2 hours ago, At the break of Gawn said:

It’s all water under the bridge now as he’s been sacked, but I think the Laidley thing is much worse because the cop obtained that photo at his work which is under the umbrella of private and confidential who then shared it with others. I’d like to think whoever shared Tom’s audio get their own karma one day as it’s done nothing but hurt people and that was the leaker’s full intention. 

Really interesting to see what the courts said.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/dani-laidley-photo-leak-senior-constable-cleared/100891416

 

In his interview with investigators, Senior Constable Gentner said he considered discussions within the WhatsApp group to be private and did not consider he had done anything wrong.

He also said he would still access a photo of Ms Laidley "100 times out of 100" but regretted having done so now because of the "s***storm" that followed.

"Whoever has leaked this out of the circle of us as police — the words I have are probably not fit to be recorded," he said.

"We've all done the wrong thing, there's huge errors of judgment in this whole thing, that's apparent, but that to me is a huge break of trust out of our circle."

I don’t understand what’s confusing people about this situation. It’s pretty clear.

A media organisation has to be seen as holding up certain moral standards or norms in line with societal expectations to both:

1. Commercial maximisation. All companies want to maximise the size of their audience/customer base to make more money from advertises in this case. Societal norms have progressed to the point where Morris’ comments are WELL against the norms and standards the majority of people now expect. If you go against these standards then (rightly in my opinion) you will lose advertises. Simple choice. Get rid of him. He’s now irreparably toxic from a commercial standpoint.

2. To not allow for their to be a culture of discrimination or the creation of a hostile work  environment hence leading to lawsuits.

Now, given Morris’ statements. It actually doesn’t matter if they were private or not from a workplace or media perspective. You can argue that most people have made comments like this in private… but… Most people aren’t public figures that represent a media organisation that explicitly operate on optics and advertising for money. Optics and him as a person are a part of his job. Don’t like it, don’t become a public figure.
 

The fact is, they’re not private now. He’s a public figure and he represents a media company. So for Fox to keep him on would be opening themselves up to A LOT of legal and commercial consequences. 

If you aren’t prepared for the professional consequences of your words as a public figure, then, DON’T SAY SEXIST OR RACIST THINGS. Again, optics are a massive part of being a public figure in the media. Especially your words. You as a person are the job when you’re a public figure.
 

Also, think about being his co-worker whom he’s now publicly sexualised and made her sexual orientation known to everyone which is HER BUSINESS ALONE. The mental health repercussions of outing peoples sexuality can be immense. Tom Morris is not the victim here. 
 

To re-iterate. If you’re a public figure working for a media company that works almost solely on optics, if you don’t like the consequences of your words affecting you professionally, just don’t say them. Otherwise, expect to be sacked.

 

It’s simple.

 

 

34 minutes ago, Cards13 said:

Really interesting to see what the courts said.. https://www.abc.net.au/news/2022-03-08/dani-laidley-photo-leak-senior-constable-cleared/100891416

 

In his interview with investigators, Senior Constable Gentner said he considered discussions within the WhatsApp group to be private and did not consider he had done anything wrong.

He also said he would still access a photo of Ms Laidley "100 times out of 100" but regretted having done so now because of the "s***storm" that followed.

"Whoever has leaked this out of the circle of us as police — the words I have are probably not fit to be recorded," he said.

"We've all done the wrong thing, there's huge errors of judgment in this whole thing, that's apparent, but that to me is a huge break of trust out of our circle."

Yeah there’s a couple of UK Met police that shared some photos in the exact same circumstances…

I doubt people would argue the ‘privacy’ or workplace angle considering the photos were of deceased victims even though the circumstances are identical.

Public eye, big mouth and social media = Russian roulette.

37 minutes ago, BoBo said:

I don’t understand what’s confusing people about this situation. It’s pretty clear.

A media organisation has to be seen as holding up certain moral standards or norms in line with societal expectations to both:

1. Commercial maximisation. All companies want to maximise the size of their audience/customer base to make more money from advertises in this case. Societal norms have progressed to the point where Morris’ comments are WELL against the norms and standards the majority of people now expect. If you go against these standards then (rightly in my opinion) you will lose advertises. Simple choice. Get rid of him. He’s now irreparably toxic from a commercial standpoint.

