Conclusion

A common feature of both media reporting and judgments is the focus upon the credibility of the complainant as opposed to the respondent. Discussion of the complainant’s behaviour, response to harassment and mental health was a common feature of the newspaper coverage.

In Court hearings, the credibility or character of the complainant appears to correlate with a finding in her favour.^[441] In contrast, the media’s presentation of the woman did not seem to affect the outcome. For example, coverage tended to be more sympathetic to the complainant in the other four cases than towards Fraser-Kirk. She was depicted in many of the stories as avaricious. Yet her matter settled for a reputedly higher amount than in the other four.

The melodramatic nature of the coverage did not necessarily equate to an exclusively credible or incredible picture of the complainant in a sexual harassment case. Generally, the melodramatic reporting focused on the “sexual” aspects of the complaint in lurid detail, and the complainant’s response to harassment. This could include either a sympathetic portrayal of the complainant, as in the Patrick Stevedores coverage, or an unsympathetic portrayal, as seen in the Telegraph coverage of the Clayton Utz case.

Although the more “flattened” commentary did not make the same judgments of complainant incredibility as the “melodramatic” coverage, its “buried” nature made it less accessible to all but the most interested readers. The more “flattened” commentary also did not necessarily equate to a more credible presentation of the complainant, or a discussion of the complainant at all.

It is somewhat disturbing then to see how the mass media could be playing an important role in the shaping of community attitudes, by using stories to present its own “reality”. It is this “reality” that gives the general community their information about sexual harassment and the law. The coverage was somewhat uneven in its focus, with some articles addressing relevant legal issues, and others showing a greater interest in using language to undermine the credibility of complainants. For instance, whilst it is important for the media to be careful in reporting of court cases and to show an understanding of key concepts like damages, and not to describe matters in dispute as established facts, the journalist’s use of the word “allegedly” five times and “allegations” twice in the 300 word article about the IBM case does seem excessive.

Further, the melodramatic coverage presented patchy legal information for readers, and a continuing influence of sexist stereotyping. Many of the articles included irrelevant information, such as suggestions that the complainant in the Rivers case engaged in “nudie runs” when drunk, that presented a picture of an incredible complainant but did not have any bearing on her complaint of sexual harassment. Information of this kind can be challenged in a court of law before being admitted in evidence, but the complainant does not have this option if these statements are already in print.

Therefore, if the media indeed creates its own “reality”, it could be presenting a problematic picture of sexual harassment law for potential complainants and respondents with a somewhat misleading impression of their respective rights and responsibilities. In the ways described here, it would seem that the Australian tabloid and broadsheet print media, like their overseas counterparts, do indeed frequently rely on broad-brush characterisation and evocative language, which may impact upon how sexual harassment complainants and perhaps sexual harassment itself, are regarded by the community.