The Toronto Star is having their yearly "You Be The Editor" thingie where they ask you your opinion on controversial editorial decisions they've made throughout the year (photo choices, word choices, etc). I find these things interesting, and I felt like making my personal choices public this year and explaining why I think what I think for each :3
Also, a couple of them I'm a little confused as to why they might be problematic, so if nebody knows a good reason why let me know :3 I have speculation in some cases, but it isn't obvious to me. :]
Let's start! (some of them have pictures attached, so go to the link if you want to see those :] )
1. A Living columnist expressing her thoughts about winter fashion challenges writes that we shuffle through February "like overmedicated mental patients." Do you publish this?
No. Or at least I get the columnist to edit it out. It's ablist and plays into all sorts of negative and historical stereotypes of the mentally ill.
2. Author Myrna Dey's debut novel is the reader's choice nominee for the Scotiabank Giller Prize. The first sentence of the story refers to Dey, 69, as a "Saskatchewan grandmother." Do you publish this headline: "Granny's debut novel makes Giller Prize longlist"?
Yes. I'm confused why you wouldn't? I guess the complaint would be that her status as a grandmother, or her age is being played up and you wouldn't focus on skin colour or sexuality for a winner? But I've never thought it as unusual or offensive to say "Mother of four does XYZ".
3. A news story reports that police have laid 57 charges against two Toronto residents in connection with break-ins in the Beach. Do you publish this headline: "Beach bandits face break-and-enter charges."
Is the problem here the nickname or that it's presuming guilt by calling them "beach bandits"? I dunno the journalistic etiquette or rules for this. I don't see a problem w/ the nickname. o:
4. Toronto Mayor Rob Ford attends a media event to mark the start of construction of the Eglinton-Crosstown line. A Star photographer takes several photos. Do you publish this shot of the mayor eating a Jamaican patty from a lunch truck?
Yes. I know that Ford and his supporters believe that the Star is involved in a conspiracy to destroy him, and he's refused to talk to the Toronto Star period now... but I don't see anything really problematic about the picture. His supporters claims it makes him look bad. It would be problematic if we felt the media could only publish pictures that a politician felt were flattering.
5. The Toronto Maple Leafs organization releases little information to the public after goalie James Reimer is sidelined by a head injury. A reporter phones the family home and his mother talks about her son's condition. Do you run the story?
This one I have very strong opinions on because there was such an outcry from the Leaf fans that supported the MLSE line and were all "when the Leafs want to tell you information, they will!" and "the poor woman! She's not media trained!". FFS, Mrs. Reimer is an adult, she can make her own decisions and she knew what she was doing when she talked to the press. And she wasn't even pushed into it, she WANTED to because she had serious concerns about her son's concussion, his concussion history and how the Leafs were handling it. This is news. She's not a child, and she shouldn't need her son, or her son's employer's permission to talk.
6. Near the end of regular season play, a reporter is assigned to interview Leafs fans about the team's futile hopes of making the playoffs. One angry fan tells the reporter: "I hope their plane crashes tonight. Does that sum it up?" Do you publish this?
No, because a KHL team just died tragically in a horrific plane crash. Unless the point of the article is "Leaf fans are callous and ignorant." (I can't wait for the other Canadian team fans to show up now and say "YEAH YOU ARE!" xD ), all that serves is to show a quote in bad taste that might rub salt on some still very raw wounds. There are plenty of other over-the-top angry Leaf fan comments that you can show without stepping on fresh graves.
7. A reporter interviews homeowners opposed to a controversial proposal to create a natural burial cemetery in which corpses are allowed to decompose without the use of chemicals. One angry resident tells the reporter: "What happens if someone has AIDS and that gets in the water?" Do you publish this?
Yes, because it shows the views of the people in opposition, and an example of the reasons why they are. Unless that comment was so out of line with the rest, I would publish it.
8. An article about family-friendly dinners published on the Star's parenting website, parentcentral.ca, includes links to recipes on other blogs. A salmon cakes recipe published on a mothering blog begins with the author's comment, "I can't f***ing wait" with the profanity spelled out in full. Do you link to this blog entry?
I'd put a profanity warning next to the link.
9. Following his first appearance in court, authorities release this handout photo of the man accused of the attempted assassination of U.S. congresswoman Gabrielle Giffords. Do you publish this mug shot on Page 1, above the fold?
Yes. The mug shot and identity of an attempted assassin is front page material. There's nothing graphic or gruesome about it, except I suppose how some people might choose to interpret his expression (I suspect that's the "controversial" part of this e_e).
10. The shootings in Tucson, Arizona touched off a politicized debate about blame. Many pointed the finger at Sarah Palin for an ad that showed Gifford's Democratic constituency framed in the crosshairs of a rifle. Do you publish this editorial cartoon?
As long as that's an editorial stance you support, yes. I don't find anything wrong with this cartoon.
11. The Star is investigating allegations of high school "credit mills" where fees are paid for credits given for little work. Do you assign a reporter to go undercover and pose as a student at summer school?
Yes. Again... I dun rly see the issue here. o_O It's a story of interest, and it's part of investigative reporting isn't it?
