It’s your turn to be the editor
What would you do with the Star if you were in the driver’s seat?
“Does anybody give a sit?”
That was the headline that sat atop a June story about a Toronto group campaigning for more public seating on our streets. The headline writer’s efforts at cute and clever seemed fine enough to me but one reader was quite displeased, telling me the headline was, “not a witty pun.”
“It is vulgar and tasteless, and well below the standards of the Star,” he said.
Readers, do you that’s think so? I don’t see any lapse of Star standards here but after listening to our many caring and committed readers for nearly a decade, I well know that readers and journalists don’t always see eye to eye about what should be published in the Toronto Star.
Every day, readers bring complaints, criticism and questions to us about the Star’s ethical judgments and journalistic standards, questioning why content they find “offensive,” “tasteless” or not in line with this news organization’s stated standards was ever published anyway.
The following scenarios are a smidgen of the reader concerns the public editor’s office fielded in 2016. Now, you can play editor and weigh in with your own judgments.
The reasons given to publish, or not, reflect some of what journalists might consider in making the many deadline judgment calls required in writing, editing and presenting news and information on matters both serious and light. Readers’ concerns are also captured in the reasons provided here.
You may well have your own reasons to publish, or not publish. This is an exercise in trying to put yourself in the journalist’s seat to determine what you might decide if you had to make these decisions about the accuracy, fairness, taste and ethics of the Star’s journalism.
The best way to respond is through our online survey. You can also answer by email. Please respond by Jan. 3. I will publish your responses in a future column.
So, sit back, think, and then tell me: If you were editor, what would you do? 1. Russian diplomat Andrey Karlov was speaking at a public photo exhibit in Ankara, Turkey when a man, later identified as a police officer, pulled out a gun and shot him dead in front of a crowd, yelling, “Don’t forget Aleppo. Don’t forget Syria.” Do you publish this image captured by Associated Press photographer Burhan Ozbilici on Page 1?
Yes: The image is highly newsworthy, given the geopolitical tensions involved and though shocking, the photo is neither gory nor gratuitous.
No: Images of dead bodies are distasteful and do not belong on the front page of the Toronto Star.
2. Two days after Jian Ghomeshi’s highly publicized, much commented-on trial for charges of sexual assault and choking, in which three women testified that the former CBC radio host had punched, slapped and choked them more than a decade ago, do you publish this editorial cartoon, “Last-minute Valentine’s Day cards” depicting an image of Ghomeshi squeezing his infamous teddy bear, “Big Ears Teddy,” around the neck with the words “You get me all choked up!” emblazoned on the card?
Yes: This is dark humour, the stuff of great editorial cartoons.
No: It is tasteless and trivializes sexual assault.
3. Toronto Police announce they are investigating an incident in which a Blue Jays fan threw a beer can at Baltimore Orioles left-fielder Hyun Soo Kim as he tried to make a catch during the wildcard game in Toronto. Do you publish this cartoon, Beer Can Conspiracy” linking the Toronto beer can incident to the 1963 assassination in Texas of U.S. President John F. Kennedy?
Yes: Editorial cartoons have wide latitude to satirize public events, even tragedies of the past.
No: The tragic assassination of a United States president can never be the topic of humour.
4. An Associated Press article reports that an Ohio police department says it is trying to illustrate the impact of the heroin and painkiller epidemic by sharing photos of a 4-year-old boy (with face blurred) sitting in a vehicle behind slumped-over adults who were later revived with an overdose antidote. Do you publish this photo?
Yes: The graphic image illustrates the troubling reality of drug addiction.
No: Shaming these addicts by publishing this image is insensitive and unfair to their suffering.
5. Australia’s prime minister orders an investigation when a national uproar ensures after shocking video emerges of teens being stripped, beaten and shackled by guards at a juvenile detention centre. Do you publish this frame grab from the Australian Broadcasting Corporation on Page 1?
Yes: This is a newsworthy graphic image of public interest in Australia and beyond.
No: The disturbing image from the faraway land down under is too graphic to publish on Page 1 of the Toronto Star.
6. Toronto city staff are investigating after signs targeting white people “sick of being blamed for all the world’s problems” and urging them to “join the altright” were spotted around the city on Monday morning. Do you publish this photo of the sign?
Yes: It is a strong depiction of the ugly reality of racism in Toronto. The picture is worth a thousand words here.
No: Publishing the image only serves to spread the message of hate to a wider audience.
7. A Star wire services story reports that French chef Benoit Violier, hailed by the media as the world’s best chef, was found dead of apparent suicide. Do you publish this headline: “Suspected suicide of ‘world’s best chef’ highlights pressurecooker of haute cuisine”? Yes: Puns make for good headlines. No: It’s (ahem) in bad taste given the chef’s death.
8. Police report a man believed to be in his 60s was pronounced dead in an apartment fire. Do you publish this subheadline: “An elderly man was found collapsed by a door at an apartment building near Shaw St. and King. St. W”? Yes: It is an accurate statement. No: Since when is anyone in their 60s “elderly.”
9. After U.S. president-elect Donald Trump criticizes the cast of Broadway’s Hamilton, a Hamilton, Ont. theatre with the Twitter handle @HamiltonTheatre receives many angry tweets from Trump supporters. Do you publish this headline: “Mistaken Trump fans open fire online on Canada’s Hamilton theatre?” Yes: The headline is accurate. No: The headline’s suggestion of gunfire is inflammatory.
10. In a column published early in December, the Star’s popular Ethically Speaking columnist expresses his view that, “ethically, it is wrong to tell any child, at any age, that Santa Claus is a real person. . . . Is it really wise to convince your child that an old guy can enter your house without being noticed, in the middle of the night, prowl around, eat your cookies — and that this is a good thing?” Do you publish this column?
Yes: The columnist has wide latitude to express his own views.
No: Debunking Santa Claus in a family newspaper? Really?
11. A columnist expressing her view on the death of a pregnant woman shot dead in a car near Jamestown Crescent in Rexdale, where five lives were lost to gunfire since 2012, states: “Wring your hands, maybe, shake your head over another incident, another press release, another homicide dick pleading for information.” Do you publish this reference to Toronto police?
Yes: Columnists have wide latitude to choose their own words. Anyway, the Oxford Canadian dictionary defines “dick” as slang for detective. It is not a demeaning term.
No: “Dick” is a derogatory label for police. 12. A news feature about a powwow held in Toronto to commemorate National Aboriginal Day describes the traditional dance attire of the First Nations people who participated as “costumes.” Do you publish this?
Yes: This is accurate; the dancers were dressed up in traditional garb.
No: The traditional dance attire of First Nations’ people is properly called “regalia.”
13. A columnist writing about “The rich history of Donald Trump’s rage” refers to cereal heiress Marjorie Merriweather Post, who built Trump’s Mar-a-Lago resort in Florida in 1927 as “then the richest broad in America.” Do you publish this?
Yes: “Broad” is a slang term appropriate to the era of the woman it refers to.
No: It’s sexist to label any woman a “broad.” 14. In describing the body movements of a character playing a rat in a ballet, a dance reviewer states, “the rat that inhabits the barn where the party occurs seemed more epileptic than merrily scurrying.” Do you publish this?
Yes: The reviewer has wide latitude to express his opinions of the dancers and the dance.
No: This is highly insensitive to people with epilepsy, a debilitating neurological condition. 15. BONUS QUESTION: Do you publish the headline, “Who gives a sit?” with a story about the need for urban seating?
Yes: It is a witty pun, appropriate to the story.
No: It is vulgar and tasteless. publiced@thestar.ca