What is extra exasperating is that city newspapers seem not to understand that there is a DIRECT CONNECTION between behaviour of this sort and declining circulation. I was an extremely loyal print subscriber to my local paper until they
(2) refused to print my letter to the editor pointing out that "she" was a man. They'd refused to print any number of submitted opeds from me and other feminists, sometimes co-authored, which is their prerogative (even as they seemed never to tire of publishing a never ending supply of opeds sent in by trans activists). But their "letters to the editor" policy had been permissive to the point of silliness (borderline crank letters printed on a regular basis).
You cannot lie and lie and lie to the public and expect they will happily keep paying for the service. You just can't.
The Seattle Times only reported that the Zizian murder cult was made up of anarchist, rationalist vegans, but left out the part that they were all trans. Why did they report on this at all? Two alumni from the top high school were part of the cult.
Reporting like this, and they wonder why subscriptions are cratering?
"Wet sidewalks expected this week" but they won't mention that rain exists, when it will fall, how much, when it will likely let up. But how dare people turn to other forecasters when they DID say moisture and sidewalks and everything!
The Seattle Times never allows comment on transgenderism. I gave up my subscription in frustration. Also, listening on NPR I heard the Seattle Times reporter say he had two trans children, which may explain the extreme sensitivity to the topic.
Who is the Seattle Times reporter who said this? As a regular reader of the paper, it'll help to know who to watch out for. I've written to several of the bylined authors of sports articles calling them out on upside-down gender-woo language, but have never received a response. As Blank says, several years ago the Seattle Times stopped any comments section on any articles referencing trans stuff. They learned pretty quickly that readers would pounce on the stupidity and call them out for it. This Op-Ed was a rare breath of clarity and sanity - except for being butchered (queered?) by the editor. It wasn't a letter to the editor. It was an opinion piece, accepted by the editor. Any change to the submitted piece absolutely should have been discussed with the authors before publication. And of course we run into the problem of the AP Style Guide, which is rotten with gender nonsense.
Will not report accurately on sex, men in women's sports, men in women's jails, the sudden rise of violent crime committed by women (men). Will not respond to emails.
Once again Sarah, you nailed it! You've been saying all along that language matters! It's hard enough to get an OpEd published that pushes fairness for females, but it is unconscionable for an organization to "rewrite" an OpEd to align with their agenda. There is no morals in msm journalism.
Infuriating, but not surprising. How many people have to speak up for sanity before the TRAs start to get the message that we're not having it?? I live in WA state and am doing my best to spread the word about Amendment 7, but it's crazy how many people think I'm the problem for not wanting boys in girls's sports. Or males in any separate female spaces. I'm called transphobic, racist and hateful and I've been told that I think all trans people are rapists because allowing men into women's prisons is harmful to women. Of course, once a man says the maguic words "I'm a woman!" he instantly becomes an oppressed victim who will be brutalized in a men's prison and totally harmless to women. The madness is beyond scary.
We all knew it was happening. Its happening everyday everywhere. The style guides put out by GLAAD and other activist groups mandate the language and spin to media companies. Can any form of legal or public recourse be taken? They falsified the submission. Intentionally.
Nope. Because the Times, and other media outlets, can edit even letters to the editor for "clarity," and because the editor admitted her "screwup," and corrected it, we cannot know her intentions. But as others here have mentioned, it's odd that the editor sought to "clarify" something that she later admitted did not need clarifying, when every single day, the Times publishes articles and letters filled with inaccurate and confusing ideological language (a third of readers do not know the sex of a "trans girl"), and out and out lies, such as "trans athletes are banned from sports." Trans athletes have never been banned from sports; they have always been free to compete like everyone else in their sex category. Because the Seattle Times has clearly abandoned their journalistic duty to objectivity and accuracy, it's hard to accept that this was an innocent mistake
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I, too, have quite a bit of experience with op-eds and letters-to-the-editor, including having my language changed to appease certain interests (an op-ed I wrote years ago, sourced accurately out the wazoo, that exposed the high level of rapes and assaults committed by football players was watered down because the men in the newsroom got pissed off).
