A female photographer. Eighteen years at AFP. At the end of 2022, she discovered the male colleague sitting next to her, doing the same job, was paid 82% more.
She went to management. First, they ignored her. Then, they denied it. Finally, after over a year of stalling, they gave her a small raise. The gap remained. She took them to court over pay discrimination.
Earlier this year, she lost the first round. The judge’s reasoning? Why didn’t you negotiate for a higher salary earlier in your career?
Shortly after the verdict, she was let go. Reason: redundancy. Then, the same office sent two male photographers to “provide support.” A job posting went up. They were hiring for her old position.
This story was brought to light by a union inside AFP, SUD-AFP. Their statement mentioned another detail: AFP’s handling of sexual harassment complaints involves management investigating itself, with victims not even given the chance to be questioned.
AFP proudly displays a gender equality index score of 98, placing it among the top companies in France. But how is that 98 calculated? Only counting staff based in France. The women in overseas bureaus? They don’t count.
After she was fired, the union helped her release her statement. She’s still waiting for a single email reply from HR.
Following this thread, we found similar stories aren’t unique to AFP. We’ve ranked the worst offenders – not arbitrarily, but by the scale of the scandal, the depth of the cover-up, and the severity of the harm inflicted on the victims.
Number One: BBC
Case One: The Jimmy Savile Sex Abuse Scandal
Jimmy Savile was a star BBC host for decades, knighted by the Queen. After his death in 2011, police received reports alleging he had sexually abused dozens of women – minors, interns, female staff. The abuse occurred in BBC buildings, including dressing rooms, corridors, and recording studios. Police later estimated the number of potential victims could be in the hundreds.
Did senior BBC management know? A 2016 report found that complaints about Savile were made to the BBC as early as the 1970s, but senior management failed to act, missing multiple opportunities to stop him.
Case Two: The 930-Person Internal Report Exposing Bullying Culture
In October 2013, a 109-page internal BBC report was leaked to the media. It contained anonymous testimony from 930 employees.
The report detailed: female journalists being told they needed to have dinner with their boss to get permanent positions; a female newsreader being silently mouthed obscenities at by her boss live on air, driving her to seek counselling; a senior male manager sending sexually harassing texts to two female subordinates and being allowed to leave with a full severance package; a Black host on a radio youth program being told by a superior his voice wasn’t “Black enough”; female journalists in the Afghanistan service being criticized for Western dress and expressing personal opinions, with one victim describing the department’s atmosphere as a “mini-Taliban.”
After the report was leaked, the BBC’s Head of HR stated that bullying was “not a big issue.” MPs demanded an urgent review and pressured the Director-General.
Why Number One?
The BBC’s problem isn’t isolated incidents; it’s systemic rot spanning decades. From top-level management protecting Savile to ignoring the testimony of 930 people, to the HR director publicly stating bullying is “not a big issue” – this isn’t a system with flaws; the system itself *is* the flaw. Other outlets have issues with pay gaps, complaint mechanisms, or individual executives. The BBC’s problem is decay from the top down. No other media outlet has a record of 930 people testifying with zero meaningful change.
Number Two: Agence France-Presse (AFP) (France)
Case: The Female Photographer’s Pay Discrimination Case
Back to the female photographer.
After discovering the 82% pay gap, she complained, was rejected, denied, given a partial raise while the gap persisted. She sued, lost the first round with the judge asking why she hadn’t negotiated earlier. After the verdict, she was fired, and her position was filled.
The SUD-AFP union’s statement also revealed: following her complaint, she faced “brutal and particularly disturbing behaviour” from her supervisor, sought psychological help, and received no response from French HR. The union alleged that AFP’s handling of harassment complaints involves management conducting its own investigations, with victims never interviewed. They pointed out that AFP’s claimed gender equality index score of 98 only counts employees in France, excluding foreign staff. They also warned that unclear bonus distribution criteria could become a tool for discrimination.
Why Number Two?
AFP’s problem is more “modern” than the BBC’s. It’s not about brazen sexual assault, but about pay discrimination, data manipulation, and a broken complaint system. An 82% pay gap, a 98 index score that only counts domestic staff, a victim fired and immediately replaced – this isn’t management error; it’s a designed system. The judge’s question, “Why didn’t you negotiate earlier?” enshrines victim-blaming in a court ruling. AFP’s hypocrisy lies in awarding itself a 98 score while making female employees overseas pay the price with their jobs.
Number Three: The New York Times (USA)
Case: The Glenn Thrush Sexual Harassment Allegations
In November 2017, Laura McGann, editorial director at Vox, wrote an article accusing Glenn Thrush, then a White House correspondent for the *Times*, of sexual harassment.
