How would you describe a serial-killer?
Many thanks to Davy Sims for blog-sitting. I'm back with a question about journalistic ethics. Between checking in on the latest reports from Ohio and Texas about the likelihood of Hillary Clinton's campaign finally imploding, I've been following the story of Colin Norris, the nurse convicted today of murdering four elderly patients in his care.
The press have already nicknamed Norris "the angel of death" -- which appears to be entirely justified given the appalling nature of his crimes. But it's other descriptions of this serial killer that have left me wondering. In a number of today's papers, Norris is described as a "gay nurse". He is also described as a "male nurse".
Now there is no doubt that Colin Norris is both gay and male. I just question the appropriateness of pointing out either characteristic in the context of journalistic reports. To describe a nurse called Colin as "male" seems, first, to state the obvious pointlessly. Secondly, to emphasis Norris's gender in the pseudo-title "male nurse" is to mark out male nurses as somehow a breed apart from other nurses -- much as the old-fashioned expression "women police constable" unhelpfully separates female police officers from their male counterparts.
The other phrase -- "gay nurse" -- is much more worrysome. First, Norris's sexuality is entirely unrelated to the crimes he committed and is therefore irrelevant in reports of the crime. Second, calling attention to Norris's sexuality in reports of his crimes runs the risk of further prejudicing public opinion in respect of gay people more generally.
Imagine if a report today described Norris as a "Catholic nurse" or an "Anglican nurse"? Imagine, for that matter -- had he not been gay -- a report describing him as a "heterosexual nurse". We would all, quite rightly, wonder if the reporter had lost his or her way (or mind). If a particular crime is sexual in nature, it would be perfectly reasonable to describe the sexuality of the perpetrator. Similarly, if gender appears to play a role in a crime, it would be appropriate to draw attention to the criminal's gender in an explication of, say, the power and abuse dynamic that has unfolded. In this case, there seems to be no basis for drawing attention either to Norris's gender or to his sexuality. Journalists have become increasingly aware of the dangers of racially profiling perpetrators in reports. The ethnicity of a criminal is not necessarily a relevant detail in a story -- particularly, if drawing attention to a person's ethnicity runs the risk of advancing racist prejudice within society. Surely the same should hold true for other personal traits such as sexuality and gender.
Comments
I agree William it is entirely inappropriate to describe him as a "gay nurse" - it would be like having a gay rugby team.
Had to get that one in.
Also think it inappropriate the way the media use the term "paedophile priest". They don't combine the terms with other professions, and of course, in many of the cases they are talking about the person isn't even a paedophile.
Male nurse does sound old fashioned now, doesn't it - like bean garda of old.
But I do think actresses should be called actresses, not actors. I can't understand the feminist logic which on the one hand rejects the use of "man" or "men" as including them in many instances, but insists on using "actor" instead of "actress".
Too much nauseating acrobatics required to sign up to that. I think it is good to highlight his homosexuality, to give balance to the "cult of victimhood" which means straight, white males are considered the root of all evil- it is good to be reminded that classic "victim" groups can also be victimisers and prey on the defenseless and vulnerable.
Also, you mention about restricting the mentioning of a perpetrator's sex or race, what do you propose, blanking out names and forbidding pictures?
Smasher: I take your point about the expression "paedophile priest". This is a tabloidisation of the crisis facing the Church Church and negatively stereotypes all priests.
Winston: I'm not sure why you find this kind of consideration "nauseating". You suggest that it is "good to be reminded that classic victim groups can also be victimisers". This is my point. A victim group did not murder these four vulnerable ladies; an individual murdered them. By making the connection, as you have done, with gay people as a group you rather confirm my concerns about this kind of language.
To be clear, I am not suggesting that a perpetrator's face be blanked out to disguise his ethnicity. I am simple arguing that drawing attention to ethnicity in the text of a report (e.g., a radio report, or a newspaper report) is questionable unless ethnicity played a role in the crime.
William- Agree entirely, particularly on references to his sexuality. The reason I say 'particularly'; gender and age are sometimes legitimate items of interest peripheral to the story -- his sexual orientation couldn't be more irrelevant. Of course you're right that both are unnecessary.
I think all Will's points are fully justified.
But I also sympathise with Winston.
William (and team!) normally only use such linguistic techniques to defend politically acceptbale victims.
For example, previously Will has criticised his own gender by suggesting that men usually consider common colds to be the flu.
