Bill Simmons: We Need Reeducation Camps For Reporters Writing About Transgender People

I’m going to write this post assuming you have read the original story and are familiar with the ongoing discussion about it. It’s simply too…much to explain.

Today Grantland Editor In Chief Bill Simmons issued an extraordinary “note” on the story, the fallout and what he says he did wrong.

We made one massive mistake. I have thought about it for nearly three solid days, and I’ve run out of ways to kick myself about it. How did it never occur to any of us? How? How could we ALL blow it?

That mistake: Someone familiar with the transgender community should have read Caleb’s final draft. This never occurred to us. Nobody ever brought it up.

Allow me to offer a guess why Simmons, nor someone on his staff ,thought to run this story by “someone familiar with the transgender community”…reporters aren’t supposed to shape their coverage to reflect the desires of the people they are covering or their political goals.

Can you imagine an editor saying, “We should have consulted a conservative Republican before running a piece on the tea party”. Or “we should have consulted someone who served in the military to make sure we properly represented the views of veterans in this story about someone who was once in the Army?” Or “we should have consulted someone who has run a large multi-national corporation before running this piece by a communist about the evils of international capitalism to ensure the views of evil international capitalists were fully understood and represented in the piece”.

From now on when Grantland writes about professional athletes are we to assume that they have consulted with someone from the players union first? If not, why not?

Of course you can’t imagine such things because they are ridiculous and would never happen. But apparently there’s at least one group who is supposed to have a representative at the table when anyone of them is the focus of a story. Maybe there are others, I don’t know. Perhaps publications can have a section in their “About Us” section that lets the rest of us know which groups are approved for kid glove treatment and which groups don’t get a chance to affect how they are covered.

Simmons also says that in the future he will be using GLAAD’s stylebook on how to refer to transgender people. Again, what other activist groups get to incorporate their preferred style guide into news coverage? Why just GLAAD (assuming it is just GLAAD)? What makes them so special?

This isn’t about whether or not you like or disapprove of the transgendered. It’s a question of journalistic fairness. Some groups can’t be more equal than others simply because they are given some sort of protective status.

Journalists are supposed to be committed to the truth and to their audience. Giving some favored groups extra protections makes you wonder how fair a reporter is to any other group.


About Drew

I blog about politics and hockey because I sort of understand those things. I'd blog about women but I'll never understand them.

Posted on January 20, 2014, in Uncategorized. Bookmark the permalink. 5 Comments.

  1. Have these people lost their collective minds? You now have to get approval from a tiny minority group before you can publish anything about them? Doesn’t anyone read history anymore and see what happens when you start to silence the press. Or is the press so corrupt that they would like to see the ones they disagree with put in jail for daring to write the truth. Whats next?

  2. It’s almost like saying transgendered people are too unstable to be treated equally in the press. Why would the transgendered community assume Dr V, a scam artist, killed herself for being outed as transgendered? Shouldn’t they be the first to say, “transgendered people are just as diverse as any other gender. Some of us are good, stable people, and some of us are scam artists who don’t want to get caught scamming.” It really is demeaning to transgendered people.

  3. I think you’re way off-base here. Comparing what Simmons suggests to getting the thoughts of a conservative republican before an article on the Tea Party is simply wrong. The Grantland article wasn’t about the transgendered, for one thing…it was about a putter and the individual behind it. Secondly, the criticism of the piece stems from how Hannan publicly outed Dr. V and used it to simply drive his narrative; having someone from the community read it beforehand might’ve allowed them to spot the ethical problems with that. If we’re talking journalistic fairness it’s not unreasonable to ask how it was fair for this reporter to decide-against the subject’s wishes-that this person’s private life needed to be publicized.

  4. I had such a hard time finding a picture of Bill’s wife! but i finally did! his kids are cute

  1. Pingback: Blue on Blue is a Hoot | Rotten Chestnuts

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in: Logo

You are commenting using your account. Log Out /  Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )


Connecting to %s

%d bloggers like this: