That said Ancient History did give me two bits of very useful information to take away with me. The first being about assessing the credibility of sources. One of the key things about history - ancient even more critical than modern, due to the tyrannical distance of time - is that who's telling the history is as important as what the history actually is, because every source, whether primary or secondary, brings their own view to bear on their version of events. Factor in translators, editors and so on, and it becomes impossible to credibly take anyone's word as gospel (which leads into another discussion on another ancient text or two which gets interpreted literally far too fucking often to be sensible, but we'll set that aside for today.) Take the historians of Ancient Rome - Suetonius was utterly tabloid, like a 70AD version of Famous or NW. Herodotus was dry and conservative. Cary, a Pom who collated a lot of the Histories of Rome (that was his big seller as I recall), did the Thomas the Tank Engine trick of spinning a whole weave about English class structure and imposing that into the narrative. Upshot being, what is being said needs to be taken on board along side an assessment of who is saying it and what their underlying agenda is.
It hardly even needs to be said, but this is clearly as much an issue today reading mainstream media as it is any budding students of history trudging their way through dusty textbooks. Every media outlet, every source of information we get about the world, has a slant, a prism through which the account of events is presented. From MSM television news bulletins to polished press releases to the Twunterances of celebs, there is no real truth, only versions thereof. This is neither good nor bad, it is merely so. It's left up to the individual to weight those versions of the truth according to their value of the truth-teller. Because I was a scientist, understanding and respecting how science is done and what underpins it, I'll always respect science over belief, which in the end is unverified opinion. This is a rational position. On a more micro scale I don't tend to believe a fucking word News Limited have to say, because they're venal pricks who tried to kill the South Sydney Rabbitohs. This is not a rational position. So there's another layer of interpretation over the top of the biases of the story-teller; those of the story-reader.
Now most of the news I get from the (Not Really That) Old Country comes in the form of emailed newsletters with headlines from Fairfax newspapers - Fairfax being the least dodgy of the various Australian MSM organisations, in my assessment and most others' who aren't John Hartigan. This magnifies that double-sided distortion effect profoundly. In the modern MSM, headlines are designed to grab attention above and beyond their original role as transmitters of information. In fact, headlines are often more of a 'tell' about the angle the media outlet is taking - and wants you to take away as your interpretation of the piece - than the rest of the story.
Which is a very long winded way of explaining why I'd be happy to be sexually harassed for $37 million dollars.
My introduction to this bizarre and tawdry David Jones story was a SMH.com.au headline stating 'DJs boss in $37M sexual harassment case'. To which my immediate reaction - bereft of context - was pretty much as above. Broken down into the microsecond-duration logic which led to that conclusion:
- $37M is a lot of money. More than you get for losing limbs or life in industrial accidents caused by corporate negligence. More than CSR paid any of the workers from Wittenoom.
- Sexual harassment is bad.
- Sexual harassment is not $37M bad.
- Sexwale harassment is when you get your arse slapped by South African Minister for Housing Tokyo Sexwale. I'm sorry, that's not funny.
- $37M looks less like fair restitution and more like pointscoring, mediamongering and cashraking.
- This looks like one of those ridiculous American lawsuits where someone sues McDonalds for a hundred mill over coffee that's too hot.
- Any legal system whereby this is considered a credible opening gambit is utterly fucked.
- I've worked in systemically unpleasant workplaces, with closed-off promotion prospects, under bullying bosses who were later sacked for behaviour issues. It's not sexual harassment but it's as close as most males will ever get to it. Wouldn't do it again by choice. Then again $37M would look after the grandkids of my two little boys, and every generation of my family between.
Now that is, as I've said, entirely bereft of context. It's not inclusive of ANY of the actual story content, it is merely a reaction to the headline. It doesn't take into consideration that there appears (APPEARS, contempt-of-court types) to have been a concerted effort by the board, conscious or otherwise, to hush this up. And the DJs boss APPEARS to be a serial pantsman, narcissist and fucktard. And Alannah Hill APPEARS to be a blithering old soak that you would seek to avoid sans-undergarment interaction with at all costs. And yes the double-barrelled complainant is not getting the $37M and yes it's all (mostly? partly?) going to charity and no she's not invading Poland for spina bifida so it really IS all right. This isn't a discussion about the rights and wrongs of the case. This is about how subtle tweaks on how information is presented can coax certain responses out of media consumers. And how the soundbite age (which is perhaps morphing in to the e-headline age, as more and more people switch off the TV and get their news from online sources) makes us ever more susceptible to gut reactions over measured analysis of the facts of the day - or as close to facts as the MSM will ever provide - on everything from the BP oil spill to the LeBron James trade.
