Author
|
Topic: Is the Toronto Star turning into a sexist tabloid?
|
|
|
|
oldgoat
Moderator
Babbler # 1130
|
posted 14 April 2005 01:02 PM
"memo to self from Star Editor:Hmm, -Papal conclave starts today -Government about to fall -Big name racist gunned down -Adscam gets closer to former PM Hey, someone get a picture of Brittany Spears in a bikini!! " Sheesh!
From: The 10th circle | Registered: Jul 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 14 April 2005 02:43 PM
quote: Originally posted by Judes: My point is that the headline says she should stopo eating junk food when she is pregnant. Suggestion that you shouldn't gain weight when you're pregnant.It's not just the photo of Britney that pissed me off but the message about her body
Unbelievable. Pregancy is a license to eat. Spears is so thin, she could put on 50 pounds of preggy weight and still be well within healthy range. In fact, if she doesn't, she'll be a lot less healthy than she could be. Just the assumption that being pregnant makes you "fat" makes me furious.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
thwap
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 5062
|
posted 14 April 2005 03:09 PM
Actually, the Star did a series on one of their big editors (I think it was Atkinson), and he once fired a female reporter for being too fat.(Not to her face though. He asked:"Who's that?" and when told, he said "Fire her, she's too fat.") And, there was a chubby young man working at the paper through family connections, and he'd put the guy on the paper scales every morning, in front of everybody, to see if he'd lost any weight.
From: Hamilton | Registered: Feb 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 15 April 2005 03:03 AM
The article was written by celebrity watcher Rita Zekas, who is as untalented as they come when it comes to "Star Gazing" (her beat). The article opens: quote: Yes, pop tart Britney Spears has a bun in the oven. That news has been spread far and wide.But if Spears, 23, doesn't stop eating junk food, she'll be spread far and wide. And hubby of seven months, Kevin Federline, 27, had better stop smoking in his pregnant wife's face. Ever heard of second-hand-smoke, Kev?
The picture on page one is big. The story takes up all of the editorial content on A3. We get "exclusive photos" of Spears looking at magazines at a Blockbuster's, her "drone husband" golfing WHILE SMOKING, Federline "looking like a homeless person" while carrying groceries ("stocks up on essential supplies of Coke"). A photo of the couple at a Wendy's drive-thru (Federline is SMOKING with Spears beside him). A photo of Spears walking OUT of the same Blockbuster, but now with a Seventeen magazine in hand (what's not newsworthy???!!). And ... wait for it ... A PICTURE of the *#@!" receipt from the Wendy's. Zekas writes "Spears hasn't been working since she cancelled her Onyx tour because of a knee injury, after which poundage pundits predicted she would blimp out." "Pregnancy gives Spears a legit reason and it's baby fat as opposed to Baby Phat ..." "She and Federline went to a Blockbuster Video store on Sunday and then to Wendy's afterwards for a bacon and cheese baked potato, large Frosty drink, biggie Coke and the chicken combo value meal, which included fries. With all her bucks, Spears is buying trailer-park fast-food value meals?" (After this there is a sober little journalist's-duty quote from a nutritionist about how moms-to-be need to monitor their sodium.) The piece then tells us the calories, fat and sodium content of the baked potato, fries and frosty, then says that Spears should stop enjoying Starbucks lattes topped with whipped cream. "Fat and caffeine - we're not even going there. Clearly she needs to hire a nutritionist as well as a stylist." "If these two don't shape up, Children's Aid will have to take custody of the fetus ..." Ha Ha Ha - isn't she HILARIOUS? Then two-plus paragraphs about a joke blog written in the voice of said fetus. Reality TV deal... Paris Hilton ... "Baby photos will likely be available to the highest bidder, as were Spear's wedding photos." I'm so glad we got to see the Star's EXCLUSIVE PHOTOS without that Spears chick being able to profit. I mean, the actual *bill*?! What a coup. Hats off to you, Rita! You are truly a writer's writer! . [ 15 April 2005: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
Whazzup?
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1471
|
posted 15 April 2005 08:13 AM
A stupid piece, true, but one that centred on the health risks of her diet.But sexism in the Star? Yes, absolutely -- it's just that you have to look further down that same front page, below the fold, and read the headline: WOMEN CONSPICUOUSLY ABSENT FROM SCANDAL [Adscam] "We do politics differently," MP says More women, less corruption: Study Classic sexism. Classic Toronto Star. Classic stupidity.