2. To not allow for their to be a culture of discrimination or the creation of a hostile work  environment hence leading to lawsuits.

Now, given Morris’ statements. It actually doesn’t matter if they were private or not from a workplace or media perspective. You can argue that most people have made comments like this in private… but… Most people aren’t public figures that represent a media organisation that explicitly operate on optics and advertising for money. Optics and him as a person are a part of his job. Don’t like it, don’t become a public figure.
 

The fact is, they’re not private now. He’s a public figure and he represents a media company. So for Fox to keep him on would be opening themselves up to A LOT of legal and commercial consequences. 

If you aren’t prepared for the professional consequences of your words as a public figure, then, DON’T SAY SEXIST OR RACIST THINGS. Again, optics are a massive part of being a public figure in the media. Especially your words. You as a person are the job when you’re a public figure.
 

Also, think about being his co-worker whom he’s now publicly sexualised and made her sexual orientation known to everyone which is HER BUSINESS ALONE. The mental health repercussions of outing peoples sexuality can be immense. Tom Morris is not the victim here. 
 

To re-iterate. If you’re a public figure working for a media company that works almost solely on optics, if you don’t like the consequences of your words affecting you professionally, just don’t say them. Otherwise, expect to be sacked.

 

It’s simple.

 

 

As a wise man once said; "stupid is, as stupid does"

On 3/17/2022 at 11:17 AM, Caligula's cohort said:

I suggest you do your own research. I'm not going to waste my time and energy detailing to you or anyone else why Morris is absolute slime ball of human and a complete joke as a journalist. 

Apologies for quoting myself, but this is a bit of vindication for me as I have people close to me connected in media circles who know what Tom is like. He got found out,  so my work here is done. This is just the iceberg of some of the statements he's made regarding fellow staff members. I suggest those who gave me distasteful negative emoji's reflect on their own behaviour not knowing the full story. 

Wow didn't see that coming with him being sacked!

13 hours ago, DubDee said:

I don't know many people who haven't gossiped about people at work in a private setting- who is hottest, who might be gay etc. My wife is certainly the worst at this!

doesn't sound nice when released but it happens all the time.  unless I haven't heard the recording that is worse than that I honestly dont think its that bad

He has humilated a woman who is currently going about her business working in NZ at the world cup. He exposed her sexuality when she may have want to have kept it private or at least didn't deserve to have it come out like this. 

14 minutes ago, dees189227 said:

He has humilated a woman who is currently going about her business working in NZ at the world cup. He exposed her sexuality when she may have want to have kept it private or at least didn't deserve to have it come out like this. 

He didn’t expose it. He chatted about with he thought we’re good mates 

14 minutes ago, DubDee said:

He didn’t expose it. He chatted about with he thought we’re good mates 

and it turns out they aren't really good mates. Although have no idea why the conversation was being recorded. 

16 minutes ago, DubDee said:

He didn’t expose it. He chatted about with he thought we’re good mates 

He wasn't having a chat down the pub with a couple of mates.

He recorded himself making his puerile, sexist proclamations. And sent it to a group chat of his friends. 

He exposed her sexuality to a group of people. 

I have a signal group of friends with about 12 people in it. Any message goes to the whole group.

There is every chance Morris has more than 12 people in his group chat. He could have 50 in it. But it unlikely to be one or two because it sort of contradicts the whole point of a group chat.

Not that number of people in the group matters.

 

 

 

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by binman

1 minute ago, dees189227 said:

and it turns out they aren't really good mates. Although have no idea why the conversation was being recorded. 

Because all messaging apps have a record audio option and lots of people use it rather than typing their message.

55 minutes ago, DubDee said:

He didn’t expose it. He chatted about with he thought we’re good mates 

Nah see this is absolute crap.

 

He’s a journalist, that made a shareable piece of audio media that can be shared and now *HAS*  been shared and uploaded to the internet (which millions of people can go and listen to it, FOREVER), completely off the back of his own actions.

It doesn’t matter if he personally hasn’t made it public himself, he’s a public figure and a high profile journalist. It’s HIS actions that has made what could be a completely humiliating experience for his co-worker. He chose to create and send that codified audio media, his expectations that other people wouldn’t share it, goes to show how much he doesn’t care about sensitive information he’s sharing about people that are his co-workers.

