Affair of Channel Seven's CEO exposes mixed societal mores

The matter of the mores applying to media coverage of the private lives of high profile individuals in any case seems to be settled in the world of the Australian media.  The reality is that, in the absence of over-riding legislation, our media, given a choice between protecting privacy or running a good salacious story, will almost always (defamation laws permitting) opt for the latter.

In the case of the Worner affair, it is hard to avoid the impression that sections of the media (Fairfax being the most obvious) relished being able to expose the embarrassing secrets of a competitor news organisation, publicising the juicy details and printing copious photographs of key players.  Fairfax’s Private Sydney column went as far as labelling the affair as "shameful".

According to the SMH, "inexplicably the News Corp press had been sitting on the Worner story, and only published the details when the Herald began making enquiries... the same day it is understood Katrina Worner also learned of the affair".  The story (in keeping with the media tradition of portraying betrayed spouses as veritable saints) also quoted an attestation that "Worner's wife, the mother of their school-age children", was"the sweetest, loveliest, kindest woman you could ever hope to meet".  The Australian added that "Katrina Worner nursed her husband through non-Hodgkin’s lymphoma when the then up-and-coming programmer was in his mid-30s". 

The Murdoch media were generally more sympathetic to Tim Worner's plight and to the action's of Seven in trying to minimise the scandal.  The Australian noted Seven's hope that "scorned-mistress Harrison will be discredited after emerging as a corporate felon guilty of cheating on her company credit card".  (There was controversy about Ms Harrison's credit card expenditure of about $400,000 over three years.  Seven rejected suggestions that its investigation was a “vindictive reaction” to the relationship.)

The Murdoch press also felt compelled to mention that Worner was "a father of four and a regular churchgoer", while the Daily Mail (not to be outdone) made a point of publishing many of the lewd text messages said to have been sent by Worner to Harrison during their affair.

Apart from the issue of privacy, there is the more complicated issue of sexual morality in the modern age. 

At one level, society generally accepts that what consenting adults do in private is largely their own business.  Issues arise only when one or both of those involved are married to another party, or where harassment or abuse of power are involved.  In affairs involving a married man, the "other woman" (in addition to the husband) is considered "at fault" because married men are supposed to be "off limits".  

There are a number of stereotypes that the public and the media commonly apply to illicit affairs. 

It is not uncommon for the man to be blamed for "not keeping it in his pants", and powerful men seem to be more frequently linked to marital infidelity.  Biologically, human males are more strongly programmed to seek out sexual opportunities than is the case for females, and powerful men seem to be much more prone to having extra-marital affairs than powerful women.  Equally, women seem to be unduly attracted to powerful men but men do not seem to be unduly attracted to powerful women.

Ms Harrison herself raised the issues of abuse of power and sexual harassment.  She said in her media statement that "I never felt this was a sexual harassment case. It was about abuse of power and also workplace safety.  At the time of negotiating the first deed, ...(a senior female executive at Seven)had me in a hotel room....while I was on medical leave for acute depression and extremely distressed, trying to force me to sign a contract".  On the face of these and other statements (including Harrison's admission that at the outset both were flirting), one can only conclude that the affair was consensual, and that any alleged harassment was not sexual in nature, and seemingly involved persons other than Worner.

On the matter of harassment, this affair was quite different to the  David Jones sexual harassment case.   That case involved the then CEO of David Jones, Mark McInnes, and claims by a 25-year-old junior publicist of persistent unwelcome advances.  While both cases led to claims for money, the alleged victim in the David Jones case was much younger and the difference in status was much greater, so that the question of abuse of power was more of an issue.

In the Worner case, other matters, that come into play are the stereotypical issues of a "woman scorned", "kiss and tell", and the career implications of "screwing the boss".