Which brings me back to the second thing I learned from Ancient History. I learned what sexual harassment was. There was a girl in my class, called... it doesn't matter what she was called. She was a surfie chick. Alpha femme. Very, very pretty. Might have been a part-time model for ads in surf mags. I never had much to do with her as our cliques never intersected (and there's nothing more debilitating than intersecting cliques) but what I remember was she used to get a lot of attention from the teacher. Spent more time up the back of the room with her than out the front. Constantly offering - or just providing, unsolicited - shoulder massages, because 'you're so tense!' (jeez I fucking wonder why, pal?) And basically harassing the Jesus suffering fuck out of this girl. Never gave it much thought at the time, other than the idle thought 'I don't think she's into that. That's pretty fucking wrong. Someone should do something about that.' And yes, the other idle thought 'I wish someone would give me a shoulder massage. Not him but.' Now this guy, like your DJs boss-type-dude, was good at his job, performed to and exceeded the parameters set by his employer - in one case being a good teacher, in the other, keeping the shareprice up to keep the shareholders happy. I don't know how or even if it affected her long-term; like I say, we weren't close. But there's a certain bitter irony that in that case, the people who knew what was happening (i.e. us) weren't really in a position to do anything about it, and those who might have been, didn't know, or didn't act.
Well that's all a bit fucking serious. Look, Sebastian Vettel wants to be a proctologist. Again.
The Doctor is OUT.
13 comments:
You write with such clarity Doctor. I'm always in awe. You have given coherence to a topic that has rambled about my head for years. This is why I never get involved in online scuffles about this stuff. The news stories may change but it's always the same song. The information loses it's importance as the reader's need to define themselves through opinion becomes the focus.
As you usual you've expressed more clearly and susinctly what i would have ished to say about a topic.
One point about your comment "I did Ancient History at high school". When you were at high school wasn't it ALL ancient history?
Obviously can't let the bible inference go. I agree, funnily enough. How could it not be doctored beyond recognition by those with varying and despicable agenda throughout history. Of course it has.
Spot on, on the topic.
Nat - it took a solid couple of hrs arguing on Twunter to get to here. Who said Twunter killed blogs? Actually the startpoint of this was the audible *GASP* yesterday where I said I'd gladly take a slap on the arse for $37M. I had a think about this to try and dissect out the logic behind this and the elements of it that might not be obvious to some people - eg I actually have worked in workplaces afflicted with chronically bullying bosses (harassment, although not specifically sexual) and bluntly, any father would do whatever it takes to look after his family, if that means working in a shit workplace which pays well, bring it.
Barnes - I fear that while these may appear the rantings of an elderly white conservative (MORTIFIED to see that Miranda Less-Than-Devine is taking a not dissimilar angle), the leftist wog who actually scribed them only escaped from said 2U Ancient History classroom 15 years ago.
Moko - I actually figured you'd agree to a certain extent, literal interpretations of ancient texts that have been translated, edited and traduced heavily are not a sensible way to conduct modern life.
I tend to think it's worked both ways. $37m is an ambit claim if there ever was one - but I think it's done with specific purpose. That purpose is to get every media organisation in the country to drag this story up again, put this idiot's photo on the front page of every paper, lead every news bulletin - and say to the world - he's a wanker.
For doing that, mission accomplished. I don't think his job prospects in this country are great forthwith.
What I think it's done WRONG, is that for some reason it's brought people out to say it's a ludicrous amount of money for what happened. Actually - I think it's a perfect amount of money for it to be - because it might just dissuade these sort of people into not being such sexist fucks, and not do it in the first place. We're not exactly talking like this is any more than a couple of years salary for this guy. As for the fact that other things don't get as much compensation as this, maybe they should too - but I think the fact that people are comparing these to compensation cases are talking apples and oranges.