 

If you defend this, then you have to go onto defend the UK met police that shared ‘private’ messages of murder victims.

 

They were also having private conversations that weren’t supposed to be made public. It’s the exact same situation, only the content is more intense.

 

In fact, his actions are arguably worse (not in content, in actions) as he is a professional journalist that would be completely aware of the repercussions of creating audio media that can be shared/uploaded, and yet, he did it anyway. 

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by BoBo

1 hour ago, Caligula's cohort said:

Apologies for quoting myself, but this is a bit of vindication for me as I have people close to me connected in media circles who know what Tom is like. He got found out,  so my work here is done. This is just the iceberg of some of the statements he's made regarding fellow staff members. I suggest those who gave me distasteful negative emoji's reflect on their own behaviour not knowing the full story. 

He might be a piece of trash, but Bevo’s behavior was also inappropriate. The two are not related. 

5 minutes ago, Jaded No More said:

He might be a piece of trash, but Bevo’s behavior was also inappropriate. The two are not related. 

Depends who you ask... the general public are mostly in favour of Bevo. But demonlanders seem to take the stance of Morris. 

1 minute ago, Caligula's cohort said:

Depends who you ask... the general public are mostly in favour of Bevo. But demonlanders seem to take the stance of Morris. 

I am not in favour of anyone. I just know that I would hate our coach to behave like that. It’s unprofessional and it takes away the focus from what he should be doing, which is working out how to beat us. 

1 minute ago, Jaded No More said:

I am not in favour of anyone. I just know that I would hate our coach to behave like that. It’s unprofessional and it takes away the focus from what he should be doing, which is working out how to beat us. 

It was unprofessional on Bevo's part and he apologised for that. But in saying that he had many people including myself supporting him in that the media can say whatever they want but when it is put back on them they have thin skin and can't take it. You get what you give in this world, and as an old saying I love to use when I was a chef at France Soir "If you can't take the heat, get out of the kitchen". 

34 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Nah see this is absolute crap.

 

He’s a journalist, that made a shareable piece of audio media that can be shared and now *HAS*  been shared and uploaded to the internet (which millions of people can go and listen to it, FOREVER), completely off the back of his own actions.

It doesn’t matter if he personally hasn’t made it public himself, he’s a public figure and a high profile journalist. It’s HIS actions that has made what could be a completely humiliating experience for his co-worker. He chose to create and send that codified audio media, his expectations that other people wouldn’t share it, goes to show how much he doesn’t care about sensitive information he’s sharing about people that are his co-workers.

 

If you defend this, then you have to go onto defend the UK met police that shared ‘private’ messages of murder victims.

 

They were also having private conversations that weren’t supposed to be made public. It’s the exact same situation, only the content is more intense.

 

In fact, his actions are arguably worse (not in content, in actions) as he is a professional journalist that would be completely aware of the repercussions of creating audio media that can be shared/uploaded, and yet, he did it anyway. 

It really is the exact same situation as the murder victims. I see that now. 

thank you so much for educating me with your sharable piece of media

6 hours ago, grazman said:

I haven't read all 15 pages of the thread, so I'm not sure if it has been mentioned yet in relation to Morris being recorded without his knowledge or consent.  Each jurisdiction is different, but most require both parties to consent to a conversation being recorded unless there are very specific circumstances involved (threats etc).  I imagine the issue Foxtel will have if they want to dismiss Morris is whether they can use any of the information that has been publicly made available if it was obtained 'illegally' in the first place.   This is very different to people uploading inappropriate material to social media where there's a tacit permission to make that publicly available .

It is irrelevant whether Morris knew he was being recorded or not. What is relevant is the attitudes that his rant represents as far as whether he is a fit and proper person to be a senior sports reporter on Australia’s major cable network. 

From the recording it is quite clear what he was saying. Basically he was claiming the ground that a lot of private school boys have (l know l was one of them, as were my two sons) ie women are to be subjugated and do not deserve an equal place with men, except in his rant he expanded that to include Asians and Blacks.
 

It is not an attitude which should be tolerated but sadly it is all too common in a vocal minority at private schools in Melbourne. That is not to say though it should be embraced by our major broadcasting networks.

