Jul 19, 2017

Just because Tim Worner is the bad guy doesn’t mean Amber Harrison is the hero

We love an underdog fighting a noble battle against an evil corporation. But Amber Harrison does not fit the bill.

Adam Schwab — Business director and commentator

Adam Schwab

Business director and commentator

Tim Worner

We’ve been trained to barrack for the underdog. David should always beat adversity and triumph over Goliath. We all wanted Rocky to triumph over Ivan Drago. No one roots for the German guy in Die Hard. Thus, it’s only natural when we all read about the Amber Harrison mess last December to naturally side with the single photogenic lady competing against the might of one of Australia’s biggest media companies and richest men. This was exacerbated as every non-Seven outlet naturally took a hostile stance to the allegations made against Seven CEO Tim Worner. The problem is, real life isn’t a Hollywood script, and in the Harrison Story, there don’t really seem to be any good guys.

The biggest challenge for the audience in the drama was that there appeared to be a really obvious bad guy. High-flying Seven CEO Tim Worner didn’t even bother to deny the allegations that he had an extra-marital affair. He didn’t even deny using cocaine other than saying Harrison’s claims “contain wide-ranging inaccuracies”. But while few would defend Worner’s actions, and his behaviour might well have warranted termination, that is an issue solely for the Seven West Media board and major shareholder, Kerry Stokes. The fact that Seven chose to continue to employ Worner doesn’t cleanse Harrison’s conduct — in short, this isn’t a Hollywood script, and it is possible to have two bad guys.

Free Trial

Proudly annoying those in power since 2000.

Sign up for a FREE 21-day trial to keep reading and get the best of Crikey straight to your inbox

By starting a free trial, you agree to accept Crikey’s terms and conditions


Leave a comment

12 thoughts on “Just because Tim Worner is the bad guy doesn’t mean Amber Harrison is the hero

  1. mikeb

    A good example of greed overcoming reason.

  2. zut alors

    It was a David & Goliath contest in which neither had a clean slate.

    But Seven should have settled this without the Boys’ Club getting up onto their hind legs to do fierce battle – it has done their corporate reputation no good & actually raises more questions about Worner.

  3. Dog's Breakfast

    I accept your review Adam, but have to say it’s a bad look for Seven. Looked for a long time like a bunch of hugely remunerated old blokes ganging up on a woman.

    A woman scorned perhaps, but a woman. I can’t side with a corporate bully. Yes, there are always two sides to a story.

    1. Steve

      So you’d have been felt better about it all if it had been a man in her position being ‘bullied’ instead?

      1. zut alors

        No, but the difference is major. Had a female CEO been rooting/rorting there would not have been a Girls’ Club to rally round. Corporate damage control would have occurred immediately, she would have been cut loose.

        The Boys’ Club will always rule business – as unreasonable, unfair & irksome as that is.

  4. klewso

    “News as entertainment”? Isn’t that what it’s all about?

  5. IanG

    What is complicated about this? CEO’s / bosses / supervisors don’t screw their staff. Full stop. Worner deserves whatever he gets. The fact that the boys club support him condems them as well. Where is ethical practice or leadership in any of this? Completely absent! They are all a disgrace.

    1. mikeb

      She got paid a lot of money to go away quietly which she accepted. She then breaks the agreement and entered into frivolous court proceedings that she could never win. Presumably she hoped that ch7 would roll over again and pay her some more because she had no hope of winning in the courts after breaking the conditions of her payout. She gambled and lost. What ch7 does with Worner is their business. They don’t owe us any explanation and if they want to keep him then it’s up to them. You can choose to not watch ch7 if that makes you feel better.

  6. dennis

    essentially wasting the court’s time and taxpayer money, you are liable to pay costs. So how does tax money come into it. They do get big pays, good if there worth it, but looking from up the bush thats all they seem to have, a lot of money, there all a barristers dream, seems a lot of males, I have noticed over the years, the more money and power they have, the longer their pants are down, they cant even get sex honestly. lol.

  7. frank ward OAM

    The Seven network,s action against this woman is the same as it did when John Marsden sued for defamation but John was lick to have the financial resources and good friends to fight and got a win but paid a great price when he developed cancer not long after he got his money and unfortunatly we lost a very great human being and champion for justice and Campbelltown

  8. AR

    The ‘thinking’ at Seven may have been that blackmailers are rarely satisfied with a single bite of the cherry and Harrison’s actions confirmed that.
    The fact that she had form in the past is new to me.
    And we must always revere those at the top of Seven, fine upstanding (pun not intended) citizens all, a credit to … scuz me, where’s the bucket…

  9. John Newton

    He got the goldmine. She got the shaft. Always the way. The boys draw the wagons in a circle and throw stuff at the woman. So she’s no angel. So what?

Share this article with a friend

Just fill out the fields below and we'll send your friend a link to this article along with a message from you.

Your details

Your friend's details