The Guardian Australia deputy sports editor, Russell Jackson, has accused a fellow sports reporter of watching hardcore pornography between tabbing his match reports during the recent Australia versus West Indies Test at the MCG.
This is an explosive and devastating accusation that until Jackson reveals who the male reporter is implicates every male reporter in the media section.
Aside from not naming the reporter, Jackson’s account of the porn-watching reporter is detailed and, therefore, can be easily verified (or otherwise) by the relevant organisation employing the reporter, and by Cricket Australia who issued his media accreditation.
Provided the verification stands up, the porn-watching reporter at the MCG needs to be named and have his accreditation removed.
More cricket
» Steve Smith’s Border-esque rebuild (new longform!)
» West Indies done and dusted but Kiwis loom large
» Glenn Maxwell among the runs but still battling with the ball
» Steve Smith has shocked us all
» Packed MCG reaffirms T20 hysteria
Here are some of the details of the case of the porn-watching cricket reporter, as set out by Russell Jackson.
The browsing of the hardcore porn took place in the press box at the MCG and came to Jackson’s notice on the third day of the Test.
There were male and female reporters “sitting metres away” from the reporter “with clear views of the screen.”
Jackson wrote that he “could hardly believe what I was seeing” when the pictures of the hardcore pornography came up on the laptop screen.
The flicking on and off of the pornography lasted throughout the third day of the Test.
Finally, on day four of the Test, an administrator told the reporter that “not only could those female and male colleagues see what he was doing but that they’d appreciate it if he stopped.”
And the porn watching was stopped.
As I have noted earlier, these details are easily verifiable. They are so specific that they can be (and probably already have been) tested for their accuracy. That being the case, the career of the reporter needs to be ended.
To begin with, how can the public or the organisation employing the reporter trust him to handle a matter like the Chris Gayle public harassment of Mel McLaughlin with a proper understanding of the issues involved?
How accurate was his coverage of the Test when his mind and eyes were otherwise engaged? This amounts to an issue of competency about his handling of his reporting tasks.
There is also the matter of exposing fellow reporters to hardcore pornography, a workplace issue.
It will be a test of the media organisation that employs the person in question.
The media has a reflective instinct to protect its own. This is the case even when the offence would warrant the sternest of words and calls of harsh treatment if perpetrated by someone outside of the (protected) world of journalism.
I am thinking here, specifically, about the case of Peter Roebuck, a case that has haunted my own sensibilities for many years.
I still miss Roebuck’s reporting on matters cricket in the Sydney Morning Herald and his enlightening, articulate radio commentaries on the ABC.
No one comes near Roebuck, in my view, as a writer and broadcaster on cricket in the last 50 years, probably more. He possessed vibrant opinions and articulated with a delightful turn of phrase. He was informed, fearless and a compelling read.
But did we excuse inexcusable behaviour on his part, which led undoubtedly to his bizarre and untimely death, because we were in love with Roebuck the writer and excused Roebuck the villain, the user and abuser of young men?
I stand guilty, I am sad to say.
If Roebuck had been a less brilliant writer and broadcaster on cricket, would we have been less forgiving of his obvious failings and the dark side of his dealings with the young men he abused but who he, undoubtedly, was trying to save?
These questions are particularly difficult for me to think about because right through Roebuck’s career at the SMH and even after his death, I have been essentially supportive of his cause.
And I will admit it, this support was for the wrong reasons.
He was a great journalist and, therefore, worth supporting. That was, essentially, the way I saw matters regarding him. I see now that this is self-serving.
This attitude (expressed by me and many thousands of his supporters, many of them in high places) allowed Roebuck to continue a dysfunctional lifestyle that compromised the interests of the young men who faced repeated beatings on bare buttocks, kisses on the mouth and other unwanted sexual advances because Roebuck’s generosity could save them from abject poverty. His victims were young, black, poor and at considerable disadvantage.
It wasn’t as if we didn’t know about Roebuck’s unseemly behaviour, either. In October 2001, he pleaded guilty in a Devon court to charges of common assault for caning three young cricketers he was coaching.
