Two heroes of the tragedy in Norway:
no plus ones
View 17 previous comments
- All you have to do is strike the word lesbian from the headline. "Couple saved dozens of campers..." The picture is of two women. The word lesbian is superfluous and is just there to draw attention. If they were not a couple in the romantic sense, the headline could read "Two women saved dozens of campers.."Jul 26, 2011
- Mark pointed it out correctly - this was a link from a gay site and it is part of their MO to point out gay-related articles, or articles that show gays in a positive light.
The original post came form a Finnish newspaper - in THAT article, they are only described as 'partners' - heroes who saved lives. The word 'lesbian' is not used.
All that said - if that headline had been used anywhere else, we would call it superfluous, unnecessary to the point of the story. As a lesbian myself, I would not find prejudice in someone pointing this out. I'd question why the news outlet chose the headline - for bias? Historically, this has been the case. A sensational headline sells a paper / story. LGBTQ know too well how it can be used against them.
Cassi pointed out the right thing - just on the wrong story.Jul 26, 2011
- As soon as I read the link just now I went into WTF mode. I am sure if it had been a straight couple it wouldn't say 'STRAIGHT PEOPLE RUSH IN TO HELP".Jul 26, 2011
- and +Mark Engelberg thanks for pointing the actual source of the article. I admit I didn't read the article and was responding to the "huh, that is weird they would put that in the headline". I can't speak for anyone else who may have or have not read.
But I think both DJ and made good points on the two differing ways that journalism would use the couple's orientation - the original article is obviously one geared towards the LGBT community, so yes they'd want to say, "look at this! We are awesome! High Five!"
But I also think that, as some of us were saying, in our mainstream news, this headline would be taken as most of us took it, which was unnecessary to the action that the couple took.
You sparked the first ever discussion in regards to this! And I thought it was a good discussion; it didn't fall into name calling or rudeness and I think that matters. It was a good conversation!
I thought.Jul 27, 2011
- I was wondering that too, Natalie.
And now I've read all the comments, I understand better!Jul 27, 2011
- Regina it's easy for you to say it didn't fall into rudeness but to me it was. Someone called me a name and was rude to me. I got other opinions (from both gay and straight people) to see how they read the comments. They saw me called prejudice but didn't see anything prejudicial in my comments.
The reason I did not know the article was from a gay-issues publication is because I said earlier I do not click on headlines that I don't think follow the basic ethics of journalism. Being a blog does change things somewhat. I'm a highly ethical person and am constantly critiquing the ethics of newspapers, blogs, etc. It's one of my favorite things I studied in my degree. I'd already read stories about rescues from the campground so in lieu of what I considered better ethics I chose to read elsewhere.
I will not be reading Mike's books in the future or recommending them. I hope he learns not to judge others quite so quickly and jump to conclusions based on very little information.Jul 27, 2011
Add a comment...