Kathleen Kelley Reardon

In 2011, I published a Huffington Post blog about “some people say” journalism. That was long before the last U.S. presidential election, long before we knew about the extent of Russian meddling.  Yet, the ideas in that blog bear repeating.

In a sense, our acceptance of “some people say,” “some people think,” “it’s been said,” “many are asking,” and other empty phrases indicative of lazy journalism left us open to being manipulated. If we don’t question the sources of the information we receive and merely accept that our favorite sources are telling us the truth, we risk making faulty decisions and casting votes based on biased views in the guise of substantive ones.

We’re still letting the television news we watch use phrases like “some people say” as if the impact of such facile phrasing is negligible. It isn’t. “Some people” could be a journalist’s relatives or a couple of people met on the street.

On televised news today, expect to hear sentences beginning with “some people say” or “many people think” as a means of positioning a question for an interview or providing support for an opinion being advanced.  Without even realizing it, journalists who take this approach are weakening evidentiary standards — teaching young people that they can support their ideas simply by alluding to unidentified people.

It could be argued that this practice is to be expected.  After all, aren’t we supposed to assume that we’re being led by our noses by the owners of media giants, that journalism is no longer the honorable profession it was, and this is just more evidence of how far it has fallen? Isn’t it our responsibility as viewers to sift through the hype and huckstering to find shreds of objectivity?

Certainly, we are responsible for carefully considering the sources of what we read and view.  And yet, from decades of persuasion research, we know that people often process information without engaging in wariness or counterargument. We may be busy or distracted.  At least naming sources and/or providing a short reason for a line of questioning helps readers, viewers and listeners assess the credibility, intelligence, experience, and trustworthiness of sources.

How do we know the motives of “some” people? Who are they? Where do they come from? How many of them are there? Under what circumstances were their opinions obtained? Did anyone pay them? Do they even exist?

We’ve been duped often lately.  The Facebook debacle is a case in point. If people don’t expect to know the sources of what they read, hear and view, then protecting them from the devious among us often becomes an afterthought — that is until it is forced to the fore.

News outlets are overheated right now with attacks on Facebook. Yet, are they speaking of trust and responsibility to customers without holding themselves to high standards?  Hats off to journalists who stay away from “some people say” types of comments — who do their research.  It’s time to bring the rest of your colleagues along.  Otherwise, they’re a part of the problem, a part of making us easy targets.

Countless women have reported the discomfort and guilt they’ve felt over the years before #MeToo allowed them to speak out and speak up.  Lingering self-doubt and self-blame are part of the reason why so many women have come forward to identify sexual abusers.  But everywhere there are women and men who have not reported or fired a person accused of being offensive, harassing or abusive toward women.

Yet, here we are dumping on Hillary Clinton — a convenient target.  Her decision about not firing an advisor happened before this period of expressed outrage and serial firing.  What’s interesting is how many people now know exactly what they would have done in her shoes.  They’re disappointed or angry,  blaming a woman while a man who has been repeatedly accused of sexual misconduct sits happily in the Oval Office — no doubt amused.

Let’s be honest with ourselves.  For years women have had to deal with sexual misconduct on their own or with little help.  They tried to downplay their gender in male dominated fields and speaking up about offense was risky.  There were no guidelines.  It was understood that your career was on the line.  I can’t help but wonder if the women and men now pointing at Hillary with “disgust” spoke up about harassment and worse.  Did they do it in 100% of cases, 92%, 78%, 15%?

It’s easier to blame Hillary Clinton.  Trump does it all the time for all sorts of things.  She’s down.  So why not slap her again?  Is that what we really want?  Or is that what many in the media want?

If we’re going to stop sexual offense, harassment and misconduct, it’s going to take more than blaming women who didn’t have a powerful #MeToo movement around when they were trying to crack the glass ceiling.  Sure, maybe some of us would have been more outspoken than they were or fired some people if in a position to do so.  It’s easy to think so.  Without all the facts, it’s hard to say.  One thing we do know – and should remember – is that blaming women for not doing what we are somewhat more able to do now is taking the wrong track back to the same old station.

