Journalists, inanity, taste and acquaintance with the language

A story run by the Telegraph earlier today boasted the headline “Senator accused of sexism over 'thank God' remark about female opponent”.

(http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/us-politics/8813978/Senator-accused-of-sexism-over-thank-God-remark-about-female-opponent.html)

So the opponent was female. That’s the only attribute about her that our journalist thinks to be relevant, in the first instance. We learn, later, that she is a professor, teaches at Harvard, 62 years old and a Democrat. But, first and foremost, she has a vagina et cetera, is what the journalist wants us to know.

What about the senator? What gender does this protagonist have? The story, later, suggests that it is of the masculine sort. The headline does not, choosing only to bring out the gender of the other protagonist. This appears to be evidence of sexist thinking, on the part of the journalist. One assumes that the name Jon Swaine and the accompanying headshot is that of a real person, one often called a journalist, given that it is a newspaper, and that this person takes responsibility for what this person writes. Of course, the story might have been written by Clara, thus freeing Mr. Swaine of all guilt, but Clara is a female, and do we really need to acknowledge their contribution?

“Scott Brown, a..Republican…helped pay for university by appearing in Cosmopolitan. Asked how she funded her own education, Prof Warren.. said she had "borrowed money", adding: "I kept my clothes on." During a radio interview, Mr Brown, 52, responded: "Thank God."”

Now the headline claims that the senator has been “accused” of sexism. What does that mean? Accused by the State, or the local public prosecutor’s office? By pitchfork-carrying mobs of enlightened thousands? In dozens of letters written to local newspapers? The article itself quotes two individuals who make this suggestion. One is an paid employee (one assumes Executive Directors is not a pro bono job) of the political opponent, who is clearly partisan. The second source is the President of the National Organization for Women, an organization of feminists. Given that there are only two sources, one manifestly interested, one wonders whether the journalist may used the term “accused” in this generic fashion. In any public house, one can find eight people who are probably happy to do the same. Would that mean the Pope is “accused” of being lenient towards child molesters? By four times as many people as in this case? Are not fairness and veracity better served with “President of NOW accuses Senator of sexism; Senator repudiates”? But she actually said it was a “sexist misogynistic attack” (She is referring to the senator having said “Thank God”). A bit of stretch there, perhaps, but it is her opinion, and that may well be reported by the journalist. And if it wasn’t a stretch, then why was the misogyny accusation not mentioned in the headline? Analysis and perspective – are those part of a journalist’s brief? That would involve some contemplation. Perhaps more on Clara’s part. It’s her fault, really.

On eccentric chess-players and independent journalists

The Telegraph reported yesterday, 13 Jun 2011, on the visit of Mr. Kirsan Ilyumzhinov to Tripoli, where he met Col. Gaddafi, the beleaguered leader of Libya (http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/worldnews/africaandindianocean/libya/8573080/Col-Gaddafi-refuses-to-step-down-playing-chess-instead.html).

The sub-headline referred to the visitor as being “eccentric”, as did the caption of the accompanying photograph. Indeed, the caption also suggested the reason why he is regarded as being eccentric: he has apparently claimed to have spoken to aliens. Interestingly, the photography is attributed to Reuters TV – did that source provide the writer of the Telegraph article with the caption as well, or did he happen upon “eccentric” on their own?

Now, the visitor labeled by this journalist as being eccentric is, according to the same article, the head of the World Chess Federation, a wealthy businessman and was the head of the Russian republic of Kalmykia for more than a decade.

The article does not state why the writer thinks the President of FIDE to be eccentric, but the juxtaposition in the caption appears to imply it is because he has claimed to have met aliens from space.

Now why would this make anyone eccentric? We live in a world where people believe in all sorts of invisible Gods, and whole systems of hells and heavens for which not the slightest proof exists. Indeed, some of the fundamental claims of some of the currently dominant religions are proven to be false. Yet there are those who believe in them. Would the journalist take it upon himself to call the Pope eccentric? The Imam of the Finsbury Park mosque? The millions of poor in India who generally tend to look towards a God-figure? The journalist is entitled to his opinion, but surely a little sense of taste would not be awry?

> “He (Gaddafi) is thought to spend his time constantly on the move, driving around Tripoli, and sleeping in hospitals and religious places that Nato would never dare bomb.”

By whom? By the journalist? In that case, why not “I think he spends his time…….”? Or by two Libyans who accosted him at the bar whilst they were getting some more ice for him? Why not state that source? The “is thought” device suggests common wisdom, an almost-truth, the truth.

The Independent followed suit the next day (http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/africa/dictators-gambit-look-whos-joined-the-chess-set-2297106.html), referring to the first President of Kalmykia as “the eccentric chess supremo”.