Greed and Justice Make Bad Bedfellows

While the widely discussed first saint from the Great Southern Land doesn’t quite align to MediaDawg’s content, now is a good moment to return to Australia’s biggest sexual harassment scandal and court case and gaze upon through a few sets of eyes.

Winner?

It seems that not only sexual harassment doesn’t pay, neither does an over-the-top harassment lawsuit. While Mark McInnes lost his job and reputation, Kristy Fraser-Kirk‘s $37m greed did not go down very well, the parties settling for an apparent $850k.

The Australian/news.com.au story marks the efforts of both parties as a “failure”, the $37m claim “absurdly high” and “wrecking” to Fraser-Kirk’s career. It seems fair given that even people that have been through serious, life-limiting accidents get severely less payout.

Loser?

On the other hand, partner publication Herald Sun’s story rings with F-K’s triumph, as she “emerged smiling” following the proceedings. The accompanying photos tell a much different story to the first one, with one side clearly the victor.

Elsewhere, the Daily Telegraph laughs at Fraser-Kirk as, given the low payout, she reversed her previous decision to donate the ‘winnings’ to charity. The story has a collaged photo of confounded McInnes and a stupidly-smiling F-K, suggesting the case has deservedly become a media circus, especially given her questionable ‘stress-relief’ holidays.

???

Rival smh.com.au provides a less accusive look, with a commentary video that explains why the money will not be donated (a matter of awarding much lower ‘general damages’ instead of ‘punitive damages’) and that perhaps the case was blown out of proportion by F-K’s lawyers and the media.

The stages of a juicy sexual harassment scandal

In this post I would like to revisit our fascination with sexual harassment in the media in the wake of the recent David Jones scandal.

Sexual harassment is a morally wrong act in which one dominant party (usually a male manager) employs dominance, bullying and bad touch on the subjected party (usually a young, attractive and ambitious woman). Often the subject is too embarrassed to come forward and justice does not always prevail.

But when it does come to light, it sure is enjoyable to read with its sex, money and celebrities (or people more famous than you!).

It tastes like what?!

One Daily Telegraph story starts off setting the scene and the significance of the $37m claim. Then come the juicy details:

-a mouth-watering dessert that tastes” like a f*ck in the mouth”,

-touching of lingerie,

-invitation for sex in a luxurious setting,

-“kissing on the neck”,

-something in the front pocket.

Then, after a phase of moral outrage and satisfying one’s curiosity, there is plenty of time for others to make confrontational comments like those of designer Alannah Hill, who offered herself to McInnes.

Another story (from AdelaideNow) follows a similar pattern of sexy news, putting the negative aspects of the incident aside. Hell, with Hill’s description of McInnes as a desirable hunk, doesn’t that (partially) restore his credibility and trivialise the wrongdoing that he has committed?

Then comes the designer’s apology and a laugh on the radio – the story focus shifts back to entertainment.

The ending of the story suggests that in the world of David Jones, even sexual harassment must give way to the Spring/Summer launch and the latest goss on Miranda Kerr.