism student could tell you the first rule in broadcasting is to treat a microphone with respect and always, always behave as if you are being broadcast live to the nation.

Let's not forget, too, the number of people who would have been able to hear that feed – women included – as everyone in the Sky gallery would have been able to listen to their comments.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/blog/2011/jan/24/sian-massey-sky-sports-sexism

parker kent

Gabby Logan has also spoken about the issue on her blog and compared Sky to her other employers. Again Sky Sports do not come out too favourably.

I haven't really spoken to either man since I left Sky in 1998, but if I was to compare the culture at Sky Sports to the BBC and ITV, then I'd have to say there was much more of a highly-charged machismo and sexual banter in the office at Sky. This is not something I am just revealing now, anyone who has ever asked me to compare those workplaces will attest that I have always said that. But I was a very young woman then and didn't know that this wasn't the norm. I am sure there are many young men and women who have only worked at Sky, who think that is the way it is in TV. My experience says that’s not the case. Clearly the bosses at Sky want to change that culture, which is an admirable thing.

http://www.realbuzz.com/blogs/u/Gabby_Logan/gabby-logan-s-blog/posts/sky-and-sexism/

MyKeyG

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's just it though - where do you think the line should be drawn? Would you consider "joking" about someone's skin colour in the middle of the office inappropriate? What about their disability? Is that okay? It's all very well to bemoan it's all just a joke but we are talking about singling out a colleague for sexually motivated comments and gestures - I don't know many professional outfits that would agree with your summation of "joke" given the context. Your mate while down the pub = joke. Colleague at work = unprofessional and highly inappropriate.

It's not just a microphone lurking - it's an entire studio filled with people! It's the equivalent of making a knob gag at your colleagues expense in the middle of a meeting. I would actually agree that people need to realise the reality of the workplace because I suspect many would get into very hot water for doing likewise.

First of all can I remind you that the context in which I used the word 'joke' was regarding things said to me by female colleagues in the workplace so I don't know where the 'mate down the pub' comparrisson comes in.

My point is it's not the material it's the audiance. Me and a Polish colleague used to rip the p*ss out of each other all the time. Nobody got offended they knew what we were at. However if somebody recorded me jokingly calling him a lazy Polish B**tard without showing him laughing at it, it could certainly be used as evidence against my character. Does it look to you like Charlotte or anybody in the studio had any problem with it at the time? Sincerely? She might have thought it was hillarious for all we know.

The fact is we don't know because all we see is what the media have transmitted. I just simply refuse to accept what the media are trying to shovel down my neck for a story and judge thereon. A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office. You asked the question where the line should be drawn. My answer is there shouldn't be a line. Workplace banter between people who know it's in jest should be allowed completely or not at all.

donfers

parker kent wrote: »

Surely you see the difference between an example of a school teacher in porn and a media personality doing photoshoots for a magazine?

Jamie Redknapp (ignoring his obvious flaws as a pundit) has done topless photoshoots as have many other men on TV. That does not take away from their sports media career. He is not open to same complaints about "getting his kit off". She should be no different. Photoshoots are just a way to make extra money and increase awareness of the person. Sky Sports obviously benefit from such exposure.

yes of course I see a difference, I am not comparing the jobs, however the point I was responding to was that a person doing two jobs at the same time should be judged only by the individual merits of their ability in that job and not their other job, ideally it would be true, it's not so I referred to an extreme example.....also "media personality" is not a job so your attempt to use that term to link it to doing raunchy photoshoots for lads magazine is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

I am sure Sky sports news presenters don't describe their job as media personalities, indeed doing so would lead one to regard their interest in sports as a means to an end i.e. being famous, hence the lack of respect , don't know offside etc., hence why it is damaging for her career in terms of perception of her sporting knowledge when she takes her clothes off to get attention, however all that does not excuse Gray's behaviour

as for your assertion that many male tv pundits go topless, I would seriously doubt this, maybe a few players have done shampoo ads and freddie ljungberg(not a tv pundit) is famous for the calvin klein ads but that's about it unless you count people like Beckham (not a tv pundit) and charity calendars (more related to rugby).........that's about all I can think of but I am not a conaisseur of this type of stuff and if Giles, Dunphy and Bill o'Herlihy have done a raunchy calendar then I'd prefer not to know;)

Stheno

MyKeyG wrote: »

A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office.

Not most of the office environments I've worked in at all.

MyKeyG

Stheno wrote: »

Not most of the office environments I've worked in at all.

Well I'm sure it doesn't happen in all offices but quite a lot. People build up comfortable relationships.

parker kent

donfers wrote: »

yes of course I see a difference, I am not comparing the jobs, however the point I was responding to was that a person doing two jobs at the same time should be judged only by the individual merits of their ability in that job and not their other job, ideally it would be true, it's not so I referred to an extreme example.....also "media personality" is not a job so your attempt to use that term to link it to doing raunchy photoshoots for lads magazine is, in my opinion, disingenuous.

