It’s not journalism, it’s harassment: solidarity surrounds Samantha Armytage
How could anything remotely positive stem from a woman enduring the ignominy of being followed by photographers and having images of her going about her Sunday splashed across the internet, calling for particular attention to be paid to her underwear? It seems oxymoronic to suggest there is any upside.
But if there is a sliver of a silver lining, it is that the Daily Mail’s most recent treatment of television host Samantha Armytage has been met with almost-universal condemnation.
The fact The Australian’s Chris Kenny agreed with Fairfax columnist and author Clementine Ford on the subject is incontrovertible proof: to say consensus between these two is a rarity is an understatement.
The Daily Mail didn’t just publish the photographs of Sunrise’s Armytage on Sunday: it ran an ‘article’ alongside the images analysing her love life, her choice of clothes – underwear included - and her lack of make-up under the headline “Sam Armytage’s giant granny panties show a visible line”.
It is not journalism: it’s harassment. It’s not par for the course. It is an exercise in attempted humiliation.
And it’s toxic. Aside from the intrusion in Armytage’s life and the personal toll it could take, it reinforces the idea that a woman’s appearance is everything: that it’s open to being publicly dissected and examined.
Am I the only one who thinks it's way creepy to be literally trying to look through a woman's clothing to find a story ? Knock it off. https://t.co/jtOSf3FoJ1— BenFordham (@BenFordham) December 11, 2016
The fact tabloid journalism isn’t new doesn’t confirm its validity.
It is true that Sunrise host Samantha Armytage isn’t the only person The Daily Mail subjects to this treatment. But it’s also true that it’s hard to find a man or woman scrutinised as often as she is, in the manner she is.
When I first saw this 'headline' I thought it was, you know, from @theonion. I was gobsmacked to discover it was actually printed as a story. In a newspaper. With intrusive and frankly disturbing photos. I have chosen to cut the photos out in this post and you don't need to look up the disgusting invasion of privacy @sam_armytage has to endure. But F Me. What can we all do to put a stop to this trashy 'journalism'? I don't know you very well Sam but I'm horrified you have to put up with this.
On the weekend Samantha didn’t “dare to bare” her underwear or anything else: she went shopping with clothes on.
Someone “dared” to take her photo and someone else “dared” to scrutinise it to bring attention to her choice of underwear – reportedly swimmers. At this stage, most Australians who have weighed in, agree it is those two choices we need to examine – not Samantha’s.
The solidarity for Samantha Armytage doesn't render "undie-gate" remotely palatable but it is worth recognising. Proof of the outpouring of support for Sam Armytage and distaste for The Daily Mail is here:
The only story about Sam Armytage you need to read today. https://t.co/Gu0ygB5KUR— David Crowe (@CroweDM) December 11, 2016
Who is up for putting out their granny undies?
Latest from Georgina Dent
- Women’s March: Why women will rally against Donald Trump in Sydney and Melbourne this weekend
- The travesty of Amber Sherlock gaining global notoriety for a single tense exchange
- Why I wasn’t gobsmacked by David Leyonhjelm’s contribution to the childcare debate in Australia
- Confessions of a woman who has enjoyed 2016
- When a private affair becomes a public issue: Why Channel 7 CEO Tim Worner has no where to hide