Philip Schofield - Why Do I Care?
In a Week Full Of International Crises I'm Fixated On A Daytime TV Presenter
I honestly have no interest in Daytime TV. Never watch it, never have, never will. And yet the drama of Philip Schofield being systematically destroyed after revelations about his affair with a younger man at his ITV studios has held me in its grip, which culminated in my listening to his interview on the Radio 4 Today programme yesterday (Friday).
Schofield , in that interview, seemed utterly broken. He asserted that if it were not for his daughters, he would have committed suicide. It was hard not to feel sorry for him.
And there’s the rub. Because in a world of illusions, mirrors, half-truths and fake news, I didn’t know if my feelings were being manipulated. Was Schofield putting it on for the microphones? If he wasn’t, then the very suggestion is highly distasteful. The poor man was suffering in public and no one should doubt his motives, any more than one should doubt the motives of anyone suffering trauma.
My inclination is to believe that Schofield was being genuine. After all, he really has lost everything. My worry is that I felt cynical enough to even question his motives. But that is the world we live in - one of spin and counter spin.
For my readers outside of the UK, I should explain that Philip Schofield is an institution of British TV. He has been a star for decades. Everyone knows his face and name, even me, who has no interest in him as a TV ‘personality’. His profile was massively boosted when, a few years ago, he came out onscreen as gay, to his co-presenter, Holly Willoughby, despite the fact that he was married with two children.
His ‘disgrace’ came about after it was discovered that had had a workplace affair with a man who he first met when the man was 15 years old. Schofield helped him find a job in television, at his studio. Around when the man was 20 or thereabouts, they started an affair. Schofield lied to everyone about the affair, then finally came clean ( under pressure) earlier this year. He was sacked and now faces a future of infamy or, possibly worse for him, total obscurity.
Many issues are raised by the affair, which is why I still find myself head-scratching about it - and wondering if there aren’t undertones of homophobia to the whole business. Yes, its true that since the MeToo movement, workplace affairs have been seen as highly suspect, if not de facto immoral, given the power imbalances involved, But I somehow suspect that the outrage wouldn’t have been quite as intense if the other party had been a woman and that Schofield had been heterosexual.
This suspicion is compounded by the recent conviction of Schofields younger’ brother on offences of abusing a young boy. There’s no smoke without fire - some people must have concluded. Was this some kind of genetic problem? Were the brothers somehow in it together? After all, it wasn’t that long ago that society assumed that gays were likely to also be paedophiles, one of the reasons why conservative forces in society tried to keep them out of schools. Was Schofield Senior being tarred by this brush? Or to twist it again, did Schofield feel that a taboo on accusing gays of paedophilia would actually protect him? There are layers underneath layers.
As for the affair itself, the issue of workplace power may be a little oversimplified. Obviously, there is a power imbalance when a powerful man takes a younger lover in a subordinate position in the same office ( and the age difference some also see as abuse). On the other hand there are other forms of power. Sexual power, for instance. Young people exert sexual power over older people, because older people tend to seek out younger ones to reassure them that they are still attractive. And if one person loves the other, and the other doesn’t love the former, then that’s power too. Power operates at all sorts of different levels in all kinds of different ways.
The big question hanging over Schofield is whether he was ‘grooming’ his lover from an early age. But can you groom someone if you don’t have any kind of physical relationship until they are 20, as Schofield claims? Grooming usually refers to an adult forming a friendship of trust with a child so they can take advantage of them sexually.
Whatever the case, if Schofield really is suicidal, I find it hard to believe that he really deserves this level of opprobrium and punishment. A part of me says, ‘two people in an office shagged. So what?’ It may be that Schofield did nothing at all illegal, or particularly immoral. But lying to his bosses and Willoughby about the matter was clearly not a good idea - although one finds it hard to believe that such an affair could have been kept secret in the first place. In any case, he can’t have been the first person in an office to lie about an affair.
My conclusion? Schofield probably deserves to be sacked. But to live a life of shame and exclusion from polite society as a result of having sex with another man ? It seems a little - well, Victorian.
There are several simple issues I think
1. Mr Schofield was using smoke and mirrors in 2020 (as you suggest might be now be the case as he apologises). He lied and lied and lied again. The issue of gay or not is completely irrelevant.
2. If he had a realtionship with a woman when he was in a position of authority he'd be sacked
3. He met the boy when he was 15 and got him a job not just in tv but on his programme. Oh really?
3. Unfortunately lies are not treated as they should be too often. The rule is: if the person is a person we love then lying is alright if its someone we dislike its not alright.
Here's am example. In a debate in Parliament Jeremy Corbyn told the truth and produced a document in support. Boris Johnson said he was lying but could produce no evidence (because Corbyn was telling the truth). What Johnson said was accepted!!
4 .The truth is the truth whoever says it and a lie is a lie whoever says it. There is unfortunately the unacceptable view that it depends on who says it
Trial by media? The longer they can make it last the more readers/viewers and listeners.