
When, Don Burke, former celebrity horticulturist, told press yesterday, “I’m no Harvey Weinstein,” I thought, for an agreeable moment, only of my late grandmother, Grace. Grace, a good and meticulous grower, had often said of this avowed lazy gardener, “He’s no Peter Cundall”, especially when he tossed good plants in the bin. I missed Grace, as I often do. Then, briefly mourned a time in which the only negative opinion I held of Burke was that he was so wasteful and so cruel to so very many cultivars.
This week, we have all been urged by local media to measure Burke against “Harvey Weinstein”, a term that no longer evokes a man, but a scale of workplace abuse. The public allegations against Weinstein, a (former) US film producer, have been several, often sickening and sustained in Western media for almost two months.
Weinstein was described by many prominent Hollywood workers as an abuser, a louse and a person permitted by others in the culture industry — including those news outlets who now decry him, but not themselves for staying quiet — to allegedly perform menacing acts, often in locked rooms. Soon after these early allegations, US actor Alyssa Milano publicly promoted the slogan, one not immediately attributed to its activist author, “Me Too”. She urged women (not men) to use this phrase on social media to indicate, “the magnitude of the problem”.
As you are perhaps aware, the slogan “went viral”, as use of social media platforms shot profitably up. Many users told their traumatic stories, many news outlets immediately reprinted this no-cost trauma, and an ailing news industry enjoyed a much-needed boost. More famous US perpetrators were named, more famous feminist names assured us that all this pain was “worth it”.
Too right “it’s worth it” for an industry in a very advanced state of shit. Diminished revenues, the near-obsolescence of paper and ingestion of the masthead — or homepage — by ravenous corporations Google and Facebook have wounded news. The sector must now do to survive what it had long done to prosper: describe the sexual abuse of women. Outlets can tell themselves all they want that two months of old-fashioned news pornography is “feminist” and “empowering”. Still, this stuff is in the tradition of that “curious rape mania” described in 1967 as riding “on the shoulder of American journalism like some jeering, masturbating raven”.
I am certain that local journalist Tracey Spicer retains noble feminist intentions in replicating the Weinstein investigations. I am certain Kate McClymont does, too. I could even be convinced that particular editors feel they are doing more for the public interest in publishing claim after celebrity claim than they are for their own. I know. I’ve taken jobs so appalling and exploitative, I had to delude myself that my work was vital, too.
This is not vital work. It’s not to be counted as a long-overdue jeremiad on the behalf of victims of abuse. It’s lurid journalism in the “rape mania” convention, with an added celebrity twist. If what we were largely reading was everyday workplace accounts, like those of my grandmother who laboured as a seamstress for a brutal boss or those of my talented sibling who once prepared main dishes on apprentice wages as Chef winked and told her to be careful in the car park after service, it’d be a bit different.
Instead, what we have is a culture industry so utterly fixated on its own declining labour conditions, when it does bother to report on anybody else’s, it can muster only a fleeting and relative unenthusiasm. Job cuts to the ABC or Fairfax are reported often and in detail. Cuts to industry that once, unlike media, employed a mass of workers are largely eclipsed, unless a politician happens to pose outside a derelict factory. Sexism in media is a matter deserving of much greater investigation than in retail or in the care professions.
This “story” of media sexism has been gorging on its own self-interest so long, the nation’s most storied newspaper today sees fit to publish the account of journalist Caroline Wilson, who claims that Don Burke once asked to lick her back at The Logies. The alleged behaviour is not pleasant, sure. But, hey. No Harvey Weinstein, right?
What are these empowered reporters thinking in their pursuit of solidarity for their colleagues alone? Do they actually say at their glamorous Women In Media dinners: we must not report on the places in which women, the most likely targets of sexualised workplace abuse, actually work. Goodness no. And, let us pay no heed to the large and growing percentage of women, and men, who work in contract or “self-employed” positions. That a fast diminishing number of people who are not us are unable to claim the protections of Fair Work is a matter of no concern. Let’s talk only of ourselves.
Let’s never talk of workplace protection for all. We will protect women, with the force of empowering clickbait.