I am sure Sky sports news presenters don't describe their job as media personalities, indeed doing so would lead one to regard their interest in sports as a means to an end i.e. being famous, hence the lack of respect , don't know offside etc., hence why it is damaging for her career in terms of perception of her sporting knowledge when she takes her clothes off to get attention, however all that does not excuse Gray's behaviour

as for your assertion that many male tv pundits go topless, I would seriously doubt this, maybe a few players have done shampoo ads and freddie ljungberg(not a tv pundit) is famous for the calvin klein ads but that's about it unless you count people like Beckham (not a tv pundit) and charity calendars (more related to rugby).........that's about all I can think of but I am not a conaisseur of this type of stuff and if Giles, Dunphy and Bill o'Herlihy have done a raunchy calendar then I'd prefer not to know;)

Media personality, sports journalist etc. I clearly was referring to people who work for Sky Sports and present sports programming. Their job title is irrelevant to these posts. That is a question of semantics and makes little difference to my points. I used media personality for the sake of brevity. I could have called them anything. Doing or not doing a photoshoot will not make any difference to whether a presenter knows what they are talking about. Nor will it change the attitude of many people. Some will see a pretty girl and assume she is a vacuous airhead, others will not. All photoshoots are done to increase the popularity of the person involved and to make some money.

As for the male presenters/pundits/media personality/man on the TV talking about sport, I have already given an example of one who has featured in photoshoots. Whether you doubt it or not does not change the fact. There have been threads on Boards before about Sky Sports presenters (both male and female) and those pictures have been posted. I am not saying they regularly do it or that it is a majority. Nonetheless it has still happened.

parker kent

MyKeyG wrote: »

The fact is we don't know because all we see is what the media have transmitted. I just simply refuse to accept what the media are trying to shovel down my neck for a story and judge thereon. A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office. You asked the question where the line should be drawn. My answer is there shouldn't be a line. Workplace banter between people who know it's in jest should be allowed completely or not at all.

What about the people that have spoken out about Sky either anonymously or publically such as Gabby Logan? Surely we should consider what they say? They suggest that it is not just banter between people who know it is jest.

Stheno

MyKeyG wrote: »

Ok. I don't see how that's supposed to be an argument but fair play.

My point is that in most (if not all actually) of the work/professional environments that I have worked in, such comments would no be tolerated, even your comments to your Polish co-worker would be very ill recieved by anyone overhearing.

Ergo you posting that the story of Grey/Keys could as easily represent the regular goings on in any office does not ring true in my experience. I've usually worked in a fairly male dominated environment (six out of my last seven jobs) and such behaviour/comments simply would not have been part of the daily "banter"

Ickle Magoo

MyKeyG wrote: »

First of all can I remind you that the context in which I used the word 'joke' was regarding things said to me by female colleagues in the workplace so I don't know where the 'mate down the pub' comparrisson comes in.

My point is it's not the material it's the audiance. Me and a Polish colleague used to rip the p*ss out of each other all the time. Nobody got offended they knew what we were at. However if somebody recorded me jokingly calling him a lazy Polish B**tard without showing him laughing at it, it could certainly be used as evidence against my character. Does it look to you like Charlotte or anybody in the studio had any problem with it at the time? Sincerely? She might have thought it was hillarious for all we know.

The difference is what is deemed professional conduct and professional misconduct in most professional scenarios. I don't know where you work but using overtly sexual, racist, homophobic, xenophobic, etc, terminology would not be acceptable conduct even if neither your friend or yourself objected in a large number of workplaces - especially if other employees have to listen to or witness what is being said.

Sky has stated Charlotte didn't think it was hilarious - which you can of course ignore - or refuse to believe - but I'd ask again, if it was all such hilarious banter from a couple of wee gems then where are all of Gray/Keys colleagues from the past 2 decades to assure us how out of context a well loved work-mate has been taken?

MyKeyG wrote: »

The fact is we don't know because all we see is what the media have transmitted. I just simply refuse to accept what the media are trying to shovel down my neck for a story and judge thereon. A story that to me could just as easily represent the regular goings on in any office. You asked the question where the line should be drawn. My answer is there shouldn't be a line. Workplace banter between people who know it's in jest should be allowed completely or not at all.

You are making the assumption, again, that everyone in an office should appreciate sexist innuendo and lewd behaviour and consider it joking just because you do. I also disagree it would be going on in any office, in fact the only time I've witnessed a colleague making a very public statement regarding another colleague in sexual terms they went on to face a disciplinary hearing and eventually lost their job.

You don't think there should be a line? I think you are mistaken and I think an employee pulling the same stunt while witnessed by a large number of other employees would suffer the same fate in many other professional outfits.

There is a reason why equality legislation exists and it's because what some people find funny, just isn't. It can take the form of bullying, it can be passive-aggressive prejudice and it can make for a thoroughly unpleasant working environment - all things most good employers seek to avoid. There is simply no need for adults and paid professionals to have to denigrate and salivate over their colleagues and quite rightly many employees see it as juvenile and unprofessional.

coffee_cake

Someone making the "tuck in my shirt" thing wouldn't be "normal goings on" in any office i've ever heard of. I imagine nobody in this place would even dream of doing such a thing in here, whatever they may get up to out of office hours.
I can't see how anyone would consider it normal

ickle wrote:

but I'd ask again, if it was all such hilarious banter from a couple of wee gems then where are all of Gray/Keys colleagues from the past 2 decades to assure us how out of context a well loved work-mate has been taken?

