When you were the editor
Readers who took the challenge agreed with the Star’s judgments two-thirds of the time
It was a highly unscientific, overly simplistic survey, to be sure.
Certainly, to draw any significant or serious conclusions about Toronto Star readers based on the results of my annual You be the Editor challenge, published in recent weeks, would be folly indeed.
But with almost 10,600 readers weighing in — a record number of responses — we can draw out some interesting information about readers’ perspectives on some of the many deadline judgments made by newsroom journalists 24-7.
The survey asked you to “be the editor” and determine whether to publish — or not publish — in 18 real-life questions of ethics, taste, style and usage faced by Star journalists in 2015. In each, I provided a reason to publish — or not. Given space restrictions, these reasons were highly simplistic, representing a narrow aspect of journalistic reasoning.
Not surprisingly, some readers told me their reasons for publishing or not publishing were somewhat different than the pro-and-con arguments I offered. That’s understandable and reflects the reality that newsroom debate about what to publish is always deeper and more wide-ranging than what this light exercise in journalistic decision-making can depict.
Each of these scenarios had evoked some measure of reader complaint to the public editor’s office and in many cases the arguments for not publishing represent the gist of reader concerns.
Survey results show that readers were aligned with the newsroom’s judgments in 12 of the 18 matters in question. That amounts to reader-newsroom consensus in 66 per cent of judgments — or two-thirds of the time.
The full results of reader responses to this edition of You be the Editor are published on the Star’s website. Here are some highlights. The Star’s judgments In all but two of the 18 scenarios, the Star published the content in question.
The first exception was editorial cartoonist Theo Moudakis’ depiction of “Tory in Pride attire” showing Toronto Mayor John Tory outfitted in bare-butt chaps to celebrate Pride week. That was nixed by Editorial Page Editor Andrew Phillips until the cartoonist added full trousers to the mayor. At the time, I agreed with Phillips’ cautious concern that the cartoon might be regarded as a negative, overthe-top stereotype. But in looking more at this one, we have both come to lighten up and agree with those 60 per cent of readers who said they would publish the cartoon as drawn.
The Star also opted for a no-publishing judgment a year ago when 12 editorial cartoonists at the satirical French newspaper Charlie Hebdo were shot dead. Following considerable newsroom debate, the Star decided not to republish that organization’s incendiary cartoons depicting the Prophet Muhammad. Responding to this dilemma, a slim majority of readers — 55 per cent — say they would have published these cartoons. I agree with the Star’s decision and the 45 per cent of readers who would not have published the images because it would be offensive and hurtful to Muslims in this community. Closest calls: Readers were almost evenly split on cartoonist Moudakis’ satirical take on Justin Trudeau’s campaign promise to legalize marijuana, with 51 per cent opting not to publish “A Justin Trudeau Halloween” a week after the election of the new PM. While we received a number of complaints about this cartoon, I agree with the other half of readers here and consider it in line with the wide latitude of editorial cartoonists to skewer public figures and satirize public issues.
That same 51/49 split showed up in readers’ response to the question of whether the Star should sanitize the swear words in a column about the historical relationships of Canadian prime ministers and U.S. presidents. That column referred to two iconic quotes: Lyndon Johnson telling PM Lester Pearson “You p----ed on my rug” and Richard Nixon calling Pierre Trudeau an “a----le.” The wee majority here opted to publish the words, obscured by dashes. While the Star’s taste policy calls for those dashes in swear words, given the historical import of these quotes I would have published the words in full. Widest margins of consensus An overwhelming number of readers — 88 per cent — agreed with the Star’s decision to publish the “bathing beauties” picture taken in Toronto’s Beaches in 1984 by photographer Colin McConnell. As I told those readers who had expressed concerns that the image is sexist, context is everything here. The photo was republished on McConnell’s final day of work with the Star as part of a retrospective of his work over the past 30-plus years and is evocative of another era.
Readers expressed almost the same margin of support — 87 per cent — for the Star’s reference to “ticket scalping” in a Business article about Ontario’s “Ticket Speculation Act” governing the ticket resale market. The minority lined up with the view of the reader who had expressed concern that “scalping” is offensive to indigenous people. I was unfamiliar with this view and in researching this, I found little to support an argument to avoid the word “scalping” in stories about ticket reselling. But I will send this on to the Star’s newsroom style committee for further consideration. Because it is 2016 Several questions focused on sexism concerns raised by readers. While readers who responded to the survey (and I) agreed with publishing a beefcake shot of our new PM following the Oct. 19 election and the above-mentioned beach “cheesecake” photo, a majority — 66 per cent — would not have published a headline referring to a “pretty actress.” And 62 per cent would have nixed a quote from a man who said he was so frightened he “ran away like a little girl.” I’m with the majority here. Readers were split 55/45 per cent on publishing the headline “HRH Princess Cutie” with the first photo of the royal couple — Prince William and Catherine, the Duchess of Cambridge — introducing their yet unnamed daughter to the world. My view: cute baby, cute headline. I don’t see sexism here.
On two questions concerning matters of sensitivity in how the Star portrays mental health matters, readers were almost evenly divided, with 52 per cent opting not to publish a reference to “mental patients” but 53 per cent in agreement with the judgment to publish a reader’s letter expressing the view about former PM Stephen Harper’s “dyslexia” on privacy matters. Neither of those references is in line with media best practices for writing about mental health and, to my mind, neither should have been published in the Star. Trickiest question Not surprisingly, few readers caught the error of law in the survey’s final question about whether to publish the headline: “UK police capture vault busting thieves” with a story that reported on British police swooping down on suspected jewel thieves and making arrests in the notorious Hatton Garden heist in which thieves bored holes through the half-metre concrete wall to access a vault. A strong majority — 83 per cent — would have published the headline.
The “trick”? Police captured suspected thieves, so labelling them thieves in the headline in effect convicts them before they have had their day in court. Readers don’t have to know this legal stuff, but journalists must. This headline should never have been published. publiced@thestar.ca