Porn Allegations Were Clumsy At Best

The Guardian recently decided to run a piece that implicated everyone in the MCG press box during the Boxing Day Test of surfing porn.

It was at best an awkward attempt to make a point that the sports media is inherently sexist.

Unfortunately, after listening to female reporters over the last few days, the Guardian is wrong.

The responsible thing to do would have been calling out the behaviour and then following up with Cricket Australia.

The author did none of those things. He waited a full day for someone else in authority to do it.

He then chose to use the old tired and lazy “I know something you don’t” reporting style to implicate all his colleagues in a piece.

In the article, the author says that the person in front of him was surfing porn.

A photo exists of the press box that day with only one person (a well known Australian sports writer) sitting in front of the author.

I initially posted that on twitter but removed it.

It is unfair to the individual at the front.

My mistake.

I am not suggesting that he is the guilty individual. I don’t know the name.

But doubt lingers because the Guardian chose not to name this guy, yet gave enough details for others to follow the cookie trail.

When I suggested to the author that he must have known someone would try work out who the guilty person was, he told me to keep my nose out of something that doesn’t concern me.

Huh?

When did the author have a monopoly on calling out inappropriate workplace behaviour (which, in this case, he chose not to do)?

The Guardian has now placed itself in a situation that until they name the offender, every male cricket journalist who may have been in the box that day has a stinking cloud over their heads through no fault of their own.

The author has now been backtracking on twitter, claiming the guilty party isn’t anyone of note.

How is that relevant? Is he just trying to protect his mates whom he implicated?

He also says he is disappointed at the reaction.

Sure. But surprised?

Clumsiness.

Until someone who witnessed the incident writes to Cricket Australia with a formal complaint, anyone with knowledge of the identity of that individual is living a double standard.

In this great piece by Spiro Zavos, he questions himself on why he didn’t do the same thing with Peter Roebuck’s molestation issues.

So what happens now is probably easy to predict.

The name will come out at some stage. This bloke will likely lose his job.

However, the worst bit will be the public shaming.

Because of the Guardian piece, that is sure to happen.

But what does that achieve?

Worst case, it could lead to wrecked families and self harm.

Now this is unfortunately an outcome I have seen.

People are sacked all over the world for inappropriate workplace behaviour. Every day. For serious stuff.

But how many employers follow through with public shaming?

Simple intuition tells you why it doesn’t happen.

Jon Ronson’s book “So You’ve Been Publicly Shamed” explains further should it interest you.

The Guardian have made a clumsy and incorrect point that most workplaces are neanderthal led men pits.

It was poor and insulting.

Condemn Gayle in your pieces and rightly so.

He did something inappropriate in front of over a million television viewers. He also has form.

But stand up for the same issue in your own workplace too.

And while you are at it, don’t unfairly drop your industry colleagues in it.

Your move Guardian.

Follow @denniscricket_