A very serious lie
SEEN in Journalism makes the point I just made in a comment: that calling the perp a woman in the lede and not telling the truth until many paragraphs down is a grossly obvious violation of journalistic standards.
‘Canadian police have identified the suspect as an 18-year old woman with a history of mental health problems’ This is a very serious lie about a shattering event. It’s not a point-scoring exercise to say so: it’s not stigmatising to notice and explain the lie. Journalist convention is to explain the bones of the story in the first four paragraphs. This developed from the understanding that people don’t always read down: they may click, but they don’t scroll. Engagement tapers.
In short: DON’T BURY THE LEDE.
The Guardian did it on purpose, knowing perfectly well it’s a violation of that journalistic convention. That’s why they did it: because they know most people won’t read that far. It’s a conscious, deliberate cheat, in aid of manipulating people into believing women are every bit as violence-prone as men.
Not only that, at this point, the facts that the killer was a man (contra earlier reports) who ‘identified’ as trans (previously dismissed as speculation) are the newest lines, a fresh top.
The @guardian defies all natural editorial instincts to bury in the tenth paragraph the newest line and the explanation that its first sentence is untrue. It will know by its own data that a percentage of readers will just bounce off after reading the lie, and increasing numbers drop off by a third or half of the way down. Certainly before reaching the truth. Which turns out to be not so sacred after all.
The madness of this slavish, unquestioning devotion to the lie is puzzling and very worrying. There’s a defiance with which the paper sacrifices itself to the service of identity affirmation.
Which is also, unavoidably, the service of harming women.
The NY Times did it as well, and NPR’s headlines just identified the killer as a woman, without any qualification.
I read in the Times that the local police will continue to refer to him as a woman. Sure, he went on a killing spree and now he’s dead, but still ya gotta respect his idennity.
(Oh, dear, I’ve just misgendered the poor murderer.)
They’re all doing it. It’s MADDENING.
Yes, in some circles, failure to use the deceased murderer’s preferred pronouns, including far too many editorial rooms, would be considered actual violence
[spits]
Then again, how could the “liberal” media possibly be so heartless and cruel as to deny Trump a lifeline now that he’s being pummeled with the Epstein scandal and the backlash against the excesses of ICE? /s
I digress but FFS this is not due to the Internet, I learned this in flipping *elementary school* in the 70s, which means it’s much older than that. Who why what where when in the first paragraph(s), report the facts, then elaborate as necessary. I fucking *hate* modern “journalism”.