On Tue, Oct 6, 2009 at 4:49 PM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > If an employee at Worldwide Pants felt offended or slighted because in > their opinion a co-worker was given a workplace advantage because of a > sexual relationship, that employee would either have to show evidence > that such a quid pro quo occurred, or at the very least have formally > complained about it to the appropriate party. All I am saying is that > the mere existence of a sexual relationship between a supervisor and a > subordinate, in the absence of either a history of complaints or > evidence of sexual extortion, does not constitute sexual harassment or > a hostile workplace.
I worked in television, worked on late night talk shows, stupidly turned down a job working for Worldwide Pants, and equally stupidly turned down a job working for Late Night with Conan. So I think I'm on solid footing when I say what I'm about to say: Any employee, male or female, who complains about a hostile workplace in television will very shortly no longer be working in television. With the possible exception of Mr. Rogers' Neighborhood, all television studios are hostile workplaces, with more cruel and offensive behavior than you can shake a stick at. There is sex, there is drugs, there is violence, and there is the constant pressure to perform, or, if you can't perform, figure out something else you can do to keep your job. I imagine a woman trying to cut it in the business feeling even more pressure. I saw a lot of things in my brief stint in the business, but never once did I see a rat. It just wasn't an option. I appreciate that there might need to be certain things such as prior notification to exist for a lawsuit to proceed, but in that industry it simply isn't a reasonable expectation. I know there is pressure in other industries, and I'll go so far as to admit other jobs have a greater amount of pressure. But those working in it are unable to perceive anything as important as the entertainment industry. Ultimately, I believe that is the main reason "Studio 60" failed as a television series. Because Sorkin couldn't convey the amount of perceived pressure felt by producers of a live television show to industry outsiders. No documentary has ever accurately captured life behind the scenes, because it would be too shocking. I cannot conceive of any Worldwide Pants employee complaining in such a manner. It just isn't in the character of anyone who would take a job in television. As soon as one enters into the business, one quickly sees the landscape for what it is, then must decide if that is the life one wants to lead. Leading that life means accepting a different standard of right and wrong -- appropriate and inappropriate. Leading that life means shutting the hell up and doing your job. As I said when news of this broke on Thursday, my chief criticism of Letterman was that, by doing what he did, he confessed to being (for television) ordinary. He is on par with the overwhelming majority of people who work in the industry. It isn't a question of blame. What you or I may perceive as good and bad doesn't enter into it. What a court of law may perceive as hostile doesn't enter into it. For lack of a better summary, that's show business. -- Kevin M. (who doesn't see this as a violation of my oath of only non-negative messages, because this message is neither negative nor positive... it is as realistic a picture as I can paint with my words) --~--~---------~--~----~------------~-------~--~----~ TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en -~----------~----~----~----~------~----~------~--~---