I obviously don't know for certain what happened here, but it sure looks like your interpretation is correct. Given that trans ideology has taken over most of mainstream media, I wouldn't be surprised if the editor deliberately changed the language in this case. Or it might well be that she herself was so muddled she didn't understand what she was doing.
In any case, it's wrong, and the correction is weak sauce, since most people won't read or remember the correction, only what they originally read.
It is unfortunate but understandable that at times newspapers decide for what may be a variety of reasons to publish a letter to the editor and then choose to alter it, but there is absolutely no reason that an alteration or abridgment should be hidden from their readers. A push should be made to convince ( shame) to have a disclaimer such as - this letter is being published after alteration by this newspaper - appended to any letter. This would have three impacts - first, simply notifying the reader that the letter was changed, second, probably making it less likely that they would choose to amend letters before publication, and third, give their readers an indication of how many of the letters that they publish are altered in some form.
As the opinion editor indicated in her email to Anne and Carol, the Times "reserves the right to edit letters for AP Style, grammar, usage, clarity, and so on." The editor said very few letters are published without edits. Her reason was "clarity," though why she thought expanding Anne and Carol's letter to include Amendment #8 (and then mixing up the details of the two amendments) would improve clarity is puzzling. And if she had read over her rewrite, it would have been apparent she'd made it more confusing rather than less. And also inaccurate. The "edit" did give the editor the opportunity to restate Amendment #7 in a biased way, as an attack on transgender athletes—"would prohibit trans girls from competing in girls sports"— rather than the rightful return of girls' sports to girls as Anne and Carol had written—"Girls category for those whose biological sex is female." The editor also introduced the ideological term "trans girl" which Anne and Carol had not used. Their original letter was clear about sex; the editor introduced lack of clarity by using "trans girl."
What is extra exasperating is that city newspapers seem not to understand that there is a DIRECT CONNECTION between behaviour of this sort and declining circulation. I was an extremely loyal print subscriber to my local paper until they
(1) called this man "she" in reporting his crimes
https://edmontonjournal.com/news/crime/violent-sex-offender-laverne-waskahat-rearrested-in-edmonton-facing-new-charges
and
(2) refused to print my letter to the editor pointing out that "she" was a man. They'd refused to print any number of submitted opeds from me and other feminists, sometimes co-authored, which is their prerogative (even as they seemed never to tire of publishing a never ending supply of opeds sent in by trans activists). But their "letters to the editor" policy had been permissive to the point of silliness (borderline crank letters printed on a regular basis).
You cannot lie and lie and lie to the public and expect they will happily keep paying for the service. You just can't.
The Seattle Times only reported that the Zizian murder cult was made up of anarchist, rationalist vegans, but left out the part that they were all trans. Why did they report on this at all? Two alumni from the top high school were part of the cult.
Reporting like this, and they wonder why subscriptions are cratering?
"Wet sidewalks expected this week" but they won't mention that rain exists, when it will fall, how much, when it will likely let up. But how dare people turn to other forecasters when they DID say moisture and sidewalks and everything!
The Seattle Times never allows comment on transgenderism. I gave up my subscription in frustration. Also, listening on NPR I heard the Seattle Times reporter say he had two trans children, which may explain the extreme sensitivity to the topic.
Who is the Seattle Times reporter who said this? As a regular reader of the paper, it'll help to know who to watch out for. I've written to several of the bylined authors of sports articles calling them out on upside-down gender-woo language, but have never received a response. As Blank says, several years ago the Seattle Times stopped any comments section on any articles referencing trans stuff. They learned pretty quickly that readers would pounce on the stupidity and call them out for it. This Op-Ed was a rare breath of clarity and sanity - except for being butchered (queered?) by the editor. It wasn't a letter to the editor. It was an opinion piece, accepted by the editor. Any change to the submitted piece absolutely should have been discussed with the authors before publication. And of course we run into the problem of the AP Style Guide, which is rotten with gender nonsense.
Anne and Carol dealt with the deputy opinion editor
Yes, they are as bad as the NYT.
Will not report accurately on sex, men in women's sports, men in women's jails, the sudden rise of violent crime committed by women (men). Will not respond to emails.
Once again Sarah, you nailed it! You've been saying all along that language matters! It's hard enough to get an OpEd published that pushes fairness for females, but it is unconscionable for an organization to "rewrite" an OpEd to align with their agenda. There is no morals in msm journalism.
