Sky Sports presenters making sexist comments

Ickle Magoo · 26-01-2011 9:49pm

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 · 26-01-2011 9:51pm

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

parker kent · 26-01-2011 9:52pm

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 · 26-01-2011 10:02pm

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- · 26-01-2011 10:08pm

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 · 26-01-2011 10:32pm

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 · 26-01-2011 11:31pm

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 · 27-01-2011 12:08am

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 · 27-01-2011 12:14am

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 · 27-01-2011 12:36am

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.

parker kent · 27-01-2011 2:04am

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.

Just to follow up on my reply above to this quote, I looked at the page again on the Guardian's website. The heading was "Richard Keys: listen to his remarkable apology interview - audio". What exactly is wrong with that sentence? Ignoring the obvious fact it is not "invented", it is a remarkable interview. A man who was on the verge of losing his job, virtually committed career suicide in an interview. Take this sentence for example:

Sky Sports is not inherently sexist … we're a little bit like Wimbledon: we've had to upset a few people on the way to get noticed. All those colourful jackets I used to wear … but there's many people drinking from the well that we dug … success breeds envy

He is basically defending what they do as being part of what made them successful. It is the "it's the way we are" defence. It is miind-boggling he would say such things. Or how about this gem:

One of the reasons that we were probably in overdrive on Saturday is that we had a fresh guest with us – Matt Murray, who used to play in goal for Wolves – we wanted to make him feel relaxed and comfortable. That was part of that process.

Yes sure what better way is there to make somebody feel comfortable than a bout of rampant sexism?

Lastly this quote about Karren Brady shows how little remorse he has for what was said. Once again we have the "give us a break love" attitude on show. He continued to dig a deeper hole for himself. He got a few digs in at Brady and is trying to paint her as scheming, manipulative etc. Whereas her point about sexism in football has pretty much been made for her by what Keys and Gray said on Saturday and in this interview. He is hardly proving her wrong with his carry on.

I tried to ring Karren [Brady] twice on Sunday night. She didn't answer the phone. There is no answer phone on Karren's mobile. That may be a sign of the times at West Ham. So I texted her and asked her to ring me back… she chose not to respond to my text. A by-product of all this is that it's taken West Ham out of the press and she knows, and so does everybody else, what a mess they made of trying to appoint Martin O'Neill. She was getting it in the neck, she claims that's because she is a woman. She played that card, rightly or wrongly

All in all, that was a remarkable interview. Any sensible person would have been contrite and remorseful. Instead he is ranting about dark forces. He left himself little choice but to resign as he would no doubt have been sacked after that.

http://www.guardian.co.uk/football/audio/2011/jan/26/richard-keys-talksport-interview-audio

dfx- · 27-01-2011 2:26am

None of that is remarkable or amazing.

The comment about Wimbledon has nothing to do with his comments. It's stating the obvious that Sky back in 1992 when he started had to shake the system up to get themselves noticed. Anyone who has watched football knows this to be the case for the past 15 years. This is no shock revelation. What he is saying is that they've made enemies and they've come back to haunt them now. A perfectly rational assumption.

Maybe he feels that is a contributing reason, however at all times he is at pains to stress that his comments were still wrong throughout. Have you omitted that part?

He tried to apologise to Karren Brady personally, she chose not to. If anyone is playing the sexism card, it is Brady. What he is referring to is her claim in her newspaper column that she found it tough at Birmingham City as Chief Executive purely because she was female. In truth she was a very poor Chief Executive, which the new owners are finding out how bad the mess she left was and now her new club are finding it too. He is allowed to disagree you know

There's nothing shocking in the interview at all. It is tabloid-esque to call it remarkable or amazing.

Meanwhile, there's a great article by Fiona Looney in the Daily Mail today about it and Mary Robinson turning up at a game in 1990

Fiona Looney wrote:

...the presidential election was merely days away. Mary Robinson, the candidate who would become Ireland's first president was in the final, dizzying days of a campaign that was beginning to run away with itself when she came to the RDS to see the new tenants Shamrock Rovers play a league match. I can't remember anything about it now except that when Mrs. Robinson's arrival at the ground was announced over the PA, a couple of thousand football fans robustly sang a chorus of get your **** out for the lads. When I say that I was among them...I was right there singing my heart out.

fatmammycat · 27-01-2011 9:09am

It was a remarkable interview, we are remarking on it. Frankly I was astounded Keys made such an absolute PR gaffe, for a so called professional with years of experience dealing with the press.

