Keys and Gray and sexism and all that

In case you missed it, two of the country's foremost football broadcasters had this conversation before the match between Wolves and Liverpool while they thought their microphones were turned off, thus sparking moral outrage among pretty much everybody (although it did seem to amuse the presenter in this clip, Sky News' political editor Adam Boulton). They were promptly suspended by Sky, pending discplinary procedures.
Almost everyone - including well-known champions of women's rights Rio Ferdinand - agreed that the opinions expressed by Gray and Keys were objectionable, offensive, and antiquated. What people disagreed on was whether we should be paying any attention to what was intended to be a private conversation. Rod Liddle makes the point in the Sunday Times' sport section that at some point in their lives, everyone will have said something in private that "would not necessarily gain nods pf approval at a Guardian editorial meeting", and that if the country followed the lead of Sky Sports, "none of us would be in a job. None of us." But the distinction here is that Gray and Keys aren't in the same sort of job as most people, and though the conversation was meant to be private, it did become public. Higher standards should apply to people in the media who, especially in roles such as that held by Gray and Keys, can be said to be role models. The fact that they bear this extra burden is more than compensated for by their reportedly massive salaries (£1.3m or £1.7m for Gray depending on what source you believe, and a reported £500,00k for Keys). In fact, rather than complain about how this was leaked, Gray and Keys should reflect that they've got away with being in high-profile, ridiculously well-paid jobs for close to 20 years despite being misogynistic dinosaurs.
Then, another clip materialised, dating back to December, showing Andy Gray making a lewd comment to a co-presenter Charlotte Jackson, suggesting she tuck his microphone pack into his trousers for him.
This was the clincher for Sky, who promptly sacked Gray with immediate effect.
And given what I've written about the matter so far, you're probably expecting me to say "good riddance". But I'm not. For one thing, we simply can't tell from that 10-second YouTube clip as to whether it was harassment or simply harmless banter. The person best placed to answer that question is Charlotte Jackson herself. She didn't lodge a complaint at the time, so she either saw it as harmless banter, or felt too intimidated by the lads' culture supposedly prevalent in Sky's football department to pursue a complaint against one of the alpha males of the pack. Unfortunately, there doesn't appear to be any statement from Miss Jackson in the public domain, which has the left the field open for all and sundry to either be outraged on her behalf, or jump to the defence of the charmingly old-fashioned Mr. Gray. If Jackson hasn't expressed a negative opinion to Sky bosses (and there's no indication as to what her opinion was, or even if she was consulted), then Gray can consider himself unlucky to be sacked. As for the lineswoman discussion, then yes, it is worthy of disciplinary action, and Sky should take steps to educate Mr. Gray of the error of his ways - they could begin by pointing out that the lineswoman about whom he was so disparaging went on to give a faultless display in the match, including correctly judging a crucial tight call (which took the studio pundits a number of views of TV replays before they could come to a decision over) in favour of Kenny Dalglish's Liverpool. No chance of Kenny going "potty" over that, then. As for Gray's status as a role model, that would be done no harm by a public apology and repentance. If a dinosaur like Gray was to see the error of his ways, that would do more for the fight against sexism than a knee-jerk sacking that could support the opinion of those men who feel - rightly or wrongly - that they have to play by a different set of rules to women if they are to avoid accusations of sexism and harassment.
I'd be similarly sympathetic towards Richard Keys' plight if it wasn't for this charming chat. Again, it was not meant for broadcast, and unlike Andy Gray's interaction with Charlotte Jackson, there's no female 'victim' present. And unlike the first clip, he's not questioning a woman's ability based simply upon her gender. But there's something about it, the way he refers to a woman simply as 'it', and talking about "smash[ing] it", and "hanging out the back of it", that crosses a line, that shows Keys to be an arrogant, obnoxious fool who doesn't deserve to be the face of a national broadcaster, that makes him an embarassment to his employer. For that reason, I have little sympathy with him.

As for the wider implications to this story, I'm not sure there are any. No-one wants to see an end to banter just because it might be overheard by someone who take offence on behalf of someone else, but people have to 'know their audience' and make sure they know who they're talking to before saying things that might offend. If they do cause offence, then employers should make sure they are shown the error of their ways and act to protect vulnerable employees from the sort of climate that allegedly prevailed at Sky Sports. It's all down to common sense, really.

I know this post has gone on for a bit (just to come to the conclusion that "it's all down to common sense"), but did you really expect me to cover a topic as delicate as sexism in the media and the workplace in a couple of sentences? Do me a favour, love.

Aggressive political rhetoric: Guns don't kill people...

...politicians do. Or at least that's what they're arguing about over in the U.S. at the moment. After the attempted assassination of American congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords, leaving Giffords herself in a critical condition and six others dead, a debate has started over whether increasingly vitriolic political rhetoric, coupled with increased use of military imagery in political campaigning, has either directly provoked the shooting or helped foster an atmosphere where such violent acts are more likely to occur (note that the cross hairs on the Palin website only appear on a map to show targeted constituencies, and NOT on pictures of the members of Congress themselves).
Quite rightly, those accused of such agressive campaigning are pointing out that they cannot be held responsible for the actions of a lone, mentally unstable perpetrator. But to believe that this renders them blameless is to miss the point. As American commentator Keith Olbermann eloquently argues, the tone as well as the content of political debate influences those that witness it, and is one of the factors in creating an environment where the use of violent, often gun-related, imagery has not been questioned or criticised - until now. Politicians across the world are keen to emphasise their own importance when it suits them, but when an incident such as the shootings in Tucson occurs, they are very quick to deny that they have any influence over anything, and that if they are using aggressive rhetoric, they are merely reflecting society's morals rather than influencing them. This abrogation of responsibility is unworthy of anyone who desires to lead. Because, believe it or not, politicians do influence society, and not just through the laws they pass when in government. If a politician uses military, or violent, or gun-related imagery in their language, then it helps legitimise such imagery, thus taking us towards a society where violence is seen more and more as a potential and justified response to any given situation. After all, if a politician is using violent rhetoric, is must be all right, mustn't it?

And we in England can't consider ourselves immune from this problem, though here it appears to be more likely to be left-wing organisations (if not the mainstream political parties) that use the imagery of conflict in their propaganda. It was a Facebook post by (the mostly admirable) Billy Bragg that led me to the article by Keith Olbermann cited above, but it was the same Billy Bragg who posited that the 21 Liberal Democrat MPs who voted against the government motion to remove the cap on tuition fees might not have done so  "had it not all kicked off at Millbank" - his condemnation was reserved for the throwing of a fire exinguisher off the roof, but not for the rest of the violent disorder that took place.

So politicians and political activists should take heed - as I was taught when I was young, if you have to resort to violence, then you've lost the argument.