Readers weigh in on ‘gypsy moths,’ ‘deaf ears’
Star readers would stick with the terms “gypsy moth” and “deaf ears,” but were divided whether to remove an individual’s name from an online story after criminal charges were dropped.
Those are a few results from the annual You Be the Editor survey that gave readers a chance to make their own judgments on some editorial decisions that faced the newsroom in 2021.
I’ll have the full results in the coming weeks. But this week, I highlight some of the questions and your editorial calls.
■ A headline referenced “deaf ears.” A common saying or insensitive reference? Almost two-thirds of you would publish this saying, used for when requests are ignored. That compares to the 37 per cent who thought it was insensitive and insulting to those who are hearing impaired.
From my perspective, the reference should not have been used. One reader did complain when it appeared, telling me, “My daughter has deaf ears. Yet time after time she is exposed to a slur which categorizes her as stubborn, obdurate, oblivious or worse.”
The Star stylebook carries guidance on this very point: “Avoid using disabilities as metaphors: ‘the blind leading the blind,’ ‘falling on deaf ears,’ etc.”
■ An article states that a business owner faces a “Sophie’s Choice” in having to decide which of his two restaurants he may have to close. The term is from the fictional book and movie about a mother in a Nazi concentration camp who must choose which of her two children will live.
Just over half — 58 per cent — said the phrase was not appropriate for this situation, compared to 41 per cent who said it was OK because it described his difficult choice.
“I’m not sure that ‘Sophie’s Choice’ is the appropriate analogy for a decision that is both financial and emotional. The restaurateur is in the unfortunate position to have to make difficult decisions, but it’s not life and death,” said reader David Rose.
I side with the majority on this one. While the term has entered the vernacular to describe a difficult, even impossible choice, its origins should dictate caution.
■ I was pleased to see that 62 per cent of readers opposed the digital manipulation of a frontpage photo to remove a microphone. Unfortunately, that manipulation did occur without being disclosed to readers. Star policy is clear: “While digital manipulation is permissible to improve technical quality, any alteration or enhancement that renders a photograph inaccurate or misleading is forbidden,” it states.
■ The term “gypsy moth” is now considered ethnically insensitive. But 69 per cent of you would stick with the name rather than “Lymantria dispar.” I vote for the scientific name, noting that the Entomological Society of America has removed “gypsy moth” and “gypsy ants” as recognized common names.
■ Readers were almost evenly divided on whether to remove the name of a man from an online story after criminal charges against him were withdrawn. Reader Kevin Love was among the 50.1 per cent who voted to remove the name. “Let this innocent man get on with his life by removing his name from the article,” he wrote.
However, 49.1 per cent said such online editing erases history. Better to update the story to note the charges were withdrawn, they said.
In today’s online world, stories can have a lasting impact on an individual’s personal and professional life. In deciding what to do, editors must weigh the seriousness of the charges, the outcome of criminal proceedings and any extenuating circumstances. In this case, I would remove the name.
■ Readers had no qualms running an editorial cartoon that took aim at then-defence minister Harjit Sajjan for sexual abuse and harassment in military ranks. But there was less enthusiasm for a cartoon mocking the AstraZeneca vaccine. Some 53 per cent would not have published the cartoon out of concern it might contribute to vaccine hesitancy.
Thank you to all those who took part.
Last word: A reader took issue with an online headline that referenced “The problem with Justin Trudeau’s house.” In print, the headline noted “Justin Trudeau’s ‘temporary’ lodgings.”
The headlines were on an article about the repairs needed at 24 Sussex. In the meantime, the family is living at Rideau Cottage. Like 24 Sussex, this residence is also managed by the National Capital Commission, a Crown corporation.
“Your headline today is not accurate and seems designed to get clicks,” wrote the reader, noting that the official residence “is not ‘Justin Trudeau’s house’ any more than the White House is ‘Joe Biden’s house’ or Buckingham Palace is ‘Queen Elizabeth’s house.’”
Fair point.
BRUCE CAMPION-SMITH IS THE STAR’S PUBLIC EDITOR. REACH HIM BY EMAIL AT PUBLICED@THESTAR.CA OR FOLLOW HIM ON TWITTER: @YOWFLIER