I don't understand why you brought up the Fiona Loony piece at all.

And as to Karren Brady, she may or may not be good at her job, but Keys whinging about her not taking his call is beyond pathetic. Why indeed should she take it?
ALex Ferguson refuses to talk to the BBC, period, over a piece they did on his son years ago, Wenger and Huges once refused to shake hands over a spat, people can be petty or they can be principled. Maybe Brady is being one or the other or both. But Keys only brought that up to belittle Brady while playing the poor me card.
Yes he said waht he did was 'wrong' when he spoke yesterday, but he seems to have no understnding why he was wrong. His reasons were ridiculous, studios are scary places so he was being sexist to to relax guests. Oh please.
It's all good and well him crying 'LEAVE SIAN MASSEY ALONE" but if he and that inbecile Gray had not created this perfect storm Massey would not have missed the Crewe game nor have been splashed all over the tabloids.

panda100 · 27-01-2011 9:58am

Woah, i cant believe how divisive this had been and that some people on here really believe the comments were ok.
Has the female linesman spoken out about it yet? I would love to hear her story.It must be unbelievably tough becoming an official in the male dominated world of sport, so fair play to her. She is my new heroine!

parker kent · 27-01-2011 12:09pm

dfx- wrote: »

None of that is remarkable or amazing.

The comment about Wimbledon has nothing to do with his comments. It's stating the obvious that Sky back in 1992 when he started had to shake the system up to get themselves noticed. Anyone who has watched football knows this to be the case for the past 15 years. This is no shock revelation. What he is saying is that they've made enemies and they've come back to haunt them now. A perfectly rational assumption.

Maybe he feels that is a contributing reason, however at all times he is at pains to stress that his comments were still wrong throughout. Have you omitted that part?

He tried to apologise to Karren Brady personally, she chose not to. If anyone is playing the sexism card, it is Brady. What he is referring to is her claim in her newspaper column that she found it tough at Birmingham City as Chief Executive purely because she was female. In truth she was a very poor Chief Executive, which the new owners are finding out how bad the mess she left was and now her new club are finding it too. He is allowed to disagree you know

There's nothing shocking in the interview at all. It is tabloid-esque to call it remarkable or amazing.

Meanwhile, there's a great article by Fiona Looney in the Daily Mail today about it and Mary Robinson turning up at a game in 1990

First off, they never mentioned the word amazing. I thought that would be clear when I copied the headline and the link to the headline. I'm not sure why you continue to claim they did.

His Wimbledon comment refers to a culture of banter. Yes he refers to Sky making enemies (again another hint at mild delusion as he seeing enemies everywhere, yet he is entirely to blame for the situation). Wimbledon were famous for their behaviour. New players could get their clothes burnt, cut etc. It was a real "lad" culture. He is probably saying that Sky created one of those in their early days to build camaraderie and it has continued ever since.

You say he admits his comments are wrong. And he does mention it on occasion. But he follows every apology with another rant aimed at blaming somebody else. You can see this below. He apologizes, then immediately goes on the attack attempting to say that it is taken out of context.

[What I said was] shocking, horrible, out of order, wrong, old-fashioned, behavioural problems that need to be attended to ... reconstruction, yeah. Again, it's a fairly selective moment from the studio that night, read into that what you will.

I understand banter and I have as much as anybody with my friends. Sometimes when you are bantering with friends, you say stupid things. But one sign of banter is laughter. I don't hear Keys and Gray laughing in their conversation. They seem deadly serious, which is what makes it worse. Keys sounds like he is genuinely saying women should not be in football. The "give me a break love comment" doesn't really help his case.

Also the words "great, "Fiona Looney" and "Daily Mail" are rarely used in the same sentence :pac: But I'm not really sure what Fiona Looney and LOI fans shouting either ironically and mockingly (depending on the individual) at Mary Robinson to get her tits out 20 years ago has to do with this!

PhiloCypher · 27-01-2011 2:11pm

This pairs smug sense of entitlement over being the face of Sky sports premiership coverage for the last 20 years is what tripped them up , the two of them thought they were the cock of the walk their ego's as bloated as their paychecks, when you combine that with the laddishness that pervades the sport and its punditry you have a recipe for the sort of crass sexism we saw here .

