Is the Toronto Star turning into a sexist tabloid?

Yeah, that really surprised me when I looked at my paper this morning. Sometimes papers do fluff bits on a slow news week, but that was pretty tasteless even for a fluff bit. What's more, we havn't had a slow news week in some time. Pretty sad judgement on someones part.

"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!

[img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

My first day with the new $1 a week subscription, and now I have to threaten to cancel it if they continue to move their publication towards the Sun model.

quote:

---

Originally posted by Judes:
[b]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[/b]

---

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.

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.

I'm still trying to figure out what the point of that thing was. Are they saying she's pregnant? "Chubby?" Ugly? I don't understand.

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 ]

quote:

---

trailer-park fast-food value meals?

---

And let's throw in a little vulgar class snobbery while we're at it, eh? [img]rolleyes.gif" border="0[/img]

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?

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.

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. [url=http://www.thestar.com/NASApp/cs/ContentServer?pagename=thestar/Layout/A... photo provokes fierce debate[/url]

[ 16 April 2005: Message edited by: stargazer ]

Your last comment was spot on - no newspapers. They are all terrible. The Star has been sinking to new lows, and is now singing the Conservative song 'Harper doesn't have a hidden agenda, we just wish he would tell us what it is'.

Back to the internet!

I don't want my post to have a whiny tone to it as I am certainly responsible for my own behavioural choices but I think that the star is irresponsible in promoting challenges and difficulties for people. I have a strong history of struggling with an eating disorder and now is a more precarious time so it requires extra-vigilance on my part to stay away from those messages. I don't think that the star has sufficient insight into how damaging that kind of coverage is. Especially with pre-teens and teens it shapes how they think about themselves.

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 ]

Well here is a really great letter to the editor on the exact same thing re: teens being held up as irresponsible, shallow dupes:

quote:

---

We, Grade 11 students in a world issues class at The Bishop Strachan School, were appalled by Thursday's front page. First, what relevance does the picture have to Kyoto? We find it hard to understand why the picture was placed there. Surely there would be a section of the paper available to expose Britney. There are millions of mothers who have to clean up their act, but there is only one Kyoto Protocol. If we wanted to read trash on Britney Spears, we would have picked up The National Enquirer, not the Toronto Star

---

"The Toronto Star patriarchy" indeed, disobedient. Well said.

I had forgotten that Gherson has become editor. Oh, God, he was already THE most boring of the ultra-boring editorial team under William Thorsell at the Grope and Flail ten years ago. I mean, they were all bad (Marcus Gee, anyone?) and pretty right-wing, but Gherson was absolute boiled milk with skim forming on top.

Some paunchy bland middle-aged man thinks that he knows best how to talk to teenaged girls. There you have it: the patriarchy, Canadian version.

quote:

---

Originally posted by writer:
[b]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.[/b]

---

I'm in, cancelling today. I'm going to miss having something printed on paper to read over coffee, though.

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 ]

quote:

---

Originally posted by Whazzup?:
[b]A stupid piece, true, but one that centred on the [i]health[/i] risks of her diet.[/b]

---

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.

Bump! Since we mentioned it in another thread today.

It really can be worse. I happened across this from those lovely people at the Daily Mail.

[url=http://www.dailymail.co.uk/pages/live/femail/article.html?in_article_id=...

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.

WOMEN are useless at following written instructions?

Clearly this author has never watched a domestic situation where a man and a woman are putting together IKEA furniture. Or, you know, if a man and a woman are in a car and they're not sure how to get somewhere.

Yes, that was blatant gender stereotyping on my part. So ban me. [img]biggrin.gif" border="0[/img]