FEBRUARY 28, 2007

       It was exactly a month ago that I stated that the news shouldn’t be censored.  Media outlets should be free to report on stories just as if the readers were in the situation as it unfolded in public.

       The column was about my disagreeing with the reporting on the Robert Pickton trial in B.C.  Gruesome details were heard and some editorial boards felt it was in the public’s best interest to censor the sensitive information.  Details of the murders are relevant to the trial, therefore we have a right to know about it.

       However, this week CTV Winnipeg gave me reason to clarify my position on news censorship.  In a story about underage prostitution we are introduced to an unseen person who is telling a story about her experience.  Within the first 20 seconds of the piece she described specifically the types of sexual activity she engaged in with men, using the word “blowjob” in the process.

       Before the story was over I called up the news director who told me that there is usually a meeting to discuss editorial content to a story that contains a delicate subject matter and often there is a disclaimer before the story airs on the news.  In this instance there was no warning and not even a meeting to discuss the issue as he wasn’t aware “the word” had been used.  He defended keeping the word in the story as it illustrated the point being made from a young woman’s point of view.

       I challenged that with the question, “Could we have got an understanding of what she does just by calling her a prostitute?  Do we really need to know specifics?”  He agreed for a moment but said that showing the female speaking in her own words helped to drive the point home that a 14-year-old is being exposed to this dark world.

       We challenged each other’s positions for about 10 minutes.  He agreed with where I was coming from and I didn’t budge on my opinion and he wavered a little bit but stood behind the content running as it did.  He conceded and said in the future if something sensitive like that was going to be part of a story that the audience would get fair warning before being shown the piece.

       If the story can be told by giving information about the focus of the situation – not specific details that are irrelevant to the actual story such as the sexual activities of a prostitute because just using the word “prostitute” is enough to get an idea about what she goes through – then there is no need to censor. 

       For example: Canadian Press style (the ‘official’ way to write news in this country) says the F-word is now fair game to use in print.  However, it emphasizes to use the four-letter word with discretion as long as it lends something to the article.

       But when content is put in for “shock value”, which I believe the prostitute story did (but Pickton trial coverage didn’t), then yes, there is something wrong with that.