Vulgarities and the media

[hockeyfan1]

Vulgar, stupid, idiotic:

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/05/11/citynews-shauna-hunt-confronts-men-hurling-vulgarities-at-her-while-reporting/

 

[WhatIfGodWasALeaf]

Vulgar, stupid, idiotic:

http://www.citynews.ca/2015/05/11/citynews-shauna-hunt-confronts-men-hurling-vulgarities-at-her-while-reporting/

I'm as rude and crass as any other Scotsman, but this trend really bothers me. If someone walked up and said that in front of one of their mothers, I'd like to see how they would react.

The irony of it all is that each and every one of the people who do this are surely incapable of the act itself, losers.

 

[GhostofPotvin29]

Terrible, but not the right thread for it.

 

[Rick C.]

TMLfans.ca's Pamela Yap took a look at this - she's a member of the media and sees this on occasion.  http://www.tmlfans.ca/10910assault-on-city-news-reporter-all-too-common-in-professional-sports/

 

[bustaheims]

I honestly don't understand why people find this funny - especially to the point that the douchebags in this instance try to defend it to be. It's just a whole lot of dumb. It's really not defensible on any level.

 

[Kin]

The words don't offend me but this particular subsection of idiot, the ones who see a camera and want to do something stupid in front of it just for the sake of broadcasting what morons they are...that's beyond me.

 

[louisstamos]

I have to admit it (and I'm definitely not proud of this) - but I thought FHRITP was funny when it first started happening.  I really didn't think of it as anything sexist at the time - I thought it was basically just trying to cram as many swearwords into a sentence and seeing how reporters react to it (similar to how people would go "BABABOEY!" for Howard Stern in similar situations).  Eventually, though, it became stale to me.

But like busta, the fact that these guys dig their heels in the sand and try to defend themselves when it clearly offended Shauna is the part that bothers me the most.  When she says "it's disgusting, it's offensive to women" and they're like "no, no, it's funny - you just don't get it," - they're trying to control how she is supposed to react to it, and how it affects her.  I would have have at least a smidgen of respect if one of them said "look, I'm sorry - I did it to be funny, I didn't mean to offend you, but since I have - I'm really sorry."  But no - they were all "my mother thinks I'm hilarious."

If it's reassuring, though, the gentlemen with the aviators deleted his Facebook and Linkedin page today - I'd say there's a good chance his employers saw the video...

 

[crazyperfectdevil]

I guess i'm not one much affected by the content of their speech.  It's definitely an immature thing to do.  But the way this has been tied specifically degrading to women?  Like I guess I feel like this would be equally stupid to any situation where someone runs up while someone is on camera and yells something out.  Let's say for example that (completely random off the top of my head) "i love staplers!" became a thing to yell out on camera would people in the media be any happier about that?  somehow I doubt it. 

I am willing to accept that my perspective on this issue may be limited as i am male.  But it just seems to me that it's not the syntax that's really the issue here it's the concerted effort to interrupt someone that's doing a job.

 

[herman]

http://globalnews.ca/news/1993793/mlse-willing-to-ban-anyone-yelling-fhritp-near-facilities/
One of them has been fired from his fairly cushy job.

crazyperfectdevil, I can see why you might be suspicious of the motives behind this backlash over an inane (and vulgar) joke taken too far; and you're absolutely right in that the syntax has nothing to do with the situation. In this case the backlash is well deserved; the spirit of the words used are those of non-consensual sexual domination, and bandied about as if it were both normal and amusing. It clearly is hurting people and there is no justifying that sort of behaviour in this (or any) context.

