Identifying sexual orientation of victims relevant in arson story
Some words are startling when seen in print. The larger the print, the more prominent the display, the more startling those words appear to our sensibilities.
Such seemed to be the case with some of our readers when they read the Page 1A headline in Saturday’s edition of The Daily Times, “Arson destroys lesbian couple’s home in Vonore.”
Quite frankly, it was startling to me when I picked up my copy of the Saturday paper. As an editor, I joined other readers in asking, “Why do we have their sexual orientation in the headline?”
The second paragraph answered that question:
“After being victims of an arson and having the words ‘queers’ spray painted on their garage, the lesbian couple is fearful for their safety.”
It has long been the editorial policy of The Daily Times to only include a person’s sexual orientation when it is pertinent to a story. That policy falls into the same realm of our not specifying someone’s racial or ethnic origin unless such identification is relevant to the story.
Given the facts, the sexual orientation of the couple could not be more pertinent: While not officially being investigated as such, this incident appears to be a hate crime.
Another reader question is this: Would we have treated a male couple differently? The answer: Only in that we would have referred to the victims as a “gay couple.”
Contrary to the suggestion of one caller, this is not a policy change somehow connected to our new ownership. This editorial policy follows a long-standing journalistic understanding that a person’s skin color, ethnic origin, or sexual orientation is only an identifying factor if the context of the story warrants such identification.
Finally, in all of this, it’s important to note that the Stuttes were self-identified as being in a lesbian relationship, with Carol Stutte saying they had suffered harassment in the past because of their sexual orientation.
The greater question concerning the headline and accompanying story may be this: What is more startling, the wording of the headline, or the fact that such an incident has taken place in our community?
I would protest only the poor grammar in the sentence you quoted: “After being victims of an arson and having the words ‘queers’ spray painted on their garage, the lesbian couple is fearful for their safety.”
“Couple” is singular and does not jive with the use of “their” and the plural “victims.”
Blountonian
13 Sep 10 at 4:29 pm
Thanks for the comment.
The two “bibles” we use in The Daily Times newsroom are The AP Stylebook and Webster’s New World Dictionary. We also have a local stylebook that details how we treat entities, geographic as well as institutional.
According to “The Associated Press Stylebook 2007″:
“couple When used in the sense of two people, the word takes plural verbs and pronouns: The couple were married Saturday and left Sunday on their honeymoon. They will return in two weeks.” In the sense of a single unit, use a singular verb: Each couple was asked to give $10.”
In this case, it is the former sense in that both people fear for their safety.
buzztrexler
13 Sep 10 at 4:50 pm
Ah, thanks, duly noted, criticism retracted.
Blountonian
14 Sep 10 at 1:16 pm
Speaking of the “Associated Press Style Book,” what can you tell us/me about ‘changes’ to the “AP 2010 Style Book” concerning how ‘News Writers’ should NOW refer to the Mosque at Ground Zero? Any changes Buzz? If so, why the changes in your opinion?
Hal Damron
16 Sep 10 at 4:10 am
“The Associated Press Stylebook 2010″ was published far in advance of the current controversy revolving around plans for locating a mosque near the World Trade Center site, or “Ground Zero.” However, The AP recently sent an advisory telling staffers to refrain from referring to it as “ground zero mosque,” or similar references. The memo in part reads:
“We should continue to avoid the phrase ‘ground zero mosque’ or ‘mosque at ground zero’ on all platforms. (We’ve very rarely used this wording, except in slugs, though we sometimes see other news sources using the term.) The site of the proposed Islamic center and mosque is not at ground zero, but two blocks away in a busy commercial area. We should continue to say it’s ‘near” ground zero, or two blocks away.’”
You can read the full text of the advisory, as well as a “fact check,” here.
In my opinion, we should always be as clear and accurate as possible in communicating the news and explaining issues. In my mind, when people think of “Ground Zero” in reference to the events of Sept. 11, they think of the World Trade Center site; therefore, to get explicit one should note that it is not at “Ground Zero” proper, but is located two blocks away.
Of course, an argument can be made that in this devastating event, the impact went blocks beyond the actual World Trade Center site. However, one has to say that it went far beyond two blocks; in fact, its impact extended to the other side of the world.
I don’t always agree with The AP, but in this case I do agree: If we are to err, we will err on the side of accuracy and full disclosure.
Buzz
buzztrexler
16 Sep 10 at 9:11 am