It was an extraordinary week for women in Australian politics.
On the one hand, Julia Gillard became Australia’s first female Prime Minister – albeit in an acting capacity while Kevin Rudd was at the Bali Climate conference. But as she told the Sydney Morning Herald "I think if there's one girl who looks at the TV screen over the the next few days and says 'I might like to do that in the future', well that's a good thing."
On the other hand, newly elected Labor MP, Maxine McKew - the woman who ousted former Prime Minister John Howard from his seat - was publicly humiliated by the Canberra Times’ decision to publish a revealing front-page photo of her which evoked Sharon Stones’ performance in Basic Instinct.
The photo opportunity was the official Australian Electoral Commission declaration of McKew’s victory in Bennelong. There she sat – elegant in a fawn suit with an enormous grin on her face, giving the appearance of mocking the man she defeated as she locked eyes on the disgruntled looking Howard whose body language highlighted his humiliation. The images seemed to sum-up the election aftermath. But one photo taken from a questionable angle stole the show. Taken front-on, apparently at the height of the seated McKew’s skirt (i.e. from perve’s eye view), the photograph appeared at first glance to suggest McKew was fond of going both ‘Brazilian’ and ‘commando’.
Most of the national print media ran an alternative tasteful, evocative photo taken by the same photographer while The Age ran the offending shot but cropped it above skirt-level. The Canberra Times, however, chose instead to run the sexist, demeaning shot, uncropped in a full frontal assault on its readership. What was the Editor, Mark Baker, thinking? Was it the day of the CT Christmas party? Did he join the darkroom boys in a few filthy jokes and agree to indulge in a ‘Chaser-style prank’? The joke was on him. Talk-back sessions on Canberra ABC station, Triple 6, were flooded by callers complaining about the photograph and the newspaper was inundated by Letters to the Editor – 11 of which were published yesterday under the headline “An Unflattering View of a Historical Political Moment”. Highlights included “Sharon Stone eat your heart out”, threats and promises from angry readers and advertisers to boycott the paper and this: “It looks like Maxine McKew was after the Brazilian vote." Another reader set Mark Baker a fair challenge: “Perhaps the editor could write us a learned piece on the difference between a perve using a concealed camera to film up the dress of a woman on public transport and a newspaper photographer using an unconcealed camera to try to do the same in a public place?"
While it could be reasonably argued that the photographer should have used greater discretion, the real problem is the editorial decision to run that photograph on the front page. It cannot have been unconsciously done but that’s exactly the defensive line being taken by Baker. He told AAP he maintained it was a "tremendous picture". He says it never occurred to him that readers might find it offensive. "There's nothing immodest or undignified about it”, he said. Er, nothing undignified about publishing a large colour shot looking up the skirt of a woman – the sort of photo that, if taken on a mobile phone in the CT newsroom of a female reporter, would likely result in charges of sexual harassment? Get with the program, Mark! In a memo he later sent to CT staff, he wrote: "It was not obscene. It was not voyeuristic. Those suggesting the picture shows more have vivid imaginations." Oh, so readers with filthy little minds are the problem? No, Mark, your lack of tact, discretion and respect for women is the problem.
What makes Baker’s decision to run the photo even more offensive is the fact that, redolent of misogyny, it undermined what should have been a story about female power – of a woman punching through the glass ceiling and claiming the most prized political scalp in the country. Instead, the focus shifted to the sexual exploitation of women and, once again, to the dress code of women in politics.
Until the media figures out how treat men and women in power equally, female politicians will continue to suffer the indignity of the treatment meted out to Maxine McKew – even on a day when a woman is in charge of the country.
UPDATE: J-scribe has learned a female sub-editor at the Canberra Times complained about the photo before it went to print saying she found it "offensive and wrong" but her objections were over-ruled. What would she know? She was obviously just an overly sensitive, hairy-legged feminist!(Seethe)
Below: The front page of the Canberra Times displaying the offending photo
15 December, 2007
Sex, Photos and Politics
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
21 comments:
While the photo was unflattering in that it captured a facial expression that seemed to be mocking and ungracious, and quite out of character for Maxine (more a Mark Lathem moment), I didn't notice the skirt or legs until after reading all the blogs.
Even though the photographer may have been angling for titilation, the photo, which only shows a bit more leg than usual, does not in fact show anything Sharon Stonesque. Those who suggest that you can see that she has had a wax job are really pulling themselves -literally.
Even as a male I can't convince myself otherwise.