Simply put believing themselves untouchable both fed off and reflected the others laddish sexist attitudes. If these two had been pundits for the bbc whatever sexist attitudes they had wouldn't have found voice on or off air as they wouldn't have felt secure enough in their jobs that they would have thought they could get away with it .

Vinta81 · 27-01-2011 3:36pm

I don't think they should of been sacked but I'm not about to write a thesis on my thoughts, people on this forum have really strong views lately I just can't be bothered.

speedboatchase · 27-01-2011 3:59pm

panda100 wrote: »

Woah, i cant believe how divisive this had been and that some people on here really believe the comments were ok.
Has the female linesman spoken out about it yet? I would love to hear her story.It must be unbelievably tough becoming an official in the male dominated world of sport, so fair play to her. She is my new heroine!

This is the problem I have with this whole affair. Fair play to Sian Massey for getting that offside decision correct and fair play to her for being a 26-year-old officiating a Premier League game, however, let's not forget that that's her job! To say that she's your 'heroine' purely because she's female is imo, inadvertedly patronising.

I'm sure she wants nothing to do with the whole uproar (she hasn't made any public statements) and a lot of what people have been saying (get a female to replace Gray, why can't women play in Premier League) are backwards and tokenist in nature. I want to see more female officiating but only on merit and ideally we get to a point where I don't even notice it at all, it becomes second nature

curlzy · 27-01-2011 4:17pm

You know this whole incident kind of depressed me:mad::(. Yeah it's great that they'll pay for their ignorance and offensiveness but it really shows you how far we still have to go before some men realise that there's better ways to prove their masculinity than putting women down. Still though, we have come a long way, we just have a bit more to go.

WesternNight · 27-01-2011 5:17pm

curlzy wrote: »

You know this whole incident kind of depressed me:mad::(. Yeah it's great that they'll pay for their ignorance and offensiveness but it really shows you how far we still have to go before some men realise that there's better ways to prove their masculinity than putting women down. Still though, we have come a long way, we just have a bit more to go.

I feel similarly. The fact that Gray was sacked and the whole Sky vs Gray saga took away from the whole point of why people were angry about it. Them apologising makes not one iota of difference as far as I'm concerned, anyone can say sorry without meaning it, or apologise for being caught rather than genuinely reconsidering their original opinions.

donfers · 27-01-2011 5:47pm

sounds like the two previous posters wouldn't be satisfied unless the two guys were castrated and their balls served up on a platter

all in all though they're dinosaurs and the new head of sports found a way to get rid, so that's good

furthermore it doesn't really matter a damn if keys or gray are genuinely sorry about their actions, it doesn't matter if they will review their behaviour and treat women with more respect, the fact is that they are gone and their names will be tainted forever

I'm sorry if this shocks the two previous posters but, and I won't use spoiler tags here so prepare yourself, there are sexist men in the world!!!!

and there are sexist women in the world too for that matter - please approach the stamping out of both with the same zeal when you witness them or prepare for accusations of self-interest, bias and hypocrasy

The most important thing about this whole issue is not that Keys and Gray reflect on their behaviour, it's that the issue of sexism in the workplace has been highlighted (and with the deluge of media coverage on the issue it's fair to say that it has focused more awareness on the issue)

oh and slightly off topic, Liverpool played Fulham last night and after 2 minutes Torres scored a perfectly legitimate goal....however the male assistant referee made a huge error and flagged him for offside

The Liverpool fans responded by singing "There's only one Sian Massey" (who correctly allowed Torres goal against Wolves despite the protests that he was offside)

Feeona · 27-01-2011 6:07pm

Sounds like there are a few posters here who are annoyed that women can finally prove they aren't just imagining the misogyny that can characterise their days (as proved by Keys and Gray and their attitude), and so instead choose to nit-pick at small details in peoples' posts.

So much for a place where women can talk about their experiences without being looked down upon for expressing them.

parker kent · 27-01-2011 6:09pm

You'll know when progress is made when it is normal for women to referee in the Premiership and when a crowd gives them stick for their decisions, not their gender!

donfers · 27-01-2011 6:20pm

Feeona wrote: »

Sounds like there are a few posters here who are annoyed that women can finally prove they aren't just imagining the misogyny that can characterise their days (as proved by Keys and Gray and their attitude), and so instead choose to nit-pick at small details in peoples' posts.

So much for a place where women can talk about their experiences without being looked down upon for expressing them.

ok then can you refer specifically to what posters here are annoyed that "women can finally provethey aren't just imagining the misogyny that characterise their days" as you say?