12. When a law student who formerly worked in the sex trade dies suddenly, a reporter learns that the woman once corrected a law professor for referring to "prostitutes" instead of "sex workers." In the story and headline about her life and death do you refer to her as an "ex-prostitute?"
Absolutely no. You should always use "sex worker" in the first place. In this case, it's esp egregious because the deceased SPECIFICALLY had expressed an opposition to the term "prostitute".
13. In the last moments before a York Regional police constable dies on duty he calls his dispatcher for help over the police radio while pinned beneath a minivan. Do you publish the transcript of this last call for help?
Unless he made a personal confession or revealed an embarrassing private moment or something, I don't see why you wouldn't if it's relevant to the story.
14. Two kittens are found in a dumpster with their right eyes poked out. Do you publish this photo of the kittens following surgery to sew their right eyelids shut?
Yes. First off, that picture is so adorable. Secondly, it's not gross or anything. Thirdly, it actually makes me happy, not sad, because I know they survived and will be okay :)
15. During the federal election campaign a Star columnist writing on the Opinion page states that Stephen Harper's targeting of perceived enemies "verges on the Stalinist." Do you publish this?
Yes. It's an opinion piece, and the word "Stalinist" is generally acceptable use in political commentary to describe problematic ways a government is acting isn't it? Or is that equivalent to comparing people to Hitler? If it is, then I change my opinion. :]
16. The Star reports that a man is charged with the sexual assault of a preteen girl. Months later, when charges are dropped, the man requests that the story reporting the charges be removed from the Star's website so that it disappears from search engines. Do you take down the story?
No. First off, it's a matter of public record. Secondly, you can't pretend history didn't exist and you didn't publish it. Thirdly, it's a bad precedent for newspapers to remove stories from their archive. HOWEVER, you should put a little edit in the archived story with the date of the edit and a link to the story where the charges were dropped (or a note saying that the charges were dropped).
Okay :D So that's about it! This is actually better than usual for the Star. Most years, I disagree with ALL their decisions, and they have ALL sorts of racist, ablist, transphobic, homophobic, etc issues that they defend up down back forth and sideways and I go RAWR! This year, a lot of them seemed very tame to me, and a couple I don't understand why they might be an issue. (again, this could be because I'm unfamiliar with how certain terms are regarded in popular meaning, or because it's a journalistic rule that I'm not aware of... so if one or the other is true, let me know :3 )
I think the Tom Ford thing shouldn't go through because it is fatphobic. A picture of a thin person doing the same wouldn't be used in the same way. It's on the same level as pig jokes levelled at fat people--"hur hur laugh at the fatty because zie's EATING SOMETHING OTHER THAN DIET FOOD". It is offensive to me as a fat person.
ReplyDeleteAlso, the "Stalinist" thing is on the same level as a Hitler comparison, at least in the US, to my knowledge.
On 2. I'd probably have the headline changed to "Grandmother's debut novel makes Giller Prize longlist"? because "Granny" is more of a diminishing term, or can be. Of course, that could be a USian vs. Canadian thing. But to me, you'd publish "Mother's debut novel..." but not "Mommy's debut novel..."
ReplyDelete(I think livejournal has permanently broken OpenID. *sigh*)
I think "Grandmother" would be better too :) But it might be localization too (I don't know) b/c I do see "Mommy" a lot... they seem to use shortened forms a lot. o:
ReplyDeleteI mostly agree with the Aminalaysis, except:
ReplyDelete5. It should be up to the patient himself, not his mother, whether his medical information is made public. She's an adult, yes--but so is he, and he may not agree with her about whether everyone needs to know about his medical history.
15. I agree that you can publish it--it's an opinion piece--but "Stalinist" is pretty comparable to a Hitler comparison.
But for the rest, I think you batted better than the Star did. I'd read the Daily Ami.
Yay! Holly reads my blog! :D
ReplyDeleteI think for #5 there's a few things. First off, she didn't reveal he had a concussion (because apparently even he didn't know because the Leafs kept even him in the dark, which is dangerous given the long history of teams and team doctors pushing athletes back before they were ready), and his concussion history as a junior athlete was already public record. What she did talk about was how angry she was at the Leafs for how they were handling it, that they wouldn't let James speak or ask questions about it, and that she's worried given his concussion history that he has another one. The issue here is that the Leafs say "everything should come through us" and their defenders (fans) say "you shouldn't talk to her because she's a woman, and she probably wasn't mentally adept to handle the media" and other such things. >_> If James doesn't want his mother talking, it's between them. Or it's between the Leafs and her (depending on how far one thinks a team's power over an athlete should extend) but I don't see this as an issue about medical disclosure (because no new information was disclosed) but about whether or not newspapers have a right to talk to athlete's parents, and IMO they do.
As for the Stalinist thing, I honestly wasn't sure if it's like Hitler or not. I think it SHOULD be, like Mao-ist should be (given that my family suffered and had to flee China because of his regime, it bugs me that Stalin and Mao are held as less taboo in North America than Hitler) but I see both terms used a lot in all the national newspapers. The argument, I think, is that it's used not to refer to a person but to refer to a way a government operates in secrecy and trying to control the media, etc... I said I was okay with it because it's a ubiquitous term, so I didn't think it was particularly unusual, but if it does carry the same weight and offense, then it should not be used (as I said above) :)