Why the morning show confuses sexual harassment with empowerment
The Morning Show makes workplace sexual harassment visible, then turns accountability into a story about men’s sensitivity and women’s professional polish. Its newsroom offers leaked recordings, a powerful host accused of abusing a colleague, and women trying to be heard inside an institution that rewards their silence. The drama makes harassment compelling television, but can make abuse look like a rite of passage.
Empowerment is not a breakout interview, a promotion after a scandal, or the ability to keep speaking after humiliation. Feminist empowerment is collective power: a worker can refuse unwanted sexual attention, report it without retaliation, receive support, and see the person responsible lose access and trust. A series may show a woman setting a boundary while omitting the institution’s refusal to respond. Without consequences, courage becomes a personality test rather than a change in workplace conditions.
In Australia, these questions sit close to ordinary life. Sydney and Melbourne commuters travel on crowded trains, while hybrid workers negotiate office days and messages from home, making misconduct harder to witness. The series enters a media market where imported US streaming drama competes with ABC, SBS, commercial networks, Stan and Netflix. Australian federal, state and territory laws prohibit sexual harassment in employment, including under the Sex Discrimination Act 1992 and Fair Work Act 2009. Law does not automatically create a culture in which complaints are believed.
The series’ bargain is familiar: women claim authority, but the plot often returns that authority to the men whose misconduct created the crisis. A survivor’s disclosure can become an occasion for a powerful man’s confession, apology or redemption; a workplace failure can be diagnosed as a communications problem. Feminist criticism asks who benefits when harassment becomes a compelling episode, and whose account pays the price. The answer shows whether the show supports empowerment or performs it.
Power dressed as a personality flaw
Power is central to The Morning Show, yet the series often psychologises it. Bradley Jackson’s behaviour is treated through trauma, ego, loneliness and competitive ambition rather than through the institutional protections that let him intimidate staff. A man can be psychologically complex without his conduct being reduced to a damaged inner life. Accountability starts with naming the conduct and harm, not making the perpetrator’s feelings the centre of the story.
Women in the newsroom are asked to appear immaculate, strategic and endlessly composed, especially after publicising abuse. Their authority becomes a performance of control, turning personal testimony into unpaid public relations. A feminist account asks what changed after each revelation: were reporting channels independent, did leadership protect the complainant, and were schedules, access badges or references rearranged? Without answers, the story implies that a woman must become extraordinary to deserve ordinary workplace safety.
The newsroom as spectacle
Harassment is especially messy inside a newsroom, where every interview, leaked clip and off-air remark can become content. The third season’s stories around Bradley Jackson, Paula and Hannah expose the fictional UBA network’s unequal access to microphones and opportunities. An institution claiming to expose abuse is built on the hierarchies that permit it. Sensationalism can turn a worker into a plot device, with private pain circulating through editorial meetings before it is properly heard.
The contrast between spectacle and justice appears in recurring narrative choices:
| Narrative device | What the series often emphasises | What a feminist account adds |
|---|---|---|
| Public confession | The powerful man’s feelings and self-justification | Investigation, restitution and loss of access |
| Survivor interview | The woman’s poise and marketability | Her chosen terms, support and privacy |
| Workplace conflict | Personalities clashing | Reporting systems, retaliation and safety |
| Apology or remorse | Emotional catharsis | Observable consequences and repaired trust |
Disclosure is not automatically institutional power. A woman can tell the truth and still be managed, doubted or turned into a brand. If the story ends with a tearful office confrontation, emotional intensity substitutes for due process. If it shows an audit, changed reporting system or corroborating colleague, harm becomes more than a ratings problem. Accountability needs observable consequences, not a better-managed explosion.
The limits of feminist confidence
One persistent confusion is the belief that professional confidence can neutralise an unequal environment. Speaking about abuse in a poised interview may look like empowerment, but a camera cannot tell us whether the speaker is safe or protected. The series treats composure as proof that a woman has regained control while the workplace remains unchanged.
That matters for younger workers and assistants, whose refusals can bring lost shifts, unwanted references or a reputation for being difficult. These dynamics are familiar in Australian workplaces, from hospital teams to retail floors and small offices. A focus on the celebrity anchor can obscure workers who lack security to report. For a wider view of how visual culture frames institutions, contemporary art criticism offers useful context.
A practical standard for feminist media
Viewers do not need a catalogue of good and bad characters. They need narrative signals that show whose safety the story treats as essential. When a program makes its central conflict about who gets to speak, it can distinguish individual bravery from institutional reform. These standards would sharpen criticism and production:
- Separate bravery from endorsement: show a survivor setting terms and choosing disclosure.
- Make consequences visible: repair includes restitution, lost access and changed rules.
- Give support characters agency: editors, colleagues, unions and HR should act.
- Examine intersecting power: race, class, sexuality, disability and age shape reporting.
- Avoid false equivalence: disagreement need not turn a complaint into a contest.
- Reward collective action: show workers changing procedures together.
In Australia, that standard can be grounded in the Sex Discrimination Act 1992, the Fair Work Act 2009, psychosocial-risk duties under workplace health and safety laws, and the Australian Human Rights Commission. These rules set a floor, not a complete culture of respect. Media can ask whether reporting systems work for migrant, young, disabled and casually employed workers.
Make criticism part of the daily routine
The Morning Show is most revealing when watched against its own claims. Notice the difference between a woman receiving a microphone and a workplace becoming safer; between a man expressing remorse and a system imposing consequences; between a difficult episode and durable change. Feminist media criticism should preserve those distinctions, because a convenient redemption arc is often purchased with the credibility of the person harmed.
SCREAMING IN ALL CAPS exists to keep those distinctions in public conversation. Read the archives, subscribe to the newsletter, and share this analysis with an Australian friend who watches the show. Support feminist reporting on the films, programs and workplaces that teach us how power works, and keep the conversation moving.