I pointed out the two posters prior to mine, as to my mind, being hardline and perhaps prioritising the wrong aspects of this case, are you prepared to point out the following:

a) who is annoyed that women can point out misogyny?

b) why are you characterising this case in the following one-eyed and hyperbolic way "women can finally prove they aren't just imagining the misogyny that can characterise their days"? Isn't this a thread about sexism in the workplace? Do you know that misogyny and sexism are different things? It seems you want to personalise this, that's your perogative but don't throw out accusations at unnamed others who don't do this.

oh and the last paragraph in your post is quite obviously a blatant attempt to get me infracted or banned built of course on the strawman argument that I am looking down on people, shame on you for playing that card

WesternNight · 27-01-2011 6:32pm

donfers wrote: »

sounds like the two previous posters wouldn't be satisfied unless the two guys were castrated and their balls served up on a platter

You'd do well to get your hearing checked if that's what it sounds like to you.

I wouldn't have called for either of them to be sacked, or punished at all. I'd much rather they were educated on the matter, perhaps shown Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis as well as other studies, so that they might realise that there is no basis whatsoever to their opinions (opinions that don't disappear because they're punished or because they apologise, btw).

For me, there's little satisfaction in anyone being punished for something while still remaining steadfast in their unfounded prejudices. Much better they remain in employment and gain a new perspective instead. But that's wishful thinking in this particular case.

donfers · 27-01-2011 6:53pm

WesternNight wrote: »

You'd do well to get your hearing checked if that's what it sounds like to you.

I wouldn't have called for either of them to be sacked, or punished at all. I'd much rather they were educated on the matter, perhaps shown Hyde's gender similarities hypothesis as well as other studies, so that they might realise that there is no basis whatsoever to their opinions (opinions that don't disappear because they're punished or because they apologise, btw).

For me, there's little satisfaction in anyone being punished for something while still remaining steadfast in their unfounded prejudices. Much better they remain in employment and gain a new perspective instead. But that's wishful thinking in this particular case.

ok fair enough and I apologise for my assumption

I agree with a lot of what you say, however I would say it is more important that this issue has got a whole lot of media exposure and all the sexist idiots out there will think twice now about their comments/behaviour rather than merely disciplining and educating those two men......i guess the sacking will give the sexists even greater cause to re-examine their behaviour

my only concern is that people might abuse the fact that political sensitivities have pushed the line too far at the moment and cry wolf when there are no predators about which in turn will create a backlash which will put things back to square one

clearly gray and keys behaviour is sexist and has rightfully been punished, let's hope it's these types of cases that continue to be punished instead of stuff like a guy at work yesterday who commented about an american woman with "i'd say she's a stunner" at lunch, this woman is in virtual meetings with us and has a husky voice....well at lunch one person voiced offense at this comment, going on about objectification/sexism etc., it was a fairly harmless comment in my view and I hope this case doesn't lead to bandwagon-jumpers highlighting cases that don't merit any kind of censorship or accusations

it's important to know when to speak out and what constitutes sexism or you'll set the cause back

WesternNight · 27-01-2011 7:02pm

donfers wrote: »

it's important to know when to speak out and what constitutes sexism or you'll set the cause back

Definitely.

And that's why I'd have just rolled my eyes and moved along if the tone of this particular incident was a joking one. I was actually quite surprised at the incredulous, appalled tone that both of them (but Keys especially) used.

I suspect you might be overly optimistic about the effect it'll have on others, but I hope you're right.

Nozebleed · 27-01-2011 7:04pm

The only reason charlotte Jackson is working for sky sports is because she is stunning looking.

Ickle Magoo · 27-01-2011 7:40pm

Nozebleed wrote:

The only reason charlotte Jackson is working for sky sports is because she is stunning looking.

So she's stunning and that automatically gives her colleagues carte blanche to make lewd comments at her? I'm astonished I should have to point this out because I can only remember having to do so in the "wearing a short skirt doesn't entitle a guy to sexually molest" arguments - but, here goes - being attractive, even being splashed all over lad mags in nothing or next to nothing doesn't entitle the males she works with to make make sexually suggestive comments to or about her....sheesh. :eek:

parker kent · 27-01-2011 7:48pm

+1 to what Ickle Magoo says and it should be noted that Charlotte Jackson has a long history of writing about soccer as well as having a genuine lifelong interest in the sport. She is also a sportswoman in her own right and has a sporting family (her mother has represented England). Yes Sky have hired attractive girls who have little interest in sport or who are weak at presenting. But she is not one. She is 32 as well, so she has worked her way up the TV ladder.

