Toronto Star public editor: Star overdid ‘Somali’ references

[Safferz]

ElPunto;954757 wrote:

Seriously guys. I think you're being way too harsh. They explained why there was a need for the use of the word Somali in the original article. They could do better with understanding the context that the word should be used in. But they recognized their mistake. In all my years on this site - I can't ever recall a newspaper in any other country hearing out and then apologizing for harm done to the Somali community through unfair reporting. Well done Canada.

I don't think so -- it's basically a non-apology when you consider that they took a handful of Abdi's words for the editorial and tried to explain his response (rather than printing it as a letter to the editor or an op-ed), then tried to justify their use of Somali and apologize on their own terms. It's important they acknowledged that they made a mistake, but they completely missed the point of the critique and the issues at stake.

 

Somalia;954801 wrote:

I don't think

Aidid

was being too harsh.

[Safferz]

From my former professor:

 

 

Dear Kathy English,

 

I read your response to a letter from Abdi Aidid, who is (full disclosure) a former student of mine. Regrettably, in trying to respond to his concerns all you managed to accomplish was to marginalize his concerns. You wrote:

 

“Aidid and numerous others in his community were distressed greatly by the many references to ‘Somali’ drug dealers in the Star’s first report of the Ford crack video.”

 

I am not from his community and when I read the Star article last week, on Thursday evening when it was first posted, I was dismayed at the promiscuous invocation of ethnic identifiers.

 

I think that if your reporters had been willing to be more self-reflexive in respose to Mr Aidid’s letter they could have realized that they weren't conveying information by peppering their report with eleven mentions of the word Somali, but trying to create drama. Somali drug dealers, Somali terrorists, Somali pirates, ... the word Somali has become a signifier of violence and danger. At no time was it twinned with Canadian, as in Somali-Canadian.

 

In your response you at no point demonstrate the relevance of the ethnic identity of the informants. Instead, you merely assert that it was relevant and that was why it was included. You write:

 

“The newsroom believes (and I agree) the fact that the men described themselves as part of the Somali community is relevant to the responsible reporting of this story.”

 

But what is the basis of this belief with which you agree? It is not explained. All you say is that it was relevant to understanding the motivation of the informants:

 

“Given that these men are unidentified sources making serious allegations and peddling strong visual evidence of Ford apparently smoking crack, it was important that the Star give readers as much information as it can at this point about who these people are and what their motivation might be.”

 

But what does their being identified as Somali tell the reader? Are there known difference in Somali motivations? That they are alleged drug dealers is relevant. But not their being Somali in so far as this information was treated.

 

Less specifically, you suggest that the story needed facts and that was why this ethnic categorization was used. But how does this "fact" of ethnicity lend credibility to the story? If they were Scottish (or Scottish-Canadian) would the story have less credibility? I don't see how ethnicity became a matter of facticity. What if you had known their sexual orientation, would you have mentioned this?

 

At no point in the original article did you mention the immigration status of the informants. Yet in your response this evening you said:

 

"In discussions about making the video public, the men expressed fears about deportation."

 

Why was this information left out of the original report? Should this have been a primary concern of the reporters? And given this concern of the informants, would it not follow that in the interests of “responsible reporting” you wouldn’t mention the ethnicity of informants who feared arrest and deportation. At no point over this week have I seen any public concern about the potential dangers these informants faced.

 

Finally, it is notable that on the CBC this afternoon, John Cook defended Gawker against Doug Ford’s simulated concern for the way the Somali-Canadian community in Toronto has been disparaged. He noted they Gawker went out of its way not to identify the ethnicity of people they dealt with. All the Star accomplished in making this identification was to allow Doug Ford to deflect the allegations by repeating the real and genuine concern of not only Somali-Canadians, but all Canadians who do not think that free-floating ethnic identifiers mean anything.

 

Not only were the stakes high for the Star given the high profile nature of the story, but even more so (much more so) for the informants.

 

If we are to expect our politician to be transparent and honest, we also have to expect the same from our journalists. I do not believe your response met that threshold.

 

Sincerely yours,

 

Sean S. Hawkins

Associate Professor

Department of History

University of Toronto

[AfricaOwn]

I think what Abdi and the rest of the community in Toronto has done to put pressure on the Star was much needed, good on them....I'm impressed.

[Safferz]

Not a fan of the Canadian Somali Congress but I'm glad CBC radio had this conversation:

 

 

[GaraadMon]

The title of that Youtube clip is erroneous. Our reputation was tarnished long before this scandal. It's only because of that already tarnished reputation that The Star went out of its way to state the ethnicity of those involved. To be seen, not only to be associating with drug dealers, but Somalis in particular is being used to further chide him.