I wasn’t going to say anything. But the outrage has gotten the better of me. And, after all, I’m paying for something that offends me.
Canada’s taxpayer supported public broadcaster recently had a news article about an underage teenager whose gender reassignment surgery was halted, at least temporarily, by a court order. That does seem to me to be newsworthy – but the wording of the article was profoundly disturbing.
When I was in journalism school, objectivity was the goal. It was recognized that reporters would inevitably have opinions and personal worldviews – but the story was supposed to be presented in a neutral fashion.
News wasn’t supposed to be your axe to grind, nor was it to be used as a way to change society into what you wanted it to be. There were other platforms for that. Apparently that approach to news is no more.
It isn’t the they/their pronouns in the article instead of he/she that offends me, though I think it is silly. Language evolves, I get that. So far the thought police can’t hassle me for saying it is silly.
What raised my blood pressure (figuratively) was the phrase “the teenager, who was assigned female at birth…” Excuse me, did I read that correctly?
Even modern gender theorists would have to admit (I hope) that no-one is assigned a gender at birth. As I understand it, they see gender as a choice, something a newborn would be incapable of. The baby in this question would have had female reproductive organs and therefore been considered female. That is sex, not gender in this post-modern world.
That a reporter could write a piece in this fashion, and an editor approve it, bothers the journalist in me. As a taxpayer, I question the use of my tax dollars to promote someone else’s cultural agenda under the guise of “news.”
Maybe I am out of touch with the times. Maybe my age is showing. Or maybe I want to see a science-based approached to the question of gender.
That probably wouldn’t sit well with those intent on re-creating society to fit their imaginary constructions. When you’ve already decided the outcome, you don’t want to take a chance the facts might not agree with you. (And yes, I realize someone reading this might think those words should apply to me.)
What this news article reinforces is that we do indeed live in a world without absolutes. How do you feel about that? And where do you draw the line?
If there are no absolutes, does that mean the law of gravity is an imaginary construct? If so, why can’t I fly?
Similarly, if there is no right or wrong (statements which seem pretty absolute to me), then why do I have to obey any laws I dislike? What right does the state have to coerce me to follow its rules? What right does the state have to even make rules?
Do you see a problem here?
If I thought the ombudsman had any influence I would. But since the CBC apparently doesn’t believe in absolutes I’m not sure it wouldn’t be a waste of time.
We have written to the ombudsman a couple of times. Got a reply, not sure if it got any further than that. at least they know they can’t get away with saying anything they like. They have to be accountable, and answer to reasonable criticisms.
You should write to the ombudsman of the broadcasting company. They need to be accountable because we are paying them. What you describe has bothered us for a long time. They not so much report news but they treat their commentaries as news. I don’t want pay for that.