And worse yet, they see their unethical behavior as “acting with moral clarity”. What a bunch of corrupt hacks.
Infuriating, but not surprising. How many people have to speak up for sanity before the TRAs start to get the message that we're not having it?? I live in WA state and am doing my best to spread the word about Amendment 7, but it's crazy how many people think I'm the problem for not wanting boys in girls's sports. Or males in any separate female spaces. I'm called transphobic, racist and hateful and I've been told that I think all trans people are rapists because allowing men into women's prisons is harmful to women. Of course, once a man says the maguic words "I'm a woman!" he instantly becomes an oppressed victim who will be brutalized in a men's prison and totally harmless to women. The madness is beyond scary.
I hear your frustration, and I really really really appreciate your willingness to nonetheless speak up about males in female sports
We all knew it was happening. Its happening everyday everywhere. The style guides put out by GLAAD and other activist groups mandate the language and spin to media companies. Can any form of legal or public recourse be taken? They falsified the submission. Intentionally.
Nope. Because the Times, and other media outlets, can edit even letters to the editor for "clarity," and because the editor admitted her "screwup," and corrected it, we cannot know her intentions. But as others here have mentioned, it's odd that the editor sought to "clarify" something that she later admitted did not need clarifying, when every single day, the Times publishes articles and letters filled with inaccurate and confusing ideological language (a third of readers do not know the sex of a "trans girl"), and out and out lies, such as "trans athletes are banned from sports." Trans athletes have never been banned from sports; they have always been free to compete like everyone else in their sex category. Because the Seattle Times has clearly abandoned their journalistic duty to objectivity and accuracy, it's hard to accept that this was an innocent mistake
Grrr. It’s all meant to be confusing so no one knows what anyone is saying or doing. The q in queer. Queer it all.
Excellent peek behind the scenes at the ongoing travesty of media censorship and deliberate obfuscation.
What a disgraceful editorial decision. Shame on the Seattle Times. You’re putting yourself out of business by abandoning your curiosity and ethics.
Thank you for bringing this to our attention. I, too, have quite a bit of experience with op-eds and letters-to-the-editor, including having my language changed to appease certain interests (an op-ed I wrote years ago, sourced accurately out the wazoo, that exposed the high level of rapes and assaults committed by football players was watered down because the men in the newsroom got pissed off).
I obviously don't know for certain what happened here, but it sure looks like your interpretation is correct. Given that trans ideology has taken over most of mainstream media, I wouldn't be surprised if the editor deliberately changed the language in this case. Or it might well be that she herself was so muddled she didn't understand what she was doing.
In any case, it's wrong, and the correction is weak sauce, since most people won't read or remember the correction, only what they originally read.
When I wrote for the student newspaper, the editor changed facts in my reporting. I quit.
It is unfortunate but understandable that at times newspapers decide for what may be a variety of reasons to publish a letter to the editor and then choose to alter it, but there is absolutely no reason that an alteration or abridgment should be hidden from their readers. A push should be made to convince ( shame) to have a disclaimer such as - this letter is being published after alteration by this newspaper - appended to any letter. This would have three impacts - first, simply notifying the reader that the letter was changed, second, probably making it less likely that they would choose to amend letters before publication, and third, give their readers an indication of how many of the letters that they publish are altered in some form.
As the opinion editor indicated in her email to Anne and Carol, the Times "reserves the right to edit letters for AP Style, grammar, usage, clarity, and so on." The editor said very few letters are published without edits. Her reason was "clarity," though why she thought expanding Anne and Carol's letter to include Amendment #8 (and then mixing up the details of the two amendments) would improve clarity is puzzling. And if she had read over her rewrite, it would have been apparent she'd made it more confusing rather than less. And also inaccurate. The "edit" did give the editor the opportunity to restate Amendment #7 in a biased way, as an attack on transgender athletes—"would prohibit trans girls from competing in girls sports"— rather than the rightful return of girls' sports to girls as Anne and Carol had written—"Girls category for those whose biological sex is female." The editor also introduced the ideological term "trans girl" which Anne and Carol had not used. Their original letter was clear about sex; the editor introduced lack of clarity by using "trans girl."