I’m confused. Are you saying the publication of appalling behaviour by men is really just a pathetic effort to keep traditional journalism alive? That they are only concerned with abuse in their own industry? What exactly are you saying?
Think I said it.
You must’ve put in a seriously concerted effort to have been confused by this article. And speaking as Crikey’s resident comments section thicko – the gauge by which the basic clarity of all published articles on this site are measured – I should know.
It is, BGas.
It’s always been a cosy insiders club; resenting anything that might force an outward glance from them; unable to see beyond the inch-deep pond they inhabit (which would be bad enough if it wasn’t a swamp); fulminating about how any one thing “plays” in a game only they care about.
With nothing to sell but their curiosity, but curiosity hasn’t lived here for a while.
If you don’t understand that… you’re a journalist.
Instead of thinking that it takes high profile figures to give this issue of workplace harassment and sexual predation credence. There is now an opportunity to find out from the Minister for Women and Minister for Employment, Sen Michaelia Cash what she intends to do for other women Helpless Helen has a whinge. What a waste of time this piece is when there is such a huge opportunity to make real change in the broader society. Why is the Minister wing let off the hook?
I say this opposite of this. I say that high profile figures have no business talking about their own industry’s problems as often as they do. I say that it is the work of journalists to talk about the mass of people, not themselves.
This is an article about journalism (which I presume you think has some value, or did) and the change in its view of itself. Journalists now talk very often about journalists and journalist labour problems. They believe these problems are the same problems faced by all. I say this.
I have no solution to workplace abuse (other than job protection for workers. Which I state. It’s an efficient solution: extend rights to contract, self-employed and casual workers. Or, end these categories altogether. If workers cannot be dismissed without cause, then they are in a far more secure position to end abuse and demand safety.) I have a “solution” for high-profile journalists: stop writing about yourselves as though you can meaningfully compare your own problems to those of the people you write for.
There was no need to seek comment from Cash in an article that is about journalism. Journalism that would not think of seeking comment from Cash on our rapidly diminishing rights at work.
Thanks for reading, though.
It is a little ironic that a complaint about women in the media focussing on themselves is the focus of this article. Getting a view about the broader issues raised from the Minister would have led to less navel gazing however. You have done exactly what you complain others are doing.
Thanks for not reading, Tom.
It would awesome to always be right, and belittle anyone who has the temerity to challenge you.
Hey again, BGas. Re Tom. He was so polite, and I so abusive in response. (This is sarcasm, btw.)
I am sorry that you both read this article when you were distracted. I do this often. What I tend not to do so often, though, is leave comments saying, “I don’t get it”, when not getting it was my own distracted fault.
Honestly. This article is not hard-to-understand rot. It’s straightforward. I say this as a person who once wrote hard-to-understand rot fairly regularly.
It is an article about how very self-absorbed media has become. It offers a recent example of that. Read it again, maybe?
I for one am shocked! Shocked, I tell you to discover that someone is different in real life than they appear on TV.
Not to belittle, nor disbelieve allegations against Burke, I’m finding this “Don Burke = SATAN” media focus a bit, well, trite. Obviously women working in crappy jobs with crappy pay and conditions aren’t worthy of the media’s attention. Sex sells, I suppose…
Good article and a different perspective, Helen.
Many thanks, DG.
I assume that I agree with MzRaz but, as too often, it was so scattergun that I can’t follow.
Down with Sexism – shorely that covers it?
I agree Helen – it does smack of the self serving media industry. Where are the investigative journalism reports about all the women who worked in male dominated industries in the 80’s and 90’s who were similarly abused and assaulted and belittled as routine and probably still are. It is fair to suggest that similar stories about women’s treatment in less glamourous workplaces such as construction, hospitality, telecommunications or IT would ever be considered interesting enough for the media. Can you imagine that there would be an iota of interest if a woman who worked in one of these areas now reported that a creep that she worked for in 1994 once touched her on the arse?
Where are they? Well, they’re interviewing Don Burke (or at least the one that Westacott called the “fat cow” and “a testament to embalming” is doing that). I still remember her turning bright red when “The Chef Who Says F*ck” asked her if she was wearing a leather G-string.
To be fair, they can’t inquire into such predators in other industries because they don’t know of any (other industries that is, not predation therein, but also yes).