I sent this email to a news outlet in NZ when reporting the recent Canadian shooter.
I would be keen to know how many people feel that I am being unreasonable.
I’m writing to seek clarification on Stuff’s editorial guidelines regarding the use of female pronouns to describe a male assailant.
I became confused when reading this article: https://www.stuff.co.nz/world-news/360937660/canada-shooting-who-was-shooter-suspect-jesse-van-rootselaar. The use of “her” pronouns, alongside a photo of a male person and references to the shooter’s mother, made it difficult to understand who the “her” in those paragraphs was referring to. Female school shooters are extremely rare and therefore, the pronoun choice stood out and created uncertainty about the factual details of the case.
My understanding is that news reporting should prioritise clarity and factual accuracy- especially for such a tragic event. Using female pronouns to describe someone who is male may suggest an ideological or political framing, which raises concerns for me about impartiality in reporting at Stuff.
I’m aware that raising questions about pronoun usage can sometimes lead to assumptions about a person’s views, resulting in my concerns being dismissed as bigoted rather than considered on their merits. My intention is not to be inflammatory, but to understand why a political stance appears to have been taken in a situation where a neutral approach—such as using the individual’s name or simply “the shooter”—could have avoided confusion and not detracted from the article.
I would appreciate clarification on the editorial reasoning behind this choice.