Er, are you suggesting I'm "pulling myself"? For mine, I can't fathom why some blokes don't 'get it'. Would you look up the skirt of a female colleague in the office and think that was OK? Snap a shot with your mobile and put the photo on the internet? Email it to your office buddies? That would = sexual harrassment. How is this different? It is different because it is worse - abusing the media's powerful societal position to objectify women. End rant.
ps if someone suggests her attire was the problem (i.e. she was "asking for it") I will not be held responsible for my actions. :o)
I have made no defence of the photographer (whome I suggested was aiming for a sleazy titilation factor) been nor the editor, so i dont know why you are suggesting that I would condone those other perv acts you describe, but it seems to me that an unholy alliance between those who wish to be shocked and those who wish to be titilated has led to so much talk about something that just isn't there.
The real injustice, to my mind, before I realized that what you were on about, was that she was portrayed in this photo as crowing over Howards defeat when her words and actions since her victory have in fact been so gracious.
What nonsense. If Maxine was so politically smart why did she wear something like that in the first place? By wearing a non business-like suit she objectifies herself - she was not "asking for it" - she was just plain silly - or on the other hand was it done deliberately to keep herself in the news?
"ps if someone suggests her attire was the problem I will not be held responsible for my actions. :o"
I will bite. Why shouldn't Maxine Mckew be responsible for her attire? Despite your assertion that the photo has voyeristic intent, it is quite clear from looking at the perspective of McKew, Howard, and the people sitting and standing behind them, that the photo is actually taken from approximately McKew's head height, the height that you would expect a photo to be taken at.
Whilst you claim the media has sexualised the issue, there is no doubt that McKew has chosen to sexualise herself with her choice of clothing. Why should she not be responsible for this? I don't see John Howrd trying to sexualise himself. (and if he was sitting there next to Maxine in a pair of shorts that revealed a hint of testicle do you really think the media would ignore it?) Female dress standards are (for better and worse)more flexible than male dress standards but the effort of people like Julia Gillard and her modest pantsuits should be applauded for giving government the respect it deserves.
Whilst women politicians do at times receive unfair scrutiny that male politicains would never be subjected to(eg. Gillard's hair), you weaken the general argument when you try to contort the Maxine McKew story into an issue of sexual equality, which it is clearly not.
Well .... what a minefield the world is these days. I thought the picture very revealing - not in the 'Basic Instinct' manner, but in the quite nasty expression on Maxine's face. While the fem-warriors were 'cock-a-hoop' over the skittling of yet another 'evil male', there are others who feel her 'savage glee' unplaced and demeaning to her and all women. After all, while many hated Howard (full stop!), others are able to concede his enormous contribution to this country. Her nastiness was uncalled-for and showed a lack of respect for this distinguished Australian, John Howard: 11.5 years Prime Minister, ruling over a period of unprecedented economic prosperity growth and security. A proud achievement. He deserved better than Maxine's disdain.
Maxine,
A victor with grace, relating to the people and not resorting to the gutter tactics of some of the desperate Libs.
Shame on you Canberra Times a once respected journal seems to be heading for that self same gutter.
Phil
As I said on Crikey! in response to a comment indicating Maxine had "sexualised herself" by choosing to dress as she did- "Er, Maxine "sexualised herself" did she, David? Do you also believe some women "ask for it"? What's your position on "uncovered meat"? I'm actually surprised at how much the responses I've received on this issue are divided along gender lines."
I really thought Feminism had achieved more than that. Sadly I've been naive.
How anyone can read distain or anything else in beyond me as McKew has her face sideways to the camera looking at Howard. Her later comments about Howard's contribution to Australian political life were gracious to an extreme that I certainly would not have used.
Putting this picture on the front page of the Canberra Times was a deliberate attempt to titillate readers and embarrass Maxine McKew. What was worse was the editor's disingenuous and ludicrous attempt to deny it.
It shouldn't go without notice the Canberra Times is owned by Kerry Stokes and anyone watching Channel 7's public affairs coverage would easily recognise where his political sympathies lie. He is simply a paid up member of the Liberal Party.
A well argued piece by Julie Posetti on gender politics as well.
Peter from Brisbane
It's all in the timing: if the snapper was using a motordrive you can be sure the images on either side of the horror in question would have shown (a) Maxine's expression being quite different - she was talking animatedly, not being "nasty"; and (b) the unfortunate and inadvertent flash of underwear would not be visible as she is clearly moving.
What comes out of this is the editorial choice - to use that particular image rather than another that would have been more flattering to her.
She has done nothing during the campaign or subsequently to suggest she is ever sexually provocative (whatever that means) nor ungracious, cruel or gloating towards the former member for Bennelong.
Get a grip guys - or, perhaps that should be - let it go, you'll go blind.
