By Mark Frauenfelder at 12:20 pm Wed, Feb 3, 2010
This fellow was looking at photos of scantily-clad women in a TV newsroom while the camera was on. He figures it out at 1:32 in the video.
Which is it? “Scantily-clad” or “nude”
News flash, indeed!
Took the words right out of my mouth.
Actually, they’re on location at the bank and that’s a banker.
Actually, the lightbulb comes on at 1:33…
His redundancy letter is delivered at 1:45.
This clip is beautifully subtle. The photos he’s looking at gradually become more and more graphic until it becomes comically blatant. Then he finally looks over at the camera just in time for the clip to cut away from him anyway. The comic timing couldn’t be better.
I hope that wasn’t from the “Misty Series” or we’re all screwed :)
I deeply appreciate whoever went the extra mile to upload this in HD.
He fell for a prank.
Photos were in an email, at the bottom of the email was the message “Turn around now”, which is the moment of pwnage.
He is/was a banker, working at Macquarie Bank. Not a newsroom.
There was a lot of fuss about this, and calls for his dismissal. Macquarie Bank responded that they would deal with the matter internally. I am not sure if they realise the implications of what they said.
I don’t see a problem, really. The girls are clearly not naked, and that guy is ovbiously only human like the rest of us. Stop being so prude, America!
Who is being prude? It’s just interesting.
Problem is workplace professionalism, not the scantily clad women (which just add sensationalism; I doubt this would have been a story if he had been caught browsing BB). It’s not really enforced, but technically you’re not supposed to be doing that kind of thing on company time at many places.
It’s hardly about being prude. This dude is working for a news station, and he is part of their “news theater” background. You can’t pull up anything ‘un-newsy’ if you’re part of the news-theater!! How can this have been un-intentional? How dumb do you have to be? Unless maybe the background is green-screened in from a totally different location.
It’s actually a photo of Victoria’s Secret model Miranda Kerr… I think she was scantily clad, but not nude.
Well, they were expecting a rise…
“Stop being a prude, America!”
Let’s see…an Aussie gets himself in trouble, on Aussie TV, and the Aussie company he works for deals with it per its Aussie policy. What has America got to do with any of this? Get real. It’s just typical for everyone in the world these days to somehow want to blame America and Americans for whatever problems they have bought for themselves. I’ve been living in America for a couple of years now. If only you all knew how silly you look from here. News flash…the Americans really don’t care what anyone thinks. What’s more, they don’t care that you don’t like it that they don’t care.
By the time the Chinese are done with all of us, we’ll all miss the days when America was on top.
This happened in Australia. The guy does not work for any newsroom, he works at a bank. They happened to be doing a live feed and his timing was just very bad luck. He wasn’t looking at ‘pornography’, he was looking at images from GQ.
I think the bank would struggle to fire this guy on the spot given Australia’s unfair dismissal laws for large organisation, although I’m sure they would like to. Much more likely he’s been handed a written warning.
Even if he doesn’t get fired I feel pretty sorry for the guy. He looked at 3 pictures for less 10 seconds each. It’s hardly something that should be newsworthy but due to his terrible timing his name and face is all over the place worldwide.
Stop being so prude, America!
It’s an Australian story, reported worldwide. Did you want to blame us for anything else?
Pwned! Okay, it’s not American. Sorry. I guessed it was, because it didn’t say otherwise in the description and I’m not familiar with the station logos of the world.
On the other hand, not everywhere this would be considered newsworthy.
Well, what the heck, let’s save Dave.
Dude, it’s “newsworthy” because it’s funny. Guy at work is doing something not-work, gets caught ON TV (that ain’t going to happen to many of us anytime soon). I’m pretty sure most of the world (the cubicle parts, anyway) could relate to that.
“Not really enforced?” It has been ruthlessly attacked every place I’ve ever worked.
It rarely has anything to do with the content of the photos. It’s usually treated as a sexual harassment type situation, the company is terrified that someone who IS a prude will turn it into a lawsuit, so they terminate anyone caught looking at skin.
Well, I was actually thinking of ANY recreational content — blogs, personal email, etc — beyond the realm of sexy photos. *Technically* many policies cover those activities too, so those are what I’m referring to when I say “not really enforced.”
Frankly, I think “not looking at scantily clad women (or men)” shouldn’t even have to enter the conversation when talking about codes of professionalism, because it’s just much too obvious — as you point out, too fraught with potential for much too serious accusations. There are more interesting and less taboo things to waste your time on at work.
Even though you’re not supposed to be doing that sort of thing on company time, I don’t think it would be fair to blame the guy. It seemed pretty clear that he was clicking on links in an email, and he only looked at each pic long enough to realise what it was and close it. A lot of people have opened attachments from “friends”, not realising that it’s not something they wanted to view at work.
Indiscriminately opening questionable e-mail attachments is a great way to get viruses, which is also generally discouraged in the workplace.
Just don’t tell the South Australian Attorney General, or he might ban looking at pictures of women in bikinis next too.
He started out with an email client open. I’m willing to bet one of his coworkers anticipated the camera angle and emailed the pics to him at that moment specifically with the intent to prank him. In a wide-open floorplan like that, nobody can really get away with just looking at porn because it’s porn.
yeah, more reaction at 4:30, indeed.
20 bucks says that the email was from the guy in the blue shirt who stands up and has a conversation with him at the same time the email is received and opened.
He may not be completely guilty, but he’s not completely innocent either.
Dude gazed at each image for a couple seconds, before closing and opening the next one. What’s the saying about making repeated mistakes, expecting a different result?
The correct (and likely defensible) action would have been to panic upon seeing the first image, closing the window, and deleting the email.
Or I guess if guy hated his co-workers he could forward it to HR.
“expecting a rise” hahahaha
Since no one seemed to get my comment @#25, I guess I need to add that my being cut off was intentional. You can laugh now.
I can tell you from experience working in the banking industry that there is a lot more leeway in what you can view at work. Why even now, I
If you look closely, I do believe Ms. Bath is trying to stifle a laugh there at the end. She must have seen it, too.
Mail (will not be published) (required)
Submit a tip
The rules you agree to by using this website.
Who will be eaten first?
Jason Weisberger, Publisher
Ken Snider, Sysadmin