March 03, 2004


The Australianís Strewth column has the latest on the SMH Summers sex scandal:

Old editors came popping out of the woodwork yesterday after Strewth wondered just whom leading feminist Anne Summers was hinting at in her Sydney Morning Herald article about a now "rich and famous" ex-editor who 20 years ago sexually harassed a female staffer. We were first taken to task by a very jovial Paddy McGuinness for "forgetting the Financial Review" - a journal he edited at the crucial time. And at News Ltd we missed Peter Wylie and Roy Miller. Widening the scope also added the former editor of The Bulletin, Trevor Kennedy. But perhaps of more interest was the change between editions of Summers's article. We quoted the original - but, by the final edition, the time scale changed to a vague "many years ago" and the harasser was no longer "a rich, powerful and famous man" but simply "a man of some influence". Strewth is still waiting for Summers to clear the innocent.

I wonder what the woman who made the accusation twenty years ago thinks about Summers going public with this. Is the woman being exploited? Was permission sought?

Posted by Tim Blair at March 3, 2004 10:46 AM

Strewth! Summers hasn't named anybody so who is the innocent that has to be cleared? Sigh! Surely issues raised about the culture that used to exist in those days in the media, and everywhere for that matter, is more important than the names of those involved. Why can't these issues be addressed without it turning into a gossip fest? It is rather cheeky of Mr Blair to ask whether the women has been exploited because it lessens the weight of the original accusation by implying Summers's action is on a par with the alleged behaviour of the alleged perpetrator (both exploitative that is).

Posted by: Darlene at March 3, 2004 at 11:18 AM

Why can't these issues be addressed without it turning into a gossip fest?

Ummm... because of Ms. Summers. Who both failed to address the issue then and is turning it into gossip now.

Posted by: Sortelli at March 3, 2004 at 11:27 AM

Dummies, it's a sex scandal. One of the suspects is named "Kennedy."

Case closed.

Posted by: Joe Geoghegan at March 3, 2004 at 11:31 AM

If the woman is being exploited - will her and her husband go to another woman again to ask what they should do...?

Posted by: Paul Dub at March 3, 2004 at 12:01 PM

Very good questions : can an x purely the phantom of a heated leftoid imagination be exploited? Assuming it could be , it would not by a RWDB, the prospect is just too revolting to contemplate. But a RWDB would clear a Summers' confusion, to assume imagined x exists, even if there by chance is such an x promises a trip to the loony bin.

No? Well try it out :
Me Lord, I'm here to reperesnt Summer's fantasy who claims to have been harrassed....
Judge: What! Mr. you can drop Q.C. and out of my court.

So far, Summers is doing well, her fanatasy friend has just cost a defednant a lot of money for no bloody good reason. Only one good thing to emerge, it did lead to the disbarring of an incompetent.

Permission sought; you can receive any sort of permission you'd care for from a delusion.

The men in white coats, Summers, are cranking up their loony bin car.

Posted by: d at March 3, 2004 at 05:29 PM