Your perspective doesn't have to be limited just because of your sex: just imagine this phrase being tossed at your loved ones.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

 

[bustaheims]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

I don't know. I suppose that depends on whether or not you see this as as a form of sexual assault or not - which some people do. If it is, then it's a violation of the criminal code, and, therefore, being fired would be a perfectly acceptable response from their employer. If not . . . well, then it's probably not proportionate, but, at the same time, he did work for a government owned corporation - who sort of have to hold employees to a higher standard in these situations (more for their own good than anything else, obviously) - and proportionate responses in these situations don't really have the impact needed for people to really take things seriously. Obviously, there are always going to be people that take these kinds of actions, but with enough publicly reported serious consequences will make enough people think twice about it to make these incidents much more isolated.

 

[Kin]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

A corporation, government owned or other wise, doesn't fire people because they feel it's "proportionate". They fire people because they think it's overall in their best interest.

 

[AvroArrow]

This is just another example of why I hate people (I have too many to list).

 

[pnjunction]

Assault seems like a strong word for repeating a silly phrase.

The humour I found in the trend was that it exposes the lameness of media that just goes into the street and shoves a camera/mic in random's people's faces.  I mean who really cares what those random people think?  And if you're going to take a random and put them on national TV, isn't losing some control over 'quality' and propriety part of that bargain for basically free content?  (This is why the good ones are dropped during an interview, just shouting it from the background is lame and isn't the point.)

If the problem is 'but the damsels are in distress' then it can be changed to 'F him right in the A' or whatever. What might be even more clever is to tone down the vulgarity but keep the silliness and spirit of basically sabotaging media's increasing attempts to make random street folk replace quality content.

 

[Captain Canuck]

This is just a reflection of current society in general.

 

[Kin]

If the problem is 'but the damsels are in distress' then it can be changed to 'F him right in the A' or whatever. What might be even more clever is to tone down the vulgarity but keep the silliness and spirit of basically sabotaging media's increasing attempts to make random street folk replace quality content.

The problem isn't "the damsels are in distress" the problem is that whatever "lameness" in the way huge media companies try to bring in viewers you think this exposes isn't the fault of someone conducting the person in the street interviews and they don't deserve to have drunken idiots yelling in their faces. Just like you having a problem with, say, McDonald's corporate policy on rainforest destruction doesn't mean you should swear at the innocent guy taking your burger order.

 

[bustaheims]

Assault seems like a strong word for repeating a silly phrase.

The problem is that this is more than just repeating a silly phrase. You can't ignore what that phrase is, and it is a very sexually aggressive statement. If this was just a stupid, silly phrase, no one would be talking about it. No one seems to have too much of a problem with the whole "bababooey" thing, because that is just a nonsense word that actually exposes the stupidity of the media sticking cameras in random people's faces. This, however, carries a lot more to it and is a symptom of a much larger issue dealing with the way an unfortunately large portion of the population look at and treat women. Even if these guys aren't part of that group, it really doesn't matter. Sitting idly by and doing nothing of significance gives strength to those who do. I mean, look at the way these guys tried to justify their actions - it was that they didn't start it and that it could have been worse. That's a completely unacceptable attitude and needs to be dealt with.

As for the whole 'damsel in distress' thing . . . that's pretty transparent victim blaming and that's something that also needs to be stopped.

 

[herman]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

If his actions violate his company's code of conduct policies, it is well within their right. Similar to the people Curt Schilling outed for Twitter-bullying his daughter.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

A corporation, government owned or other wise, doesn't fire people because they feel it's "proportionate". They fire people because they think it's overall in their best interest.

I don't want to sound like I'm defending his actions, because I think the guy seems like an asshole.

I'm just wondering if he is being given a handsome severance package because being an asshole doesn't seem like grounds for dismissal. If he was performing his job well and he hasn't been in any trouble before, I think it'd be pretty easy for a lawyer to make a case for wrongful dismissal. On the other hand he may have a track record of this sort behaviour.

 

[Deebo]

I don't think him getting fired is a proportionate response.

If his actions violate his company's code of conduct policies, it is well within their right. Similar to the people Curt Schilling outed for Twitter-bullying his daughter.

That's what their statement said it did. I wonder if anyone else who has done this has lost their job over it. Hopefully it makes people stop doing it.