Too old an incident to be litigated, but one of the worst of the accounts I’ve read:
What will happen to Fox News’s Steve Doocy?
Looks like Steve “Pencil Neck” Doocy, co-host of Fox and Fiends, may be on the shitter.
Because they hired and independent law firm to sniff them out. Sure, they may not have found all the victims. However…
I trust that the folks at NewsCorp know what they’re doing. (To be fair, I also trust that they will make mistakes. It’s just that your concern would be something very much on the minds of lawyers.) In fact, I suspect that they had planned for this event for a while. Fox News represented 20% of their profits - a cool billion dollars per year. They can afford $200 million in payouts and may end up paying much less.
Not dissing your point though. I’m sure they reflected upon it.
Let’s not forget, that in order to get the job at FOX, Greta literally had to change her face, to make her more attractive to FOX’s audience.
Or so at least the timeline suggests… Great Van Susteren's New Look - ABC News Note that she denied she did this in the article… I wonder if the story will now change. Might be more profitable for her if it does. 
I don’t take the Doocy stuff very seriously. Although I don’t doubt that Carlson’s intellect towers over Steve Doocy’s, she did act like a bimbo and it’s not surprising that she got treated as such by the dimwit. More controversially, it doesn’t concern me too much.
Doocy played an important role in this drama though. Sexual harassment is actually pretty difficult to establish in court. Most of these cases are won on retaliation grounds. So the timeline whereby Carlson complains to Ailes about Doocy, and then has her career hammered is more actionable. Gretchen Carlson appears to have laid the groundwork for her suit with great care and probably deliberation. The iphone recordings started in 2014 IIRC.
As I stated earlier, while I extend a certain amount of respect to those who successfully pursue their self interest, such props are attenuated. Really strong women stand up for others.
So, it’s no problem for women “acting like a bimbo” to be constantly humiliated and demeaned by their co-workers. That’s just how workplaces should be, eh?
Thanks for picking up on that. I approve.
Doocy’s behavior sounded to me to be condescending but not demeaning. He would shush Carlson on air and treat her like an airhead. But Carlson was playing the part of an airhead: she would tell the audience that she googled the words “Ignoramus” and “Czar”, then proceeded to give the definitions.
Carlson is a Stanford graduate. She knows very well the meaning of those words. She was playing a role. Doocy, OTOH, is more of a method actor: it’s necessary for him to feel this inanity deep within his soul in this role of a lifetime. His lifetime anyway.
Look. Fox News had sexual harassment seminars: on paper they said they didn’t do that crap. But the casual sexist stuff was basically part of the job description. I think there’s a very bright line between those sorts of behaviors. I doubt whether Doocy did anything that was legally actionable, though it played a role in the lawsuit as I outlined above.
I shouldn’t have to add this, but yeah, condescending behavior in most business contexts is highly unprofessional and should be actively curbed by smart managers. But Fox News is entertainment: it’s not most business contexts.
You are aware that her claims about Doocy’s behavior included when they were not on the air right?
Doocy is a professional. He doesn’t like to break character.
Please quote the part of Carlson’s claims regarding Doocy that offends you the most. I didn’t see a lot of substantiation.
From the Daily Beast: CREEPIN’ AWAY: Roger Ailes Won’t Pay Gretchen Carlson a Cent. 21st Century Fox pays Carlson the full $20 million. Oh well.
So one thing I don’t get is that Van Sustern and others had some clause in their contracts allowing them to leave quickly within 60 days if Ailes ever left the network. I don’t get that. On the surface, it sounds like they were devoted followers of Ailes that wanted the chance to follow him to wherever he ends up. On the other hand, a lot of them apparently hated Ailes. What’s the deal here?
The deal was they knew the network rose and fell with Ailes. If it was going to tank early, it would be because he left. They wanted an escape clause so they wouldn’t be tied to a sinking ship for years.
Ailes also wanted such clauses, to make him more valuable to the parent corporation. He had taken extended health leaves in recent years. And Ailes did the contract negotiating.
Over at the Politburo, Geraldo Rivera switches sides. He now regrets supporting Ailes, who is no longer his boss: “I am filled with regret for stubbornly discounting their various allegations. The Murdochs would not have turned the world upside down but for good cause.” Geraldo Rivera: I’m ‘Filled With Regret’ For Defending Roger Ailes - TPM – Talking Points Memo
…what does quoting the part that “offends Acsenray the most” have to do with substantiating the claims?