Tom Morris has no place on our public airwaves if he is prepared to perpetrate this poison, not even if he thought he was not being recorded. In fact, by thinking he was not being recorded, he is more likely to say what he really thinks, which makes it even more contemptible.,

5 hours ago, BDA said:

As usual a considered response from you Colin. Thank you.

Based on the first audio it’s difficult to conclude, in my view, that he dislikes or just values her as a human in a sexual sense. He would have been much more disparaging about her character if he was. We have all known men who can turn quite nasty if the object of their desire rejects them or is not available for whatever reason. I didn’t get that sense from this audio.

 

I think sexist and racist beliefs don’t necessarily have to come from a place of outward displays of animosity per se. Occasionally they can be cloaked in what are professed to be borne of noble intentions or coming from a place of amity. However, the supposed ‘benevolence’ can come from a place of prejudice and paternalism.

One example that comes to mind would be the attitude of white plantation owners in the pre-civil war US South. Many of them would have Black mistresses with whom they would use to fornicate with (this also happened on UK sugar plantations in Jamaica as well). Children would occasionally be borne of these liaisons, but neither mother or child would be allowed to live in the main house. Because there was a profession of what some might call ‘affection’ didn’t mean that it didn’t come from an ugly place (and I’m sure that I don’t need to go into the rest of the horrors of what chattel slavery entailed). 

Also when pressed on giving those they kept in bondage freedom, the typical response was indignation about how the slaveholder had brought them ‘food, shelter, religion and work. How could I be bigoted?’

On a front closer to home, I see it here with certain types of men who come to Japan to ‘find a Japanese girlfriend’ or consider themselves some type of lothario the second they land on these shores. I won’t essentialize every man from an English speaking country who has a Japanese partner as some type of closet racist/Orientalist (I after all have a Japanese wife so I’d be including myself ), but there is definitely a subculture of Western bloc men here who buy into the idea that ‘all Japanese girls (they refer to them as girls even when they are 20 and above hence showing their disrespect immediately) want a Western boyfriend because Japanese guys are ineffectual weenies’ and are ‘easy to impress’ among other mind boggling beliefs I won’t go into here (there are some genuinely ugly ideas they hold). To them, they couldn’t possibly hold racist beliefs because they are attracted to Asian women but if you dig a little deeper, that ‘attraction’ could be considered fetishization and objectification.

P.S. I’ve attached a really good interview to listen to that highlights the experience of the Cambodian Australian writer Alice Pung. It shows how prejudice can be passive aggressive at times and not necessarily reflective of Russell Crowe in Romper Stomper.

https://www.abc.net.au/radionational/programs/latenightlive/whos-telling-the-story/13797348

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by Colin B. Flaubert

39 minutes ago, DubDee said:

It really is the exact same situation as the murder victims. I see that now. 

thank you so much for educating me with your sharable piece of media

Would be a great own if I hadn’t already pointed out the difference in situations is the content of what they’re talking about. 

Unfortunately, as I highlighted, the actions are the same. Both, ‘private’ conversations that the culpable parties involved didn’t intend to be shared. 
 

So, they’re not responsible yeah? As the cops didn’t intend for the messages to be shared, as it was a private conversation?

There was problematic content (again, on very different, incomparable levels) in both cases,  but if you’re defending a journalists right to be shielded from responsibility from predictable outcomes because it’s a private conversation, then logically you would defend the two cops right to have a private conversation that they didn’t intend to be shared too.
 

Unless, ya know, private conversations aren’t a good reason to commit professional malfeasance?

But, I get it. It’s not nice for someone to point out the ugly logical extension of what you’re defending. 
 

All good.

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by BoBo

33 minutes ago, BoBo said:

Would be a great own if I hadn’t already pointed out the difference in situations is the content of what they’re talking about. 

Unfortunately, as I highlighted, the actions are the same. Both, ‘private’ conversations that the culpable parties involved didn’t intend to be shared. 
 

So, they’re not responsible yeah? As the cops didn’t intend for the messages to be shared, as it was a private conversation?

There was problematic content (again, on very different, incomparable levels) in both cases,  but if you’re defending a journalists right to be shielded from responsibility from predictable outcomes because it’s a private conversation, then logically you would defend the two cops right to have a private conversation that they didn’t intend to be shared too.
 