What disturbs me more, is the fact that the female media writers seem to be leading the charge to say that what she's doing by asking for such money is degrading them. Are you kidding? What's more empowering than taking $37m from a guy who can clearly afford it? Male commentators obviously steer clear of the whole thing, because they're obviously damned if they do, and even more damned if they don't.
I don't see the problem with the claim. It's purely ambit anyway, but the same people who bitch about ambit claims are the same ones that offer $50k less than the asking price on a house or haggle at Harvey Norman. He's done the crime, and he can afford the punishment. Let him have it with both barrels.
What shits me about this story is that Hartigan leaving/being sacked was a MASSIVE business story. It was unpreceedented and was massive news both in the business world and the normal media.
A little bit of clever PR advice on woman's side and she could have made a very strong point while maintaining the moral high ground. Yes, take them to court but make the amount reasonable. If they want to settle out of court, only accept if there is NO confidentiality agreement.
$37 mil is a joke and has tarnished what could have been a valuable lesson.
Plutarch is a great writer on Ancient History (again, not 100% accurate). Lerm put me onto him and I really enjoy reading his stuff.
Naut
I agree with Adam H here. This is a high-profile case, why not go for a high-profile amount of money?
She could've probably got $10mil or so had she done it hush-hush, with a non-disclosure statement etc. The company would probably consider that money well spent, considering the possible losses they'll face with this in the public eye. I know I certainly won't be popping into DJs anytime soon. Mind you, on my salary I can barely avoid
I understand why you say you'd take a slap on the arse for $37mil. It is an awful amount of money, and for a slap alone, you could overcome...
But the reason why I "gasped" is that you just can't say that. By putting a price on sexual harassment, you allow it to be acceptable at a certain point.
(And by "you", I don't mean "you" Doc, I mean "society" etc etc).
Sexual harassment shouldn't be OK - whether it's a $37mil payout or a $37k one. There shouldn't be a "price" you'd be willing
Imagine if you had a daughter. Could you imagine how you'd feel if she was sexually harassed? You're a red-blooded bloke with a fair amount of Viking-level brutishness about you. Would you be able to suppress that if she said "It's OK Dad, I'm getting a few mill out of this?" Wouldn't you still want to throttle the guy, or do some creative origami with his testicles?
Sorry, I may have got off track with the testicles, but the point is - sexual harassment is difficult, it's murky... but it has to be punished. And a big hit to the hip pocket is sometimes the best form of punishment.
Sorry in my haste I forgot to complete a couple of paragraphs there.
I meant to say on my salary I can barely afford Kmart.
And then I meant to say "there shouldn't be a price you're willing to accept to get degraded."
But I dunno. I degrade myself often and in public for absolutely nothing. Maybe I should be trying to get some coin for it.
AJ - as mentioned much of the orig debate for this happened on Twitter (which I believe sucks balls, according to recent media pronouncements from yourself) and much of the points you've made we thrashed to death there last night - but briefly, I have a problem with the $37M because if that's an acceptable opening gambit we have a thoroughly Seppoised legal system and that's wrong. Furthermore it's a civil case, not a criminal one; in a criminal case you would be seeking punishment, in a civil, restitution. $37M (and I know that figure's bogus, but it's the marketing tool they're using to get attention) is not fair restitution cf the families of army guys who see their kids scraped up and shipped home in bags. Or, to make the comparison fairer (ie personal civil vs personal civil), the families of the people OJ topped got less than that in US dollars.
Why it's degrading to women, I think, is because the claim is so outrageous, speculative and ludicrous it makes sexual harassment a joke - or rather I should say, in the light of the above, it allows the media to portray the case, and by connection the crime of sexual harassment (and it IS a crime, I don't see why this isn't a criminal case - if it's not about publicity and cash of course) as a comedy sideshow.
The other issue is that it wouldn't be his $37M - as the case has been levied against DJs for lack of corporate governance etc over the issue (possibly the larger issue going forward), it'll be them - or rather DJs shareholders - who'll wear that. I'm kinda hoping the remaining 25% of the old man's investment portfolio left after the GFC ain't in DJs shares.
Cheers for the thoughts. You should get your arse on Twitter. Seriously.
Naut - you already know I agree with you (sorry have led you down the garden path there I think, Hartigan's the CEO of News Ltd, McInnes was DJs). Plutarch was who I was trying to remember the name of this morning when I was writing this. I really enjoyed that part of ancient history, the primary sources.