You know that a sexual harassment claim doesn’t have to offend me or anyone else, but rather establish a pattern that creates a hostile work environment based on gender, right?
And even if it’s not in gross specifically gender-based harassment, there is something to be said about someone who continually demeans and undermines a co-worker.
That should be something that bothers an employer and fellow employees, regardless of whether it amounts to liability.
I can reword. What’s the worst concrete allegation made about Doocy in your or anybody else’s opinion? I gave my examples and characterized them as condescending but not especially demeaning or dehumanizing. I’m willing to discuss others.
The legal bar for sexual harassment is pretty high: the stories I’ve read have been paint-peeling. Any female having to co-host a show with Doocy presumably would have to be paid pretty well: Gretchen was. It’s sort of like hazard pay for professional scuba divers, loggers or center linemen.
In most work environments, sure. But low level harassment was part of Carlson’s implicit job description: the crotch cam was but one example. Part of their shtick was thumbing their noses at so-called political correctness. Ha ha! It’s a joke! The audience loved it.
I’m guessing that breaking character after the camera stops running might displease the suits to some extent. Fox employees are suppose to drink the koolaid and tell higher’s up that the network is “Fair and balanced”, though none believe it. Because if you can’t lie to them, how are you suppose to lie to the camera or lie to the public about it? (Cite: Muto https://www.amazon.com/gp/product/0142181013 )
Banquet Bear: IIRC you have some Hollywood experience. Q: How do they keep this sexist bullshit at manageable levels in ordinary fictional TV shows?
…I live in Wellington NZ: and the closest I’ve been to Hollywood is that I know a shit-load of people that have been in Lord of the Rings.
And what makes you think sexist bullshit is manageable in ordinary fictional TV shows?
The anecdotes show that women are treated like shit.
The data shows that women are treated like shit.
If something happens a single time you might be able to characterize it as just “condescending.” But if it happens over and over and over again, and if you complain about it and those complaints get ignored, then don’t you think the threshold to “demeaning and dehumanizing” gets crossed? And if she got booted from the show for complaining, that this makes it even worse?
I don’t see why we need to discuss any “others.” This is bad enough.
And this is why there is still a problem with sexual harassment in the workplace. It isn’t just because of the likes of Doocy and Ailes but also because of the people who “can’t see the problem” like Measure for Measure. You might think you are a “good guy”: but the reality is that you are part of the problem.
You are aware this paragraph you’ve written is pretty fucking disgusting, don’t you?
We work our asses off to make the lives of professional scuba divers, loggers and center linemen safer. But the job is inherently risky: so on occasion they get paid extra for additional hazard.
There should be no inherent risk in presenting the fucking news. And no matter how well paid Gretchen was it was statistically probable that she was getting paid far less than her male co-anchors who were doing the same fucking job. So no, this isn’t like hazard pay at all.
I’m guessing she was paid better than Doocy, both when she co-hosted the show and afterwards. Unreliable internet citation agrees with me:
So yeah. Compensating differential.
I think she got booted from Fox and Friends, because her beauty faded. I think she got taken off the air, because her ratings were weak. I think her predictably declining career trajectory made her susceptible to Ailes’ predation, which nobody deserves. But given that Carlson has been gung-ho about the racial profiling of Muslims, helped pump up the paranoia when Ahmed was arrested for bringing his clock project to school, advanced a story line of an epidemic of false accusations of rape, etc. , etc. I’m somehow less than upset that she has received a little condescension from her coworkers.
…neither of your salary cites look remotely credible and I have no idea why you chose to use them. And the wiki cite is irrelevant.
And that in itself is a pretty sexist observation, don’t you think? Is this a thing that happens to every woman? Is there a “shelf life” for women presenters on TV? Does the same thing apply to men? Has a man ever lost his job on network TV because his beauty faded?
And…now the victim blaming starts.
Why didn’t you start with this in the first place? You don’t like Carlson, and you think she deserves everything she got. At least that would have been honest.
Thanks for reminding us why sexual harassment is so prevalent in the workplace. Because there are people like you who sometimes think that “harassment” is “karma.”