An email sent to a news outlet in NZ re: Canadian Shooter

[2021x]

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.

I think there ought to be a trans category for collection of statistics but that we ought to respect people’s pronouns when writing articles about them in the paper which is very different

And everyone has a right to be called whatever they want, do they?

With what consequences if someone refuses or does not agree with or respect this 'right?

Why ought we?

Thanks for your opinion.
Have a lovely day.

Everyone has a right to be respected. The article retained journalistic integrity by making it clear early on in the article that the person concerned was a trans female and that’s why the pronouns being used were being used. Nobody was led to believe this was a cis woman shooter.

You canvassed opinion…

Now I see you only wanted those that agreed with you, my mistake

Why is it different? Unless it’s an opinion piece, surely journalism should be factual. Once a journalist starts altering facts to suit the sensibilities or preferences of the person they’re writing about, their work becomes useless.

You gave an opinion, which I am grateful
for.

You didn’t provide any reasoning or ask any questions.

Therefore there was nothing else to say to you other than Thank you.

This man shot other people. Personally I don't care what pronouns he wanted people to use.

They did no such thing - did you read the article? They explain that this is a trans person in the article so they have clearly stated the facts and chosen to refer to the person in the way they prefer which isn’t misleading anyone

It’s even more confusing if you frame them as female. The shooter really didn’t look like a woman, whatever their pronouns. If they were still at large this would cause serious confusion. They should have been termed a TW or male transitioning to TW if people’s lives were at risk. This may not have been the case here as the shooter was already dead but it’s a point of principle.

We had a rapist here in the UK of a teen boy who was described as female. Very confusing until you read they were a six foot two TW or maybe just man disguised as a woman. What if you had actually been a witness but didn’t ring the police because you wouldn’t have recognised the description from the early media reports.

Well I heard a radio report where the shooter was described as a female shooter. I was very surprised as it’s unusual for women to commit these kind of crimes. How often do they actually fit the stereotype of a young, disaffected male with mental health issues and distanced from the world? It’s better to be honest because these males need better mental health treatment rather than just supporting their delusions.

In the English language the pronoun "she" means a female person or animal. In this instance the person referred to is not female, so it is factually incorrect. Journalism is not about being kind and humouring people.

And no, everyone doesn’t have "a right to be respected" if "being respected" means forcing everyone else to use the language you prefer but which they don’t want to use because it is inaccurate.

@2021x Stuff likely didn’t have anyone put any thought into this article. It is just publishing content by the Associated Press like numerous other news outlets around the world. Probably best to reach out to the journalists from the Associated Press directly.

Agree if that’s what the radio said that they didn’t give the full picture. This article, on the other hand, was not misleading in my opinion

I think you've forgotten that whilst most Mumsnetters support transgender people. We also ask for clarity and we also want to be clear on actual sex rather than perceived sex. In this case the shooter was a biological male.

That is a good email 2021x!

That was made clear in the article

A quick google explains the reasoning behind the journalists choice. It appears that the publication they write for says in its style guide that you should use the pronouns that the person uses for themself.

Will you let us know, OP, if you get a reply?

I think that the more people complain about the lack of clarity in news being reported, hopefully better standards will apply. I found the ABC (Australia) clung to describing the shooter as a woman long after it also made a brief sentence about the shooter was male. They continued to have it in the headline.

The BBC was marginally better.

What kind of fuckwit would put on a dress to go shooting?

I cannot imagine this story being in your consciousness and THIS being what has “confused” you.

No, if you google the name and look at "images" there are several. It is obvious from the recent one that the murderer was male.

Fair enough but they still have responsibility for what the publishing it is inaccurate.

Yes I will.