From: Under the Rubble | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
skdadl
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 478
|
posted 15 April 2005 09:15 AM
quote: trailer-park fast-food value meals?
And let's throw in a little vulgar class snobbery while we're at it, eh? Gee, Robert Prichard, great buddy of Bob Rae and supreme vulgarizer of the University of Toronto, strikes again. Jumble has it, spot on, as does Judes in her title for this thread. This is only incidentally sexist, in that exploiting the female body every which way possible is the greatest money-maker of all time. Who would have imagined that we could miss John Honderich?
From: gone | Registered: May 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
sock puppet
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7739
|
posted 15 April 2005 10:09 AM
quote: Who would have imagined that we could miss John Honderich?
Me.A pompous twit, I imaging you saying? Yes, but a pompous twit with a great big heart in the right place, and a sense of the great tradition of journalism he had inherited. The Star is much diminished without him. And yesterday's front page is proof.
From: toronto | Registered: Dec 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
Nemo
recent-rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7925
|
posted 15 April 2005 03:28 PM
quote: Originally posted by Jumble: Obviously, they wanted to show her in a bikini, first off. And, as for the reference to the need to "rein in the fries", maybe it's just a way of drawing atention to the fact that she should be eating healthier foods now that she's pregnant? In a paternalistic way of course. As if the media has the right to make snide remarks about what a pregnant celebrity is seen eating.
It's her choice to eat whatever she wants and to do whatever she wants. Even if she feels the need to get an abortion. They aught to shut up.
From: winnipeg | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
Stargazer
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 6061
|
posted 16 April 2005 10:37 AM
The Star ran a piece today about the Brittney fall-out. Needless to say they were not apologetic at all, and even supported the piece on Britney. From the Star: quote: "Whether we like it or not," said deputy entertainment editor Malene Arpe, "no young person is going to buy the paper because we have a picture of Paul Martin on the front."
Are they sexist? I think so. Britney photo provokes fierce debate [ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: stargazer ]
From: Inside every cynical person, there is a disappointed idealist. | Registered: Jun 2004
| IP: Logged
|
|
disobedient
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2915
|
posted 16 April 2005 11:27 AM
That's horrible. Who do I write to in order to ask exactly what message they are trying to send to the young readers they are trying to draw? "Dear young teenaged girlwoman, please read this article, whose underlying message is that you must be obedient, must always watch what you eat and must never EVER be fat or eat fattening foods in public because that is IMMORAL and WRONG. Please, if you must eat ice cream or french fries, sign up for our course, Binging and Purging 101. All registries in the next two weeks will receive a twenty year supply of Cosmo magazine. Regards, The Toronto Star Patriarchy." I saw this front page on my walk to work in the morning and my thoughts were, "Now the star has gone down the drain, that leaves me with no newspapers, all internet." As a communications student, it's immensely disheartening.
From: Ontario | Registered: Jul 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
Américain Égalitaire
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 7911
|
posted 16 April 2005 01:32 PM
What a colossal piece of self-serving tripe! Has the Star no shame?What specious reasoning is this? They're saying - oh, we'll sucker the kids to paying (whatever the single issue cost) to ogle and smooze over Britney and then they'll be drawn to the hard news stories and be part of some "discussion!" Bullshit, they'll cut out the Britney cover and throw the rest of the boring "dinosaur blog" away. But the Star pockets the difference. And HOW do you attract these younger readers to a broader discussion of the issues by up front insulting their intelligence saying - you'll buy this newspaper for no other reason than to get a pin up or some trashy gossip which signifies nothing. Its pure crass dishonest cynical marketing. But that's the way it seems to be going. When newspapers desperate for sales, prostitute their front page in this manner, it demeans us all. But I always say that people need to look in the mirror (not this group, but society as a whole) - if the Star didn't cynically think this would work, they wouldn't have even attempted it. But these justifications are a big "go f yourself" to the Star's serious readers. They're saying if you don't like it, go somewhere else. You're not the future of print journalism - you're the past. So I guess its a good thing that even though my newspaper is a tool of the establisment, at least we bury the celebrity crap on the back inside page and make the attempt to write more meaningful articles for our young adult readership. quote: "Whether we like it or not," said deputy entertainment editor Malene Arpe, "no young person is going to buy the paper because we have a picture of Paul Martin on the front."