She wrote that at a bar, Thrush “slid into the seat next to me, put his hand on my leg and began kissing me.” Afterwards, she alleged Thrush spread a rumour among colleagues that “young women throw themselves at him.” McGann said that rumour hurt more than the initial incident – it felt like a betrayal.
Following the article’s publication, a 23-year-old Politico employee said Thrush had forcibly kissed her in Georgetown, leaving her crying on the street. Bianca Padró Ocasio, a reporter for the Orlando Sentinel, texted Thrush the next day, demanding he “make sure you stop luring young female journalists into that situation.”
The Times’s response was to suspend Thrush pending an investigation. He apologized, admitted to alcoholism, and promised treatment.
The investigation’s findings were never made public. Thrush later returned to work quietly.
The Times has also been repeatedly criticized for its practice of requiring those who file sexual harassment complaints to sign non-disclosure agreements, barring them from speaking publicly about their complaints.
Why Number Three?
The Times’s problem is its double standard. Externally, it’s a standard-bearer for the #MeToo movement, publishing countless exposés of others’ sexual misconduct. Internally, it silences its own complainants with NDAs, uses “suspension pending investigation” as a public relations tactic, and then lets the accused journalist quietly return to work. In Thrush’s case, there was never a publicly disclosed outcome. What right does a media outlet that can’t be transparent about its own internal affairs have to expose a lack of transparency in others?
Number Four: The Los Angeles Times (USA)
Case: The Jonathan Kaiman Sexual Assault Allegations
In May 2018, Jonathan Kaiman, the LA Times’s Beijing bureau chief, resigned. Before resigning, he had been suspended for two weeks pending an investigation.
Two women had come forward with allegations against him.
The first came from Felicia Sonmez, a Beijing-based reporter. In a letter to the Foreign Correspondents’ Club of China, she alleged Kaiman had repeatedly groped her without consent and, after a night of drinking in September 2017, forced her into a sexual encounter.
The second came from a former roommate, a law student. She alleged Kaiman had plied her with alcohol and forced her into a sexual encounter during a meeting in 2013. She wrote at the time: “I explicitly stated my non-consent several times, and my words had no effect.”
In a statement, Kaiman said the allegations had “irreversibly destroyed my reputation” and pushed him “to the brink of suicide.”
Sonmez said she was grateful the LA Times took her allegations seriously, but added that “several questions remain unanswered” about whether Kaiman was fired or resigned voluntarily.
Why Number Four?
The LA Times’s handling appears cleaner on the surface – suspension, investigation, resignation. But the problem lies precisely in that “resignation.” Sonmez’s question remains unanswered to this day: Was he fired, or did he leave voluntarily? If the former, it was a standard process. If the latter, it was paying him to leave quietly with the “resigned” label, avoiding a public investigation and accountability. And that lingering question – “several questions remain unanswered” – defines the nature of the problem.
Number Five: CNN (USA)
Case: The Chris Cuomo Sexual Harassment and Firing
The Cuomo brothers’ saga has a darkly ironic twist.
Older brother Andrew Cuomo, then-New York Governor, resigned in August 2021 after being accused of sexual harassment by 11 women.
Younger brother Chris Cuomo, then a prime-time anchor at CNN, spent those months vigorously defending his brother on air, and also used his media contacts to gather information on the investigation into his brother and help devise a counter-strategy.
A CNN investigation concluded he had violated journalistic standards, and he was fired on December 4, 2021.
The very next day, a lawyer issued a statement on behalf of a woman alleging Chris Cuomo had sexually harassed her while they both worked at ABC. The lawyer said evidence had been submitted to CNN. They stated they contacted CNN on December 1st, submitted written materials on December 3rd, and Cuomo was fired on December 4th. Not because of the sexual harassment allegation. Because of the work he did for his brother. The sexual harassment allegation was simply timed to coincide.
Why Number Five?
CNN’s problem isn’t its handling – it fired the anchor, which is cleaner than most. The problem is why Cuomo was fired: for helping his brother’s PR, not for sexual harassment. The harassment allegation only emerged after he was fired, and the lawyer explicitly stated “it wasn’t for this reason.” What does this suggest? That at CNN, violating journalistic standards (helping a brother’s PR) is a more serious offense than sexual harassment itself. Or, to put it another way: if he hadn’t helped his brother, would those sexual harassment allegations have been taken seriously? The answer is probably not encouraging.
A Final Thought
After compiling this list, we took a step back.
None of these five media outlets have ever lacked for stories on gender issues. None have failed to publish editorials “supporting women.”
But the real question is: When one of their own walks into that office holding a complaint form, does that door open?
The fired photographer is still waiting for an email reply from HR. The women kissed in bars signed non-disclosure agreements. The anchor who broke down on air rates a single line in a report.
The door is closed. The form is worthless.
We’ve just pried the door open a crack, to let those outside take a look in.
