gay marriage huh ? ... not on MY shift you don't

... the toxic granny takes an ineffective bitch-slap at journalism

http://www.loserturdmafia.com/
from JoeUser Forums


i had determined long ago to never ruin another leisurely sunday breakfast choking on my (forbidden but favourite) coffee over the carefully typeset mental farts of some clueless lout disguised as as "columnist".

(after all, they just bleat on about what amounts to little more than regurgitation with a minor twist of daring ... ooooh, like the clitoris articles. i think thats' five my husband has read now ... how come he still can't find it after all those detailed photos ?. the vagina is flavour of the month, apparently).

so it was to my horror that i recently discovered what seems to be a very small-minded view disguised as a "headline" for an article on developments in the gay marriage "debate" as viewed from within the anglican church of canada.

(yes, i know. i should emit a beeping sound when i back up like this).

the article refers to a "language loophole" from within which gay marriage may be considered "sanctified" (a requirement of "legal" marriage within the church). the article itself is well written and informative. i may well have considered the author fairly balanced had i not seen the headline he chose in order negate his apparently "balanced" view before he even expressed it ...


...."othodox anglicans astounded at back-door approval of same-sex relationships"


now, i am aware that "unbiased reporting" is an oxymoron, so when i see a blatant case of a "journalists" personal opinion flavouring an article with the bitter taste of their prejudice and small mindedness, i am generally mildly annoyed but remain unsurprised.

and although i do of course have my own personal spiritual and other beliefs, i do not consider any transgression of that type to be the issue here.

my problem with this is that despite my desire to be a kind and dear little fairy, even i know a mistake when i see one. and that headline, gentle reader, is a mistake. he was wrong to write it, he was wrong to publish it, he was wrong to even think it.

using a "slang" term for anal penetration as another term for deceit and shameful behaviour in an article about gay marriage is not a joke. it's a cruel and deliberate attempt to make a mockery of the issue and it makes me sick.

and to think i used to want to be a journalist.



despite the awful headline, the full article is quite informative, and can be read here: Link
1,235 views 8 replies
Reply #1 from Stardock Forums Top
Ok, I have to say, upon reading the headline, I practically spit my water out over the keyboard. It was something that belonged on Howard Stern, not as a responsible piece of journalism.
Reply #2 from Stardock Forums Top
My response after following the link and reading the article is going to have to be different from what my response was going to be before doing so.

My original response based just on your article was going to be a minor defense of the "journalist." Having worked at various print and media outlets, it's my experience that most journalists don't write their own headlines. Therefore, had this been a newspaper article it's highly possible for a "balanced" journalist to end up with a negatively spun headline he had nothing to do with or maybe didn't even know about till he saw it in print.

Yes, there are professional headline writers. Writing a headline is a skill unto itself. It must condense the story into a single line and appeal to the reader enough to draw him into reading it. A great headline is a taste and a seduction. Those who are good at it get assigned to it full time. (Personally I think my headlines/titles tend to be weak. The best headline writer on JU may have been Imajinit. He was always sucking me in, damnit!)

Since some editor has final say on headlines, not the lowly line journalist, that was going to be my tack.

Then I followed the link. I can't defend the writer. This isn't an article from some newspaper, it is a press release. In all likelihood it was written by a staff press agent who is solely responsible for the entire piece from beginning to end. Whether he's an idiot who didn't comprehend the different context the phrase would have in relation to the body of his text, or some kind of joker is beyond me. Maybe it's his commentary on the underhanded way it was slipped through. There's no way to know, short of calling him and asking. (Does anyone have a spare international calling card I can use?)
DeskScapes - Bring your desktop background to life.
Reply #3 from Stardock Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Saturday, June 26, 2004Ok, I have to say, upon reading the headline, I practically spit my water out over the keyboard. It was something that belonged on Howard Stern, not as a responsible piece of journalism.


gideon, sad but true. (although the mental image of you almost spitting water on your keyboard is kinda funny). you're not the first person to say that to me, either. i seem to have found my calling in life ... "hi, i'm vanessa and i make people spit stuff on their keyboards". my folks must be so proud


Therefore, had this been a newspaper article it's highly possible for a "balanced" journalist to end up with a negatively spun headline he had nothing to do with or maybe didn't even know about till he saw it in print


agreed, gene. in my former life as a sports marketing manager (oh, the shame), i often experienced that special feeling one can only get via seeing ones' words published underneath somebody elses' idea of a "catchy" headline. and i know it's an editors' job to sensationalise headlines in any way possible (including puns of varying appropriateness).

on one memorable occasion, i had to issue a statement on behalf of a (past) olympic athlete under our management who had returned a positive drug test at a national event. despite sharing the public opinion that the moron should be banned (at the very least for being that stupid, if not for cheating as well), i had to defend him. i did the standard "blah realises the harm of that blah bad example blah blah visiting schools to lecture on drug dangers blah blah been under stress blah".

so far so good. then i made the mistake of saying " blah intends to turn this into a positive experience by helping others see danger blah blah admitting mistake and learning from it blah blah". this was submitted to the major metropolitan newpapers.
the next morning, i found an opened, folded newspaper on my desk bearing the headline:

"sport cheats' management claim drug use can have positive effects"

yeah. uh-huh. sure. that's exactly what i meant. i had to hide from my boss for a week. hehe


In all likelihood it was written by a staff press agent who is solely responsible for the entire piece from beginning to end


just the type of sensationalist ass i meant. and more than likely to have done it intentionally. thanks gene. you're sooooo funky


mig XX
Reply #4 from Stardock Forums Top
"sport cheats' management claim drug use can have positive effects"


Ugh. Now that's just misleading and inaccurate. It's one thing to try drawing people into an article, it's another thing to lie about what's inside. It pre-prejudices people to a certain point of view. It's hard to make up your own mind after something like that.

Before being exposed to the news media everyone should be educated in the concept of "slant."
Reply #5 from JoeUser Forums Top
Ugh. Now that's just misleading and inaccurate. It's one thing to try drawing people into an article, it's another thing to lie about what's inside. It pre-prejudices people to a certain point of view. It's hard to make up your own mind after something like that.

Before being exposed to the news media everyone should be educated in the concept of "slant."


it's official. not only are you fabulous, you DO know everything

*sigh*

what ever would i do without you, gene ?


mig XX
Reply #6 from JoeUser Forums Top
ok, mig, when do gene and I get our royalties for resurrecting this thread....lol
Reply #7 from Stardock Forums Top
when do gene and I get our royalties


Oh. Are we supposed to get 10% of the points or something?
Reply #8 from Stardock Forums Top
Reply By: Gideon MacLeishPosted: Sunday, June 27, 2004ok, mig, when do gene and I get our royalties for resurrecting this thread....lol


Oh. Are we supposed to get 10% of the points or something?


hey, gideon and gene, i am a woman of my word. we all know this. (unless i am at the bank, of course. then it's hell for leather free for all bullshit). but i digress. i now owe each of you a dead-thread revival. though i doubt you will write anything crappy enough to need it. like i did. heh

but, should you happen to "launch a loser" of a thread, just call ol' miggy for mouth-to-mouth heeeee !


thanks you guys. you're the best *big, big smile*


mig XXX