Roebuck was given a four-month suspended sentence.
Roebuck lost his jobs in England but not in Australia.
I remember being in a discussion at the SMH when Roebuck’s future with the paper was being considered. The human resources department wanted Roebuck sacked while others felt that Roebuck should be kept on. And so he was.
My voice was one of the many in support of Roebuck, unfortunately.
I am an old dog journalist but I think in recent years I have learnt some new tricks. And foremost of those tricks is that it is unacceptable anywhere, in public or in private, to use a position of power to demean anyone on grounds of their gender or sexuality.
Chris Gayle is finding this out right now. What was condoned in the past, the hitting on of women, in public and in private, is no longer condoned.
And I am pleased to note that the SMH has changed in these matters, too. In the case of Gayle, for instance, his column has been taken away from him. Good. This is something that was not done for Roebuck, although in retrospect it should have been.
This is the fate that surely awaits the porn-watching cricket reporter, too.
Murray
Guest
Any truth to the rumour the porn the journo was watching was filmed in Chris Gayles Jamaican penthouse?
799
Guest
What dark side ? Peter Roebuck died aged 56 without there being any "evidence" of his having a darker side. If you go to this website page: http://peterroebuck.com/cranbrook-memories, the daughter of one of Australia's greatest intellectuals (Douglas Horne) provides her own account of a 2 year heterosexual relationship with Peter and a photograph. On the same page, one of his fellow tutors at a boys only boarding school speaks glowingly of his character. The spanking stuff, which Spiro the Biro so unfortunately relies on, is from an article by Adam Shand, which has now been discredited, because the 'victims' he wrote about have now denied that they ever said anything like that and have gone on record to confirm that there never was any abuse. For those who have any experience of young African men, the idea that 20 odd of them all in their twenties and at University would have allowed any abuse is all a bit silly. The fact is that there is no "evidence" of abuse, merely 1 article on 01 January 2012, now discredited and for which no corroboration has ever emerged. Nest up is the 2001 case in the UK. For those interested in the facts, the original charges were ones of "indecent assault" and a conviction on those would have permitted adverse comment. However, after a 2 year worldwide investigation by Interpol, which produced no "evidence" of abuse and dozens of attestations that no such abuse ever ocurred, the prosecution then accepted pleas to "common assault", which would only permit the comment that the 3 young men (Note. not boys) had not given their full permission for the canings, but involve no admission of indecency. Peter dealt with all of this is his renowned 2004 autiobiography "Sometimes I Forgot To Laugh". That just leaves his death on 12 November 2011. The 26 year old who made the complaint then disappeared and according to a recent book seems to be a lot better off financially and has been travelling. Surprise, surprise, he is unlikely to be available to give "evidence" at the inquest when it is reopened in Cape Town and the police never followed up his complaint. Why not ? Nor have any of the dozens of young men Peter mentored gone on record to allege abuse and all refute it. And so, their is then only the 2011 police 'verdict' of suicide, which is no verdict at all, as that can only come at an Inquest. If it was really suicide, why did the police not let a judicial enquiry decide that and, more to the point, why did they go to such lengths to have an inquest held behind closed doors with no witnesses called and not tell Peter Roebuck's family of even their lawyers in Cape Town that it was to take place. All too easy to defame a dead man. Isn't he entitled to fair trial with evidence called and judicial verdict returned before one or two of you murder his reputation based on unproven anecdote and innuendo ?
Phil
Guest
Spiro, have you read the recent book by Tim Lane on Roebuck? My feeling was that a lot of the stuff you described is debunked there, especially the article by Alex Shand, which I think you're using as the basis for your comments. We might never know what Roebuck was really up to, but the fact is that a lot of his supposed 'victims' (who were in their twenties) don't have a bad word to say about him and Shand basically tricked/bribed them to get nasty comments that actually weren't true. It's worth a read!
Set an example
Guest
Time to set an example, name and shame the reporter plus some time in prison.
Joey Mornier
Guest
My God western society is becoming sexually repressed again. A new Victorianism seems to be emerging again. Never forget the Victorians started out as "progressives" too.
