|
Mylan
January 26, 2011
Sacking of Andy Gray
I write, as an overcharged Sky and Sky Sports subscriber, to complain about the sacking of Mr. Andy Gray. I feel that, as Mr. Gray is one of the most respected, revered and renowned experts in his field worldwide, that this has been to the detriment of your coverage of football and entirely unreflective of your viewing audience's feelings on the matter.
To suggest that Mr. Gray is a sexist simply because of joke that was made is outrageous. To sack him as a result of one that was made supposedly in the confines of his private surroundings and trusted friends is to condone a gross intrusion of your employees' privacy. It is to suggest that it is acceptable to spy on members of the public and make scapegoats of them for privately sharing humorous sentiments. I defy you to find anyone who has never made a politically incorrect comment in perceived privacy.
However, what is most disturbing about this is the fact that the lineswoman, an innocent in all of this, has unfairly been made a victim of something which need not be a crime and which she has not complained about. More than the comments themselves, this has reopened the issues pertaining to the role of the female in society and, most pertinently in this case, in sport. Women have, in the past one hundred years, made unprecedented leaps in representation and rights in both society as a whole and football, a sport in which the primacy of the male remains widely accepted by members of both genders. To create a controversy around the matter, is to make light of these achievements. It is to recast the female as the victim who needs the protection of yourselves, in all your do-gooding, interfering and self-righteous misanthropy. It is to weaken the woman sportsperson and cast them as a slight figure unable to cope with light-hearted jest. Even though she never made a fuss. This offends me.
There appears to be no conclusive evidence which suggests that the comments made were done so in earnestness. There is nothing which indicates, in almost twenty years of loyal service, that Mr. Gray has been unduly influenced by such beliefs or that they have tainted his ability to cover the sport he so frequently embellishes. Everything I have seen appears to point to this being a simple joke, one which the lines woman might have been able to easily laugh off, dismiss or respond to in her actions had it not been for your interference. A joke, by nature, must play on an issue which is contentious or politically incorrect in order to be funny. Not that I expect the cold heart of public relations to know anything about humour; it is an emotion rather than a fact so it cannot be quantified - not everything in life can. How many women would, I dare say in your own broadcasting arena, get away with making a similar throw away comment about a male? Would a woman berating a male nail therapist for being clumsy or heavy handed be treated with the same undue severity? I think not. Of course the presence of the lines woman was going to rouse interest; it is a rare event. Are you suggesting that the very mention of it, as a matter of difference, is a punishable offence?
What is more, even if the comment was based upon a serious, heart-felt belief of Mr. Gray that women do not have a place in football, surely this is his right of opinion? Surely, it is the paying viewer's right to see honesty and integrity from their presenters. Surely, it is acceptable to debate the role of women in football and oppose it, providing that this is not done in a way which is detrimental to fairness. Surely, to forbid your employees from airing such views is to censor them and force upon them a rigid criteria of what can and cannot be aired, thus threatening to brainwash audiences into thinking that there are no alternative perspectives.
What is most sickening is that no opportunity was given to Mr. Gray to explain his comments and their context. If these things were not taken into consideration in this society as a whole, justice would never be served. Thankfully, we have a system which is gradual, fair towards and reflective of all involved parties; we no longer hang people without given them the opportunity to a trial. Yet, this is what you have done in the case of Mr. Gray. There has been no public consultation. Would you say that this is a private matter, based upon the discretion of Sky? As Sky is funded by us, the viewing public, I would suggest that this would be a typically haughty response.
|