Nat - what no comment on my historical chops? From a grade A+ historical nerd like yourself?
Interesting you agree with Adam, interesting because you're both media people and have taken as read that it's fair and reasonable to use the media as a bargaining chip in matters of law, which is what the $37M song-and-dance effectively is. I'm not so sure I like that of a society. There's no respect for the court in either making such a disproportionate claim or making sure it's a media circus, and it draws into question the aims of the litigant - whether it's truly about striking one back for women in the workplace (eg soundbites about lawyers working pro bono and money going to charity) or whether it's just about getting paid. Which is fine, I don't mind, the guy appears to be a massive douche and needs his ring reprofiled with someone's boot. Just don't fib about it and say there's a great moral purpose. It's a high profile case BECAUSE she's asked for a high profile amount of money, as much as the other way around. And because Alannah Hill is a bit of a mess on camera.
To be honest, your response to what was actually meant as a throwaway line wrote this blog - it pushed me back into analysing what drew me to that conclusion. But taking up that point:
"But the reason why I "gasped" is that you just can't say that. By putting a price on sexual harassment, you allow it to be acceptable at a certain point...
there shouldn't be a price you're willing to accept to get degraded."
Is that not exactly what KFK has done here? And in the process put such a comical price on it that it ends up being laughed at? She ends up being portrayed as a blackmailer where there should be no question that she should hold the moral high ground. The fact that people (OK, Miranda fucking Devine, but people sorta) are proclaiming she's a opportunistic golddigger etc has to tell you this has been a PR exercise in shooting yourself in the foot bar none. You just don't need to give people like McInnes an excuse to play their way back into the game - not when they own the media through advert dollars and old-boys networks.
Ironically, if she'd settled out of court for the $10M she would have got it. I would be very surprised if she got a tenth of what she's asking for, once process is dealt with. I'm not going to have any daughters, unless one of the lads decides he really wanted to be a girl, but if I had, they'd be sent out into the world with the direction to back down to no one and never to need me to fight their battles for them - they can do their own testicle squeezing. KFK doesn't sound like a daughter I'd send into the world.
As always Doc a good piece, as I said on twitter the shareholders shouldn't be left to carry the can. Should he be held fully accountable for his misdeeds, absolutely. Should that involve financial hardship on his part absolutely. Should he have been kneed in the balls the first time it happened, absolutely.
Strangely, after last night's twitter kerfuffle I thought we'd be further apart than we are on this....
A couple of additional thoughts; you and Naut both mentioned the Civil vs Criminal aspects of this case, and disrespecting the courts; is it possible that we are so disillusioned with the way our courts operate, that we are prepared to say "well fk it, yeah, the courts don't provide the justice we believe we deserve, so let's find another way to get it".? The system is BROKEN as it stands, and a fix needs to be found. I SURE AS HELL don't respect any court or judge who lets sex offenders, serial drink drive murderers or whoever, walk away with a less than suitable punishment. And sadly, it's happening WAY too often.
This may not be the optimal fix for our broken system, but at least it has got some people thinking!
Second point, as I mentioned last night, and someone else has already commented, a percentage of income, particularly for Mr Douchebag seems a fair and reasonable way to apportion punishment, compensation, whatever you want to call it. I take the point about shareholders being unfairly stung, but there's a solution to that as well. DJ's needs to replace the board members who allegedly swept this under the carpet, (If found guilty), then sue THEM for their corporate losses.
Finally, It appears to me that if all the young lady wanted was her pound of flesh, she'd have gone after her 10M with confidentiality clause and no admission of liability. Maybe I'm naive, but I think she believes she's doing the right thing, and that's all any of us can do.
.... and yeah, the media has a lot to answer for!
You said what I was going to say Doc. It's interesting that media people have no problem using the courts as part of some ridiculous media game.
As you said, the amount has turned the whole thing into a joke.
If the Commonwealth charged DJs and they got a huge fine - no worries. But for her to claim it (irrespective of what she is going to do with it), is a complete joke.
I couldn't give a toss about the shareholder, companies have a community responsibilty. But in what world could justify claiming that kind of amount???
Naut
Post a Comment