StratfordToday received the following letter regarding a concern on a company policy that sees comments shut off on some stories on certain topics.
As a retired newspaper editor/publisher and former journalism instructor at York and Laurier universities, I am dismayed at your ban on free speech – your refusal to print reader comments on important news stories.
Your Jan. 23 announcement said “…As much as we think coverage of Canada’s relationship with Indigenous people is a critical part of the work our journalists do, readers looking at comments on those stories have historically found themselves awash in a stream of hurtfulness and ignorance.
“So our editors typically won’t allow commenting on those stories.”
“We have had a similar experience with coverage of other marginalized groups, so those stories may also appear without comment sections.”
“Marginalized” typically signifies non-white people, the LGBT community and some select religious groups. So, news stories will be allowed that carry comments by Indigenous, Black and LGBT activists about racism, white supremacy, genocide, colonialism, settlerism, apartheid, patriarchy, gender dysphoria, homophobia, Islamophobia, Eurocentrism, etc., etc. – topics heaped on us by the media almost daily. But no one will be allowed to question those matters if uttered by one of your protected groups. You are creating two types of Canadians – those who can be criticized (straight, white people) and those who are immune from criticism (Indigenous and “marginalized”). Apalling.
You can easily pre-screen comments containing racial slurs, profanities, etc., so there is no real need for a total ban on reader commentary. In effect, such a ban only ensures that the “official party line” on these issues cannot be challenged.
Hurt feelings do not trump democratic rights. In a democracy, from time to time, we will all hear something we don’t like, something that “hurts.” That’s the price we pay for free speech. But it’s chump change compared to the human currency one surrenders in a tyranny where toeing the party line is mandatory and “diverse” opinions are banned.
The need to question and challenge what is going on – the need for free speech -- has never been greater.
Yes, it is an inconvenient paradox that free speech can be both “hurtful” and “helpful” but the yin and yang of that relationship is inextricably intertwined. We cannot hack off one limb without the entire body bleeding to death. Free speech, by its very nature, must be free and whole. Stop the amputation.
Sincerely
Robert Roth