Since I first introduced the Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct at Work —  SSMW (see blow below), I’ve done some additional work. Here is the latest:

SPECTRUM OF SEXUAL MISCONDUCT AT WORK (SSMW) — Kathleen Kelley Reardon, Ph.D., Professor Emerita, University of Southern California Marshall School of Business

Decisions about which category a behavior falls into depend on the situation, tone of delivery and nonverbal behaviors.  Even comments that fall into the “generally not offensive” category can be so if repeated to the point of causing discomfort or said in ways that reach a higher level of offense.

The spectrum is not intended to be a set of cut-and-dried categories. It’s a blueprint for organizations – a way to start talking about levels of offensiveness that can contribute to a hostile work climate as well as what is and isn’t sexual misconduct toward women.

Additional examples can be added and some existing ones moved by groups, divisions and organizations making the spectrum work for them.

Generally Not Offensive (Remarks on such things as hair style, looks and dress): “You look nice today,” “I like your haircut,” “Nice outfit,” “That’s a good color on you,” “You look lovely.”

Awkward/Mildly Offensive (Comments involving or implying gender distinctions unfavorable to women): “You would say that as a woman,” “I suppose it’s a woman’s prerogative to change her mind;” “We can’t speak frankly around you women anymore.”

Offensive (Gender-insensitive or superior manner): Holding a woman’s arm while talking to her; uninvited hugs; patronizing, dismissive or exclusionary behavior; making stereotypical jokes about women, blondes, brunettes, red-heads, etc.; implying or stating that women are distracted by family.

Highly Offensive (Intentionally denigrating): Joking or implications about a woman’s intellect or skills being limited due to her gender; labels like “ice queen” or “female mafia;” comments on physical attributes used to embarrass, insult or demean.

Evident Sexual Misconduct (Usually crude or physically intrusive): Looking a woman up and down in a sexually suggestive manner; grabbing, unwelcome holding, touching or kissing; ignoring a woman’s expressed disinterest in a personal or intimate relationship; crude jokes that demean women; describing women with such terms as “slut” or “frigid.”

Egregious Sexual Misconduct (Typically involves coercion, sexual abuse, or assault): Overt sexual behavior while a woman is present; pressing against a woman suggestively; threatening or implying career damage to a woman who refuses to engage in sex or sexual behavior; forcing or coercing a woman to have sex.

As women marched yesterday for greater respect, representation and equality, it was difficult to not hear them. Yet, President Trump tweeted credit for the last twelve months of his administration. He invited women to march in celebration of his economic policies. Rather than congratulate women for their peaceful expression of democracy and exquisite determination to elicit change, he did what those women abhor — he ignored them and their message.  The president’s actions reflected two types of dysfunctional behaviors commonly used to demean the contributions of women — patronizing and exclusionary patterns of talk.

But let’s not dwell on that. It was not surprising. What we should do is celebrate the women who were marching. Two of our nieces were there. It made me smile to see them and young women recognizing that this time, this time indeed, we need to make respect and equality for women stick.

We can’t take for granted that women before us got the job done. This is a job that will not be done for many years to come. It will only get done if we keep at it. That will require not allowing ourselves to be splintered by false schisms as was the case with the Mommy Wars years ago that pitted working women against stay-at-home moms as if they were two distinct groups. That was a false dichotomy. Women should be wary of such efforts to create “cat fights.” Men don’t fall neatly into groups. Women don’t either. Yesterday was a tribute to that fact.

Here is an interview on AirTalk KPCC with host Alex Cohen, guests Michele Goldsmith, chair of the labor and employment division of LA-based law firm Bergman, Dacy, Goldsmith, and myself.

Some good tips here from the legal side and from my work on the Spectrum of Sexual Misconduct at Work (SSMW) and a repertoire of comebacks women can use to nip such conduct in the bud. That repertoire is in the post below, “Did You Really Say That?”  More such on-your-feet-responses for women and men are in my book, Comebacks at Work.

Interview here