Melodramatic v Flat (Tabloid v Broadsheet)
We anticipated that there would be differences between the tabloid and broadsheet coverage. However, the cases in our sample showed that sometimes the line is not so clear. For example, much of The Sydney Morning Herald coverage of the David Jones case had a “scandal and gossip” element, with much of the reporting on the case done by the Herald gossip columnist Andrew Hornery for his “Private Sydney” column.
In contrast, once the melodramatic “sex fight” headlines were stripped away, the Herald Sun provided some thoughtful commentary on the Rivers case.We found that some of the coverage of the Fraser-Kirk case was nuanced but a flattened/melodramatic dichotomy was present in much of the media reporting, and ancient sexist stereotypes have continued to appear.
While the legal practitioners representing Fraser-Kirk, McInnes and David Jones competed for media attention and sympathetic coverage, much of the reportage focused upon the size of the claim and the credibility of the complainant. In some of the more prominently placed articles, these newspapers provided a platform for the players to make their respective announcements, and argue their cases. Both the broadsheet and the tabloid newspapers highlighted the “scandalous gossip” aspects of the case, with the publication of provocative yet irrelevant sound bites from fashion designer Alannah Hill in the “Private Sydney” column, and speculation from The Telegraph about Sydney private investigator Frank Monte shadowing the complainant. In many articles, journalists provided their own critical analysis of the legal and social implications of the case, or its impact on the economic position of the David Jones brand. The most “flattened”, yet detailed and legally accurate articles on David Jones were buried in the “Business Day” liftout section of the Herald, which is separate from the main newspaper.
The bulk of The Telegraph coverage of the David Jones case fell predictably into the “melodramatic” camp, with a focus on the more colourful aspects of the case.A critical difference between the melodramatic and flattened commentary in both newspapers was the treatment of the tortious component of the claim. In the melodramatic camp, commentators who chose to position Fraser-Kirk as the gold-digger generally did not concern themselves with the difference between compensatory and punitive damages. Miranda Devine’s column for the Herald presents a typical example:
Woman (sic) who are raped don’t get that kind of money as victims compensation — they’re lucky if they receive $100,000. A woman who was raped by a navy colleague at HMAS Cairns was awarded less than $500,000 in 2007 in a sexual harassment lawsuit. A David Jones employee who sustained a serious brain injury at work would get less than $300,000 in compensation under WorkCover. So why does McInnes’s conduct qualify for such a grand cash grab?[412]
Although written with a fine rhetorical flourish, this statement fails to grasp the differences between an award of compensatory damages to return complainants to their original positions prior to the wrong suffered, compensation awarded under statutory no-fault schemes, and punitive damages to punish tortfeasors for their conduct. Such a basic error rendered the article very misleading in its analysis of legal issues.
A handful of commentators in the DJs articles did take pains to clarify the punitive nature of the claim. For example, in The Sydney Morning Herald, Kate Lahey commented:
The figure is unusual for two reasons. Its sheer size is light years away from usual payouts in such cases and the nature of the damages sought is equally rare. It is designed as punishment, beyond general compensation damages for actions so egregious they warrant the extra penalty — unheard of in discrimination cases in Australia.[413]
However, such analysis was the exception rather than the rule.
Only one of the Telegraph articles referred to the purpose of punitive damages: “If she wins, it would be the first time any Australian court has awarded punitive damages to punish an employer in a sexual harassment case”.[414]The flattened/melodramatic dichotomy was also seen in The Daily Telegraph reporting of the Clayton Utz case. At first, The Daily Telegraph appeared to have little interest in Styles’ case, with its first report of the case being confined to a tiny “news in brief” column on page 13,[415] which was a classic example of “flattened” coverage. The brief article noted, “A former Clayton Utz lawyer who is suing the top-tier firm for sexual harassment and defamation said she never made a formal complaint because she feared for her job”.[416] Melodramatic reportage began when the newspaper launched a blistering attack on the complainant, with a more sympathetic focus on her alleged harasser.[417] The melodrama escalated with an article on the victimised “man in the middle” of the case, and an unflattering portrait of the complainant as a scorned harridan: “Mr Izzo's brief fling with fellow lawyer Bridgette Styles triggered a volley of legal claims from his scorned lover”.[418]
The Rivers case attracted the melodramatic headline “TYCOON SEX FIGHT” with its front page coverage in the Herald Sun,[419] but the article itself struck a good balance between the flattened and the melodramatic. While aspects of the complaint were spelled out in detail, the article appeared to take pains to describe both sides of the case without the use of further inflammatory language like “sex fight”. The piece ended with the almost bland statement, “The matter is expected to be heard next year”.[420]
The Herald Sun took a similarly dramatic approach in its headlines for the IBM case, with the sensationalist titles: “Woman sues IBM for $1.1m — Sex pest legal fight” and “Woman sues IBM for $1.1m — Worker allegedly told to ‘get boobies out’”.[421] These headlines demonstrated the preoccupation with money and melodrama that we found in the David Jones coverage.
From headline to story: “Sex pest legal fight” opened with a focus on the most dramatic aspects of the case: the size of the claim, and the “salaciousness” of the harassment.
A FORMER female executive is suing a major Melbourne company for $1.1 million after it allegedly failed to act on her repeated complaints of serious sexual harassment... If she is awarded $1.1 million it could be the biggest sexual harassment payout in Australian history. Maurice Blackburn lawyer Siobhan Keating said the allegations included that a male colleague had rubbed himself against the woman and that he made comments such as, “if you get your breasts out, you will get more sales”.[422]
In contrast, The Age reported on the case in its “Business” section, and adopted a more subdued tone, with less of a focus on describing the behaviour in gory detail, and a placing of the case in the context of recent legal history:
A SEXUAL harassment claim for $1.1 million brought by a top IBM saleswoman shows the failure of companies to implement their own policies properly, the woman's lawyer says. The woman, whose lawyers will not name her because of her “delicate mental state”,[423] is likely to lodge a Federal Court claim against IBM next week. She claims she endured almost two years of sexual harassment, discrimination and bullying at the hands of a male senior manager. Maurice Blackburn special counsel Siobhan Keating said the case, together with the lawsuit against against former David Jones chief executive Mark McInnes brought last year by publicist Kirsty Fraser-Kirk, showed “the gap in how far corporate Australia has come with sexual harassment”.[424]
While the size of the claim was of interest and the article covered the same information as its Herald Sun counterpart, the selection of quotes from the complainant’s solicitor demonstrated an interest in the legal rather than the “sexual” aspects of the case.