Yes...gasp...a good looking woman can have interests and talent as well!

Ickle Magoo · 27-01-2011 7:48pm

donfers wrote: »

sounds like the two previous posters wouldn't be satisfied unless the two guys were castrated and their balls served up on a platter

This is the Ladies Lounge. Our specific remit, if you care to read the charter, is a forum primarily for women to discuss issues from a female perspective - if that isn't to your liking and you have to resort to making sarcastic jokes about setting causes back, then perhaps the plethora of other forums would suit you better?

Cheers.

donfers · 27-01-2011 9:50pm

parker kent wrote: »

+1 to what Ickle Magoo says and it should be noted that Charlotte Jackson has a long history of writing about soccer as well as having a genuine lifelong interest in the sport. She is also a sportswoman in her own right and has a sporting family (her mother has represented England). Yes Sky have hired attractive girls who have little interest in sport or who are weak at presenting. But she is not one. She is 32 as well, so she has worked her way up the TV ladder.

Yes...gasp...a good looking woman can have interests and talent as well!

she's also made a lot of money from doing raunchy photoshoots for lads magazines so forgive me if i don't have as much sympathy for her if she does make claims of guys "objectifying" her compared to the likes of gabby logan who actually played sport to a very high level as a kid and never took her kit off to get some media exposure (despite also being decent looking)

donfers · 27-01-2011 9:51pm

Ickle Magoo wrote: »

This is the Ladies Lounge. Our specific remit, if you care to read the charter, is a forum primarily for women to discuss issues from a female perspective - if that isn't to your liking and you have to resort to making sarcastic jokes about setting causes back, then perhaps the plethora of other forums would suit you better?

Cheers.

what sarcastic jokes about setting causes back?

Ickle Magoo · 27-01-2011 9:55pm

I'm not discussing moderator action on thread - take the warning on board and stop dragging the thread off-topic.

WesternNight · 27-01-2011 10:04pm

donfers wrote: »

she's also made a lot of money from doing raunchy photoshoots for lads magazines so forgive me if i don't have as much sympathy for her if she does make claims of guys "objectifying" her

It would be reasonable for men to "objectify" her when she's doing a job where that is the intention. Otherwise, in other professional positions she, like everyone else, should be treated with the appropriate professional respect.

MyKeyG · 27-01-2011 10:14pm

WesternNight wrote: »

It would be reasonable for men to "objectify" her when she's doing a job where that is the intention. Otherwise, in other professional positions she, like everyone else, should be treated with the appropriate professional respect.

Well that's if you believe a person should be able to have their cake and eat it too. Are you trying to tell me females for the most part look on male football pundits as professional football analysts and not 'the guy in the Clavin Klein underwear add with the sexy six pack'?

Ickle Magoo · 27-01-2011 10:19pm

Finding her attractive is one thing, I don't think anyone is suggesting no-one should find her sexy. I'm sure we've all worked with people we find attractive but I'm equally sure most manage to contain themselves and refrain from making knob gags at every opportunity. Is anyone seriously suggesting being in a lads mag = Gray/Keys-esque behaviour is not only doing nothing wrong, it's actually justified? Scary.

MyKeyG · 27-01-2011 10:22pm

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.

'If everyones comments in work were picked up by a microphone none of us would have a job left'.

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.

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.

donfers · 27-01-2011 10:25pm

WesternNight wrote: »

It would be reasonable for men to "objectify" her when she's doing a job where that is the intention. Otherwise, in other professional positions she, like everyone else, should be treated with the appropriate professional respect.

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

WesternNight · 27-01-2011 10:25pm

MyKeyG wrote: »

Are you trying to tell me females for the most part look on male football pundits as professional football analysts and not 'the guy in the Clavin Klein underwear add with the sexy six pack'?

Wait, those are one in the same? I've clearly been watching the wrong football analysis!

And I have no idea what women think about football pundits. But even if your suggestion is correct, it's still possible to find someone attractive and not demean them at the same time.

MyKeyG · 27-01-2011 10:34pm

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 · 27-01-2011 10:35pm

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 · 27-01-2011 10:35pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:28pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:32pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:41pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:45pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:50pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:53pm

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 · 27-01-2011 11:56pm

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.

Sky Sports presenters making sexist comments

Comments