So Winston is quite right.
Such verbal acrobatics are fine in and of themselves, but in practise they are excessively used to discriminate against politically acceptbale targets.
ie males are sniggeringly now fully acceptable targets for negative stereotyping; white men especially so.
Similarly, the ´óÏó´«Ã½ can lampoon the Christian faith with stuff like Jerry Springer, and yet pull a song from radio 1 because of comments about sexuality.
Acceptable double standards.
The broader point is clear on this blog.
Only poltically acceptable straw men are generally set up to be knocked down.
Serial killers are (quite rightly) not gulty by virtue of their sexuality.
But anyone displaying questionable behaviour and who holds a conservative Christian faith is frequently used to stereotype the entire faith.
Gravy with those double standards sir?
PB
ps if I was wrong W&T would have no problem using this story as a feature in the same way it does about crook preachers;-
PB
It does make you think of the good old Daily Mail style reporting; "Fireman (42) rescues cat (2) for single mother of three (27) living in council house worth £200k".
D Smyth #7- Exactly, and it is often legitimate simply because people are interested in those facts. People want to get a feel for the story; it's not a court hearing. I deal with this every day producing live radio, where the real nature of a story often makes sense only in the light of all these peripheral pieces of information about the people involved.
These comments bring up a fact about British "so called journalism" in general and ´óÏó´«Ã½ "so called journalism" in particular. It is often utterly biased in many ways both subtle and overt. In fact it is only by the loosest of definitions that I can even refer to it as journalism. What is true journalism? A journal is a place where events are recorded as objectively and accurately as possible. All facts germane to the events are recorded, all others omitted. Separate and apart from journalism is analysis and opinion. These should be clearly identified, that is the point of editorialization. By intermingling them so inseparably, even when the facts are reported completely and accurately, they are so skewed in the mind of the audience that an opinion has been formed for them, usually from a tapestry woven from the reporter's own point of view, his own bias.
Was the fact that the nurse was male or homosexual a pertinent factor in the story? No, it had absolutely nothing to do with it yet the report included it anyway. Why? To engender prejudice against homosexuals by associating them with this voilent heinous crime. Are all male nurses homosexual? Absolutely not. Of the ones I ever met, none to my knowledge was homosexual and the only one I knew well clearly wasn't. Do all, most, or many homosexual male nurses commit violent crimes or commit violent crimes to any degree out of proportion of the population as a whole? There is not one shred of evidence to support that notion.
This is only one of many examples of skewed reporting I could cite. Here's another. Every time ´óÏó´«Ã½ broadcasts or prints a story about terrorists, it refers to them as "militants" and when it uses the term terrorist at all, it ascribes it to someone else's characterization as in "President Bush's so called war on terror." The ONLY time I ever heard ´óÏó´«Ã½ use the term directly to characterize someone or some group as a terrorist was when its own reporter Alan Johnston disappeared from public view in Gaza about a year ago. At that time, ´óÏó´«Ã½ said he had been kidnapped by an unknown "terrorist group." Apparantly when it is one of your own who is the victim, that changes everything. In fact to this day, we do not know whether or not Alan Johnston was actually kidnapped at all or voluntarily decided to disappear to bring attention to a story which according to those who know him well including his own father, he had sympathies for. He was said by many to have been "a friend of the Palestinian People." If being assigned to report on your own friends isn't proof of prejudice, I don't know what is. We have only his word for it that he was kidnapped, taken prisoner against his will and from his discriptions of how he was treated, his appearance, demeanor, and general physical and psychological condition upon his reappearance when he was seen on television within hours, I for one do not believe one word of his story.
You only become aware of just how skewed ´óÏó´«Ã½'s news reporting is when it is your own ox which is gored, your own sensibilities which are offended, your own hot buttons which are pushed. I give everything I read or hear especially from ´óÏó´«Ã½ the smell test and frankly, before I get to the nub of what is of value in understanding what is going on in the world, I often have to sift through a lot of ´óÏó´«Ã½'s very stinky trash.
ref bbc "bias" and terrorism
´óÏó´«Ã½ Governors panel including Lord Eames reported on ´óÏó´«Ã½ coverage of Middle East.
It too criticised the ´óÏó´«Ã½ for refusing to use the term "terrorist" in ref to the 7/7 attacks etc and recommended this change, which has never happened.
pb