Unless, ya know, private conversations aren’t a good reason to commit professional malfeasance?

But, I get it. It’s not nice for someone to point out the ugly logical extension of what you’re defending. 
 

All good.

BoBo, like I said. I agree with you. What Morris did is very similar to sharing messages of murder victims. 

cmon mate

On 3/17/2022 at 3:04 PM, Dees2014 said:

 

Morris is doing his job. He is a journo after all - their job is to find out stuff others are trying to hide but others have an interest in finding out. It has always been thus. T

Why is this the accepted societal standard of journalism? (And I ask that as basically a journalist myself). There is a difference between 'in the public's interest' and what some of the public may be interested in.

Others trying to hide stuff? Like most people, as part of my job I'm privy to confidential commercial information. Are my efforts to keep that private akin to me 'hiding stuff'? Or is all information open slather for the public? 

Do football coaches not have some right to go about their already high-pressured jobs without other people constantly sniffing around trying to undermine that process? Who knows if Hunter had even been told of his demotion yet.

That's where mental health may have come in. There are probably numerous protocols at clubs nowadays for how to support players being demoted, which is a publicly-broadcast set-back to one's career and ambitions. 

And breaching that is for what? So that people who are interested in other people chasing a ball around can get their fix a few hours earlier than the official team release? And so that someone can build their own public profile? 

How do you reckon Goody would have felt if Nathan Jones found out he wasn't playing in the grand final through the media before Simon had a chance to discuss it with him personally? Leakers are only one part. 

Our premiership coach recently talked about the strain that he had been under. Journalism need to move on from recognition for point-scoring to celebration of accuracy and good writing and factual reporting. 

However wayward the content, I fully support Beveridge having the opportunity to take a swipe at a journalist in return, especially one who wants to be in the public conversation by taking swipes in the other direction. 

 

 

50 minutes ago, DubDee said:

BoBo, like I said. I agree with you. What Morris did is very similar to sharing messages of murder victims. 

cmon mate

I cannot make my position any clearer to you. And at this point I can only assume you’re deliberately missing my point?
 

The content of the conversations, is much, much, much, much worse in the cop situation. Obviously.

I’m not comparing the severity of what they spoke about. 
 

*I’m criticising you, for saying that Tom Morris isn’t responsible for outing his co-worker, because he was having a private conversation*
 

You’re using the action of a private conversation as a defence of Morris. Just like some people used the action of the UK met police, having a private conversation, as a defence. This is what the comparison is. Using the actions, which are the same, as a defence. 

You can’t defend Morris’ action, without defending the UK cops action. They’re exactly the same. 

You have said, that Tom Morris, isn’t responsible for outing a co-worker because, he was having a private conversation. Even though I’ve pointed out that he’s a journalist that would have extensive training in all forms of media. His job, is to find the very kinds of audio files, like the one he himself made and shared, (yes privately, which doesn’t matter if you’re a public identity), report it and write it up like has been done to him. 

The irony of a journalist losing their job by being exposed by the very thing a journalist in his field would be looking for, cannot be lost on you. 
 

I’m highlighting, that the actions, of having a private conversation about their job, in which the content is professionally damaging to himself and personally damaging to his co-worker that he outed (again, not comparable in what they were saying, but evidently both professionally damaging) doesn’t excuse a cop, or a journalist, from responsibility when, the predictable outcomes of their actions, come to fruition. 

What is incorrect about this?

Please don’t say that I’m comparing what Tom Morris said and what the cops said. I’ve already dealt with this twice. 
 

I’m going hard on this because the outcome of Morris’ behaviour as a high profile journalist, has meant the outing of a persons sexuality for an entire nation to see. The mental health repercussions of this, could be devastating for a person. It’s not a joke and it’s not just mates having a chat. 
 

Morris is not the victim here. His co-worker is.

Edited March 18, 20223 yr by BoBo

Also, all this bs about what each of us may have said in the past. If I was from the 1700s I might have used the N-word and thought it appropriate. I've said completely inappropriate stuff in my real past. A progressive society educates us that a lot of that isn't okay. We learn and move on. Some of us were stupid, and some genuinely bigoted. The fact that we're into the whatsapp era and Morris continues to espouse such horrible garbage suggests he's the latter. Therefore cancelled.