Story about Premier Daniel Andrews draws criticism over depiction of female journalists

Melbourne’s media pack has united to denounce “blatantly sexist comments” about some of Victoria’s most respected female journalists.

Melbourne’s media pack has united to denounce “blatantly sexist comments” about some of Victoria’s most respected female journalists.

The Australian Financial Review published an article on Thursday headlined: “A Melbourne reporter fights a guerilla war with his premier.”

It was about The Age reporter Paul Sakkal’s efforts to hold Premier Daniel Andrews to account over a multimillion-dollar grant issued in 2018 against public service advice.

But the story took an odd turn when author Aaron Patrick described the journalists in attendance at one of the Premier’s press conferences last weekend.

“Sakkal was joined by ABC radio presenter Rafael Epstein, one of the few journalists Andrews was friendly to; Rachel Baxendale from The Australian, who had long been harassed by Andrews’ supporters on Twitter; Julia Bradley from Sky News, which is a perennial critic of Andrews; the ABC television’s Bridget Rollason, who has shot TikTok videos to catchy music of herself going to a gym, eating breakfast and having makeup applied; the Seven Network’s Sharnelle Vella, who has her own talent agent; and Gus McCubbing, a reporter for The Australian Financial Review,” he wrote.

Patrick declined to comment when approached by news.com.au about the reason for mentioning Vella’s agent and Rollason’s TikTok videos.

Journalists from across Melbourne’s media landscape took exception at the references and hit back on Twitter.

The subject of story, The Age journalist Paul Sakkal, liked and retweeted a number of criticisms of Patrick’s piece, despite the fact that The Age and the Australian Financial Review are both owned by Nine.

The Herald Sun’s Mitch Clarke wrote: “AFR analysis with a side of sexism. Sharnelle Vella and Bridget Rollason are two of the best.”

Stream more on politics with Flash. 25+ news channels in 1 place. New to Flash? Try 1 month free. Offer available for a limited time only >

A story that appeared in the Australian Financial Review on Thursday has been slammed for its depiction of female journalists Sharnelle Vella (left) and Bridget Rollason (right).

Vella wrote: “A great day for women in journalism. Sigh.”

Rollason tweeted that she has “never shot a TikTok going to the gym or eating breakfast”.

It’s also factually incorrect I’ve never shot a Tik Tok going to the gym or eating breakfast, but even if I had how is that relevant? @FinancialReviewhttps://t.co/4O7OKtNXKe

— Bridget Rollason (@bridgerollo) November 9, 2022

The Guardian’s Benita Kolovos wrote: “Not sure what the point of highlighting Bridget’s TikTok or Sharnelle’s agent is other than an attempt to demean them. They’re both incredible journalists.”

Junkee reporter Lavendar Baj wrote sarcastically: “Love to totally undermine the work of women in journalism.”

She continued. “For what it’s worth: having a talent manager and/or having a solid presence on tiktok usually mean you’re pretty damn successful as a journalist tbh. neither of those things are the (loss) this guy thinks they are.

“It goes without saying that women generally are the ones who have to go the extra mile to effectively double as influencers on top of being good journalists while men are able to do the bare minimum and still get jobs.”

3AW’s Stefanie Waclawik wrote: “Sexist and irrelevant. Bridget’s TikTok and Sharnelle’s agent add nothing to the story.”

Nine News journalist Mark Santomartino called it a “genuine disgrace” and former ABC reporter Ryan Sheales called it “sexist tripe”.

Victorian Labor MP Jaala Pulford suggested the mentions were “weird”.

“Appalling. There’s an entirely weird vibe about every woman mentioned here,” she wrote.

Voice for Victoria wrote that the descriptions of female journalists ruined a good story.

“This piece is actually quite good. Shame the author had to ruin it with some of the most blatantly sexist comments anyone has seen printed since the internet existed. It’s incredible how unnecessary they are but still got included in here.”

Bridget and Sharnelle are gun journos who don’t deserve the bullshit characterisations. As Bridget points out, it’s not important. https://t.co/tVEiHRSRWf

— Richard Willingham (@rwillingham) November 9, 2022

Sexist and irrelevant. Bridget’s TikTok and Sharnelle’s agent add nothing to the story. https://t.co/DX0yJaqyAA

— Stefanie Waclawik (@StefWaclawik) November 9, 2022

A great day for women in journalism. Sigh. https://t.co/SrSmfvz3D4

— Sharnelle Vella (@SharnelleVella) November 9, 2022

Not sure what the point of highlighting Bridget’s TikTok or Sharnelle’s agent is other than an attempt to demean them. They’re both incredible journalists. (via the Financial Review) pic.twitter.com/syqVO70yO6

— Benita Kolovos (@benitakolovos) November 9, 2022

for what it’s worth: having a talent manager and/or having a solid presence on tiktok usually mean you’re pretty damn successful as a journalist tbh. neither of those things are the L this guy thinks they are

— lavender baj (@lavosaurus) November 9, 2022