Campbell Watts
Guest
Seems like more of an apologist effort to bury the sordid details of Roebucks darker side to me...
Phillip
Guest
If I'm remembering right there were two groups of Beale-supporters: those who openly supported him and those who'd cursorily address the Tweets and then deflect attention to the ARU's handling of the issue and the red herring of whether Ewen McKenzie "knew" or not. I think Spiro was in that second group. I'd speculate that the intention there was to increase the pressure on the ARU and Ewen so he'd resign or be sacked, so the way would be open for the saviour Cheika to be appointed and Beale to be reinstated to the team. I don't know if that group's writings were orchestrated or just opportunistic, but I'd argue it was a ruthlessly effective campaign either way.
Al
Guest
Or sing songs and turn their backs on their team in the 80th minute?
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
It is public knowledge. Has been since his death.
Tana Mir
Roar Rookie
I'm with you on that. He completely over reacted.
799
Guest
Look at www.peterroebuck.com to see the truth.
Jarijari
Guest
Thought it was Lordy sticking up for Beale.
Jarijari
Guest
I can't remember when Rolf Harris was a kid.
Jarijari
Guest
Who's Peter Roebuck?
Phillip
Guest
I find this piece of Spiro's quite disingenuous, given his and other Waratah-loving journos' Kurtley Beale defences in the aftermath of the Di Patston debacle. The message I got from that incident is that certain sections of the Aussie media will excuse lewd, inappropriate or sexist behaviour and revictimise the victim as long as the perpetrator is someone on the team they support. So I wonder, does this "Damascus" experience of Spiro's extend beyond this porn-watching incident, or will he be singing from a different hymn-sheet the next time Beale or another Waratah/Wallaby puts his foot in it?
BrainsTrust
Guest
I always thought Roebuck was full of hyperbole, and found him irrtitating. Maybe he should have written novels but certainly he was over the top in describing events. Its a mystery to me how people like Roebuck and paedophile priests think. I don't really understand dedicaing ones life to so called good deeds and moralising, and then combining that with sexual abuse. You would think that Roebuck could have found black male hookers in South Africa, so why did he go to such elaborate lengths. THough he was not after black men in particular its just like the AFL, because of the wealth of the whites in South Africa . The story as to what happened in England was that his three scholarship holders went out at night, and got a whipping as a result. One of the guys who got whipped then said Roebuck asked to see his bare buttocks, and was very insistant and had the excuse he wanted to see what effect the whipping had on them. Then in SOuth Africa he went the whole hog. I liked Rolf Harris as a kid though.
Ronan O'Connell
Expert
"But if it isn’t illegal, and he is not to be charged, then it’s just rabid and undeserved naming and shaming." Of course. It will be interesting to see if the person is charged, or if indeed there is even grounds for a charge.
matthew_gently
Guest
An incendiary article. Pity I couldn't get around to commenting sooner. I read the MCG article on the Guardian the other day and was appalled at that behaviour in a workplace; if I did that I'd be sacked on the spot, and expect the same rule to apply in any reasonable workplace. In regard to Roebuck, I read a CricInfo review a couple of weeks back (http://www.espncricinfo.com/magazine/content/story/952965.html) that basically gave the impression of no evidence ever found. Perhaps I actually need to read the book. Say what you will about his personal life--I never knew him so it's of no consequence to me--I truly admired Roebuck's commentary and writings, and that opinion won't ever change.
Julian King
Roar Guru
"To begin with, how can the public or the organisation employing the reporter trust him to handle a matter like the Chris Gayle public harassment of Mel McLaughlin with a proper understanding of the issues involved?" Do we know what the reporter's view on the Gayle incident was? Does watching pornography preclude one from understanding the issues involved? I would say not necessarily. I am in no way excusing this reporter's actions as they were highly inappropriate. Having said that, we cannot presume they are therefore incapable on reporting reasonably on such matters.
JGK
Roar Guru
You can't really say that though AD - perhaps they asked Roebuck to explain himself before they fought for his position but more likely they formed a view based on a decade of working with him.