On behalf of a j-scribe reader who wishes to remain anonymous:
"Hi Julie so outraged by Maxine's photo being published I can barely type...women (political figures) are often described in the press in terms of their shoes...Hilary's pant suits have featured in the last four articles Ive read on her campaign my five year old daughter just doesn't get it and asks why they don't put photos of mens shoes in the paper?
keep up the good work!"
Julie, THis has nothing to do with "uncovered meat", or "asking for it" where a woman's dress is used to excuse abhorent behaviour. This is a photo of a woman who chose to wear a short dress. There is no doubt the photo makes an interesting study in media issues. As an issue of sexual equality, it is a non-event. Trying to link it (and my argment)to other serious issues works against femminism and equality. If you would like to have a go at arguing any of the points I actually raised, I would appreciate it.
It's easy to take an unflattering photo at any angle. The difficulty is usually getting them published in reputable newspapers.
One has to question the motives of both the photographer and the editor.
Ms McKew was no doubt uncrossing her legs or in the process of getting up off the chair. Either movement can cause a hemline to move.
A professional photographer wouldn't normally be aiming for such a shot (and I can see no other reason for awkward angle of the shot) let alone submit such poor work for publication. I question whether the editor would have accepted such inferior work if it were of the Queen?
People have a right to be disappointed as we've come to expect higher professional standards from the Canberra Times.
From BrianD
This publication was really a very smutty effort to debase a wonderful and important moment in Oz history. An intelligent and enthusiastic woman has challenged a man who never in 33 years uttered a memorable phrase or did a single thing in his political life that was not an appeal to fear,racism, or the instant gratification of the hip pocket.
Why,I wonder,is this editor not subject to the same "upskirting" sanctions that apply to other citizens who publish similar imagery via mobile phone or internet?
The editor of The Age published this photo (decently cropped) across a whole page and I have it on my wall next to a framed photo of Keating speaking at Redfern, as a reminder of how good Labor can be when the "true believers" come to play.
I am sending Bob Hogg a horsewhip...and will be happy to assist him on it's appropriate use should he so desire..Yours Faithfully Brian Derum
----- Original Message -----
From: Edward James
Sent: Friday, December 14, 2007 12:21 AM
Subject: Is this front page up skirting by the Canberra times different to a teacher with a camera in a shopping bag?
Thursday December the 13 Canberrra times front page. http://www.news.com.au/dailytelegraph/images/mckew.pdf
I have just seen the photo. and I understand crikey.com identified this as a Sharon Stone moment. Is this the same media which frowns on camaras in shoping bags, trying to legitimise voyeristic corporate upskirting? Just wondering where the medeia wish to draw the line?
Edward James Umina CBD 0243419140
http://sydney.indymedia.org.au/story/federal-liberal-coalition-resorts-offensive-pork-barrelling-retain-robertson
Julie, I did like this piece, and I came to repent my snarkiness at Crikey. After all, Crikey may have republished the photo - twice - but you did not.
Now. I cannot believe some of the comments from men here who claim McKew was "sexualising herself", or somehow responsible for the photo as it was taken, because she had the gall - not to mention the legs - to wear a skirt above the knee. I would find this easier to take if I wasn't convinced that these very same men, or at least some of them, are the ones criticising Gillard/Clinton/Thatcher/insert female politician here for living in pantsuits. This is, as Julie points out, precisely the kind of thinking that is displayed, albeit somewhat more graphically, in the "uncovered meat" comments which were met with such deserved outrage.
Posted on behalf of a 20-something male journo who wishes to remain anonymous:
"My two bob in - as a young male, I can easily recognise when someone has a dirty mind. The CT editor is one of them. ...It's frankly embarrassing to see editorial decisions like that being made. In a time where women are gaining more control in the newsroom, there needs to be a level of respect that news organisations have to abide by. XY reporter for the CT, echoed your sentiments...My news editor XY was spitting chips as well.
Good stuff, keep it up
It was an unnecessary photo which trivialised Maxine McKew and her achievement. She was wearing a short dress, big deal, she has legs, again big deal. Where's the news in that?
I guess with this low standard set by the CT, we can now look forward to bra straps showing, nipple slips, etc.
I wonder if they had a photo of a male politician scratching himself, it would run on the front page?
I have read the Canberra Times almost since I could read (well you get the idea), it used to be a newspaper worthy of its claim, these days it is a very poor shadow of anything at all. The complete moron editor who thought the photo was a good idea demonstrates just how pathetic the paper has become. I cancelled any subscription to it long ago, now I don't even bother to read it.
Post a Comment