He wants a medal

Blah blah media representation.

Media managers all too often justify their editorial decisions with the stupidest arguments on the face of the planet. Take the London Free Press, which in 2003 ran a front-page photograph of two men kissing to illustrate an Ontario same-sex court marriage decision. 'Fuffle and huffle ensued: "It was just too much for many readers at breakfast," wrote editor-in-chief Paul Berton in the summer 2004 Ryerson Review of Journalism (not available online).

"Nothing I could say could sway opinion that we were neither endorsing nor criticizing it (the newspaper is officially neutral on same-sex marriage), we were merely reporting on a historic day. If we had ignored it, we'd be just as susceptible to criticism."

If the Free Press had ignored the story, it would indeed be a laughing stock. But that's not the issue, and Berton pretends he doesn't get it. Editors picked a photo that many readers would find shocking -- and good on the journos for it. But they can't get out of the fact that they chose which reality to portray (a kiss instead of an exchange of rings, say). It may not prove a bias towards homosexuality, but it's certainly a bias -- perhaps towards shocking the bigots. Own up to it, sport.

But the silliest argument Berton proposes is the one positing that multiple rebukes from the public means a newspaper is doing a great job. "I can't count the number of times I've defended our paper from criticism that it's pro-union or pro-management, right wing or left wing, pro-war or anti-war. The sweet irony here is that we're bombarded with opposing accusations generally on the same day, and often over the same story. This is our consolation -- it confirms we're are doing our job fairly and accurately."

In fact, no matter what you write, you will be attacked from multiple angles because people are like that. Does that make your coverage fair and good? Of course not. How can your brain possibly translate criticism from everybody into proof of your swell journalism?

How about analyzing the actual content? Bof, who cares! It's not about the worth and thoughtfulness of a complaint; the more anger from all sides, the more the coverage is proven to be really amazing!

Here's an imaginary forsoothe from the 1940s: "Your coverage of Adolph Hitler is far too nice. He is a monster." And here's the gripe from the other side: "I am shocked and appalled. I cannot believe how mean you are to Hitler, who is only trying to rid the world of vermin."

Great feedback, eh? Given this, I don't even have to read the story. I just know it's fabulous.