Thank you, OTM, for saving me some of the vitriol that welled up in attempting to defend my own lengthy career and deep experience to someone who likely never set foot in any media company, professional research setting or dealt for decades with far more competent and far less personally motivated "journalists" than Claire McNear. But we now live in a world where our own "realities" supercede facts, so perhaps it was completely foolish for me to expect anyone would be capable of understanding my perspective.
Mr. G did want context, so here goes, at the risk of further personal embarassment (and a skill set I freely admit I don't have is the ability to cut and paste pieces of a previous post to make it stand out, so forgive this potential run-on ramble if possible):
Yes, Sony fumbled the ball in MANY ways. Especially in not doing full due diligence on someone's past. And having had personal experience with the particular executive who championed Mike's hiring, and knowing the skeletons in this person's closet, it's not surprising this exploded the way it did. This all said--people are responsible for BUSINESS decisions, not morality codes. There is literally nothing else that matters than hiring the MOST COMPETENT person capable of doing a job if one actually wants to succeed in an ultra-competitive, ever-changing world. At least, that's the way it was for decades where media companies actually grew, before a generation of social media-conditioned whiners, snarkers and second-guessers decided to hold people accountable to the level of personal destruction if somehow their perception of what is "decent" behavior was somehow violated. The fact that so many talented executives have been forced to leave when these situations arise because of the overwhelming corporate fear of "perception" is directly tied to why so many companies have lost billions and fired thousands, many of whom are far closer to me than Mike Richards ever was or will be. Names none of you would ever know, or probably even care about. And more often than not replaced by DEI-driven choices who were far less competent and successful and cost even more personal one-time friends their jobs and livelihoods.
As to some of the specifics I've yet to be able to move the needle on despite my feeble attempt to educate:
-- I would not expect anyone to have had prior knowledge of the details of the research conducted, but I would hope there might have been an understanding of how much it factored into to many of the decisions that were reached.
-- Qualitative research is not as cut-and-dry as "is he recognized or not", even though results are often grouped to make more summative, executive-friendly narratives. Specific to Richards, more recognized him from the spate of appearances and interviews he did surrounding Trebek's passing than "Beauty and the Geek", although that show (and, shockingly, even THE PYRAMID, came up in discussions).
-- The nit-picking on Amy Farrah Fowler's name was based on a respondent's comment in a focus group and, sorry, often people say things in those situations that don't jibe with actual facts. Anyone who is even familiar with qualitative research likely knows the overriding catch phrase is "there are no right or wrong answers", so feel free to save any disgust for someone not realizing she was never referenced as Mrs. Cooper for that respondent.
-- I believe I specifically said that SOME of the methodological decisions regarding the research were strong. (I was consulted by someone who was deeply involved in this project, but I was not employed by Sony when it was conducted). MOST fell short of the standards I chose to employ during the ones I conducted. Had better guardrails been employed by those who were calling the shots, perhaps less fallout might have occurred. But that's admittedly 20-20 hindsight that equates to yelling at clouds, so it's ultimately water under the bridge.
My own personal context: Women with an agenda played a significant role in bringing down my own career, although I never dealt with the allegations Mike did. The toxicity of the work environment I operated in, including the personal behavior of several female executives I worked with, was far more destructive to those involved than anything I personally observed with Mike's Sony team. And anyone who seems to believe that some women actually don't mind the kind of humor and "locker room mentality" that seemed to grind Claire McNear's gears so dramatically is perhaps quite naive. I'm truly amazed that revisionist history has seemingly revoked that reality. And I can personally share that some women are now motivated and emboldened by financial opportunities to take full advantage of a culture that seems to find a way to reward someone making allegations from decades ago.
Again, I never worked with Mike at Fremantle. I'd be curious if Mr. Lemon, who I understand has a history with the company, is personally aware of the details regarding those incidents from some of his former colleagues. I'd be most concerned with the track record and the consistency of those who brought the charges against him. Again--I'm not so blind that I would consider him a choir boy. He wasn't the first, and he won't be the last, who has perhaps done something he regretted. (As someone pointed out, he wasn't the first Fremantle executive to be so accused). But as I have no idea as to the history and motivation of those who made the allegations against him, nor certainly the details, it would be foolish for anyone to convict someone in the court of public opinion. And if settlements were reached with those involved, then legally it would be considered a closed case, wouldn't it?
As for the esteemed Ms. McNear, champion of justice and fair play, I did attempt to reach out to her with the name and the details of the executive I felt was most responsible for these missteps, but unsurprisingly I was completely ignored. Because, I suppose, trolls on Reddit are more credible than I, or perhaps the fact this person continues to have a high position at a major studio there was apprehension about taking him on. And she's not the first "journalist" who would treat those in power with kid gloves. For those interested, several recent articles have arisen about one Matthew Belloni and his PUCK website where he regularly convenes with A list executives and often plants their versions of articles within his feed. Interestingly, he and Claire McNear share a corporate connection. Just sayin'.
What I do know is this. If someone apologizes and is contrite about their past, so long as actual physical violence was not committed, they deserve a chance to continue to live and exist. Period.
And until your livelihood and those of people you used to consider friends are directly involved, perhaps it's most ridiculous that I would expect anyone here to actually grasp any of these realities.
Again, I feel that this has turned into far too deep a "discussion" and debate in a forum that initially started out to be how someone saved an art card from more than 40 years ago. I deeply apologize for anyone who's been offended by this, and strongly suggest anyone who still wants to continue this find a way to contact me personally offline.