There is a reason why equality legislation exists and it's because what some people find funny, just isn't. It can take the form of bullying, it can be passive-aggressive prejudice and it can make for a thoroughly unpleasant working environment - all things most good employers seek to avoid.

Two excellent points

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

It's not just a microphone lurking - it's an entire studio filled with people! It's the equivalent of making a knob gag at your colleagues expense in the middle of a meeting. I would actually agree that people need to realise the reality of the workplace because I suspect many would get into very hot water for doing likewise.

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

jayteecork

Why is it that when women say stuff like "men can't multitask" (and they do it constantly) there's no sexist outcry from men?

Probably because we have better things to be doing.

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

Only if you say it knowing your coffee break or cigarette break is going to be heard and witnessed by hundreds of your fellow employees. I'm not sure why people think being hooked up to a mic and filmed in a fully operational recording studio making lewd gestures to a fellow professional is the equivalent of having a word in your pal's ear during break time.

jayteecork wrote: »

Why is it that when women say stuff like "men can't multitask" (and they do it constantly) there's no sexist outcry from men?

Probably because we have better things to be doing.

Ironically, given your second statement, there's an 4 page thread on it in tGC.

flyer88

Gray was a tosser for saying stuff bout the lineswoman but the other comment to georgie whats her face was just a joke, and in fairness shes not that bad looking so

Ickle Magoo

If anything the whole "she looked sexy so making lewd comments/gestures is acceptable and understandable" defence out-juveniles the act.

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

Only if you say it knowing your coffee break or cigarette break is going to be heard and witnessed by hundreds of your fellow employees. I'm not sure why people think being hooked up to a mic and filmed in a fully operational recording studio making lewd gestures to a fellow professional is the equivalent of having a word in your pal's ear during break time.

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

flyer88

but id say she gets it alot

coffee_cake

flyer88 wrote: »

Gray was a tosser for saying stuff bout the lineswoman but the other comment to georgie whats her face was just a joke, and in fairness shes not that bad looking so

So what? Do you want to finish that sentence? How does it go, "she's good looking so she's asking for it"? Or maybe "she's good looking so she deserves any lewd comments she gets and shouldn't complain"?

flyer88

Well what can ye expect like?

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

That's simply not true. People don't just run to their stations the minute the programme goes live, everyone is in place to do sound, lighting and film checks. Neither does everyone run out the studio or production offices the minute live filming is cut. If anything, there are more people in a studio prior to going live than during.

Ickle Magoo

flyer88 wrote: »

Well what can ye expect like?

At a bare minimum? That you read the charter before posting in this forum again.

flyer88

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

At a bare minimum? That you read the charter before posting in this forum again.

Or not..

Ickle Magoo

flyer88 given a weeks holiday for ignoring mod warning and trolling.

dfx-

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

That's simply not true. People don't just run to their stations the minute the programme goes live, everyone is in place to do sound, lighting and film checks. Neither does everyone run out the studio or production offices the minute live filming is cut. If anything, there are more people in a studio prior to going live than during.

The studios in the football grounds really aren't or should I say certainly don't look big enough to hold many more than a sound guy, cameramen and maybe a runner. They're mostly small boxes in old grounds like Molineux (presumably). There might be a couple of more producers in an outside broadcast truck, but not many more people within earshot at all.

Maple

dfx- wrote: »

In fairness, it's not a direct comparison. It is the equivalent of a 'quiet word' during a coffee break or cigarette break of that meeting.

Utter hogwash. This was not a quiet informal word between two colleagues as they wander down town at lunch to grab a sandwich, it was a blatant overtly sexual comment to make in a place of work during working hours. It was intimidating, an utterly inappropriate comment. Personally I think her complete lack of reaction to the comment only serves to highlight her feeling uncomfortable, a case of ignore the sap and perhaps he'll shut up.

dfx- wrote: »

Before a game, at half time and after the game is their 'middle of a meeting'. Their 'break time' is during the games. There'd be I'd say 6-7 people - at a push - in that studio, not hundreds. The parallels are obvious to me.

I personally feel you're clutching at straws to even try and count how many people would be there. The fact remains he set out to humiliate her and demean her in front of their colleagues, simply because she's a woman.

Ickle Magoo

dfx- wrote: »

The studios in the football grounds really aren't or should I say certainly don't look big enough to hold many more than a sound guy, cameramen and maybe a runner. They're mostly small boxes. There might be a couple of more producers in an outside broadcast truck, but not many more people within earshot at all.

He was ultimately sacked for the comments and gestures he made to a female colleague in a broadcasting studio - I'm not sure why numbers of staff in an outside broadcast are relevant to that. Regardless, whether it was a handful of staff in an outside broadcasting unit or a whole studio and production crew - it doesn't detract from how unprofessional and inappropriate it is to make such comments while in a professional capacity.