And if that's true, we are all the poorer for it. [ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: Egalitarian American ]
From: Chardon, Ohio USA | Registered: Jan 2005
| IP: Logged
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 16 April 2005 01:40 PM
The response from the Star might have worked if it was a student paper. Yeah, news stories sometimes don't pan out. So you spike 'em. I think it's time to start a boycott, so they pay attention to their female and pro-feminist readers, whatever age they might be. I'm at a course right now, but when I get home, I'm gonna start some organizing. Please, anyone who has time now, why not get the ball rolling? Contact whomever you know in the Toronto area, ask if they subscribe to the Star, and get them to call and complain, then cancel. Perhaps they'll get the message to pull their shit together and act like a professional newspaper. [ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|
swallow
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 2659
|
posted 17 April 2005 01:51 PM
quote: Originally posted by writer: I think it's time to start a boycott, so they pay attention to their female and pro-feminist readers, whatever age they might be....Please, anyone who has time now, why not get the ball rolling? Contact whomever you know in the Toronto area, ask if they subscribe to the Star, and get them to call and complain, then cancel. Perhaps they'll get the message to pull their shit together and act like a professional newspaper.
I'm in, cancelling today. I'm going to miss having something printed on paper to read over coffee, though.
From: fast-tracked for excommunication | Registered: May 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
writer
editor emeritus
Babbler # 2513
|
posted 18 April 2005 06:10 PM
quote: To: [email protected] Cc: [email protected], [email protected] Subject: Burnside misses the point - Star should apologize Re Smoke gets in her fries (April 14, 2005) and Britney photo provokes fierce debate (April 16, 2005): Oops, you did it. You've finally convinced me to cancel my subscription to the Star. And you've made me mad enough to ask others to cancel their subscriptions. Concerned with women's shaky self-image? Our culture's unhealthy weight obsession? Dislike celebrity hype and superficial snarkiness passing as news? The Star is not for you. It is under new and desperate management. An "exclusive photo" of a couple's modest restaurant bill - or should I say "trailer-park fast-food value meals" - quite the journalistic coup - for a high school student paper. Though most of the high school students I know wouldn't stoop to writing or publishing this sexist, classist, creepy trash. Public Editor Sharon Burnside writes, "This particular road to hell was born of good intentions and a plan that didn't work out exactly as planned." That and an editorial team unwilling to spike a substandard story that would get a second-year journalism student into trouble. Burnside continues, "Rita Zekas's 'tongue in cheek' approach is not typical for a news page." That would be because it was not news or good entertainment, and so should not have been in the paper let alone the front section, Star Gazing label or not. You are on your way to losing readers - in particular, intelligent and sensitive readers of both genders, young and old - in this craven and insulting pursuit of a marketable demographic.
A little later than I'd hoped, but I did it. And now, the lobby to encourage others to join swallow and me! [ 18 April 2005: Message edited by: writer ]
From: tentative | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
Timebandit
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 1448
|
posted 18 April 2005 07:36 PM
quote: Originally posted by Whazzup?: A stupid piece, true, but one that centred on the health risks of her diet.
Her entire diet? How would they know? What they have as evidence is what, ONE trip to a fast food place? Who knows what she eats as a regular matter of course? Surely we're all entitled to an occasional bout of junk food -- all things in moderation, mind. But there's no evidence that her fast-food consumption is out of control at all. What it does speak to is an overly paternalistic attitude about what pregnant women should and should not be censured for. Britney Spears may get a full page of being raked over the coals for her celebrity status, but other pregnant women get the evil eye on a regular basis. Just because you're carrying a baby doesn't mean you need to be infantilized.
From: Urban prairie. | Registered: Sep 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
Doug
rabble-rouser
Babbler # 44
|
posted 08 November 2007 12:28 PM
It really can be worse. I happened across this from those lovely people at the Daily Mail.http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=492405&in_page_id=1879&in_a_source= quote: But female ineptitude in the kitchen is not just a product of the fullness of a woman's timetable. We all have busy lives these days, so there must be something else, something far deeper and intrinsic that makes women so hopeless at cooking. I have a few theories, all of which will no doubt see me pinned down and forced to eat my own sweetmeats. The first is that women are less inclined to experiment. Good cooks are those who take risks, who wonder whether X goes well with Y, or perhaps even with Q. If it fails, it doesn't matter, you can always start again. Women are more afraid of failure, perhaps because they are wary of all that nasty male criticism, so it does them well to stick to well-trodden recipes. However, it gets worse. As well as being incapable of experimenting, women are useless at following written instructions, which in this instance are called recipes.
Julia Child will rise from her grave and eat his brains...with lots of butter.
From: Toronto, Canada | Registered: Apr 2001
| IP: Logged
|
|
|
|
|
|