Why is the DTM so fixated on political weight?
What’s with this fixation on the weight of politicians?
One of my “favourite” pieces of journalism by the Globe’s old City Hall bureau chief, Jennifer Lewington, was a Christmas 2008 puff piece about how much weight Toronto Mayor David Miller had lost. The “aren’t you so sexy!” article ran on the Mayor’s birthday, if there was any doubt about how much sucking-up was involved in the initiation and execution of the story:
With his 50th birthday looming – it falls today – the mayor reflected in a recent interview on the avid public interest in his shedding 47 pounds in three years, including 28 pounds dropped since July 31.
Clearly delighted, he says people often preface their questions with, “You have lost a lot of weight.”
The mayor’s weight loss highlights one of the biggest challenges for any politician: how to stay trim in a work life filled with special events and evening meetings, meals and snacks grabbed on the run, and food choices not of one’s making.
The same piece also discussed the 100 pounds that budget chief Shelley Carroll had lost.
It is with this in mind that I read the DTM’s latest Rob Ford bash, titled “Rob Ford’s not popular despite being fat. He’s popular because of it” (hat tip Open File).
Elsewhere in that day’s paper was a story following up on the voting intention of five summertime 2010 supporters of Mr. Ford; had they stuck with him? The section front teaser referred to the average Joe and Jill’s support for “The Big Guy”. Again, a reference to his large physical size. Is this what the Ontario Court of Appeal had in mind in 2007 when it devised the silly libel defence called “Responsibile Journalism” (see prior post “SCC veers away from the ledge on source protection” May 9-2010)? The highlights of that Mr. Justice Sharpe Court of Appeal decision, to remind:
“Para. 128 There is a very real difference between what a speaker honestly and reasonably believes to be true and what can be proved to be true in a court of law. The threat of litigation under a legal regime that leaves no margin for error, even where the speaker took all reasonable steps to verify the facts, discourages free and open debate on matters of public importance.”
“132 Individual reputation should not be unduly sacrificed….”
“140 The public interest responsible journalism defence gives appropriate recognition and weight to the Charter values of freedom of expression and freedom of the media without unduly minimizing the value of protecting individual reputation.”
“142 I recognize that adopting this defence shifts the focus of defamation law away from the truth and towards the conduct of the defendant. In my view, this is an acceptable price to pay for free and open discussion.”
“143 The defence rests upon the broad principle that where a media defendant can show that it acted in accordance with the standards of responsible journalism in publishing a story that the public was entitled to hear, it has a defence even if it got some of its facts wrong.”
Process before truth. Journos are to not “unduly sacrifice the reputations of individuals”. This is the sword that Ontario’s Court of Appeal handed to anybody with a printing press, or an online blog.
It isn’t polite to talk about the mental or physical challenges of a fellow human. Catty is the word. In a workplace, commenting on the physical attributes of a co-worker or subordinate would be lawsuit material. But, alas, one can still take comfort in rebuking another for their weight.
The Globe’s Ford piece said the “belly is invariably the first thing you notice about him.” Can you imagine if a female politician had measurements of 40-30-34? Would the article have pointed out that the “breasts are invariably the first thing you notice about her”? Would the writer have spectulated on the role of specialized medical intervention in the outcome? Highly doubtful.
You want to attack a politician or a business person serving in a public role? The least you could do is work up some better prose, as Maureen Dowd does twice a week. Relying on fat jokes, is just stooping.
The next time a Globe and Mail lawyer appears before a judge in the hopes of intervening in a case, or tries to utilize elements from Mr. Justice Sharpe’s 2007 ruling, one can only hope the jurist is someone who might sympathize with Mr. Ford’s physical make-up.
Responsible journalism, indeed.
MRM
It’s true. Overweight people are the last group of people that can still be picked on with relative impunity. Comments about somebody’s appearance in a pejorative manner when it comes to colour, gender, height, physical disability, etc. is rightly considered wrong nowadays. But you weigh more than the norm — and oddly, weighing more increasingly IS the norm — you’re fodder for some of the most malicious kinds of comments, especially if one is a public figure. I suspect that most overweight people really aren’t happy that they are overweight, (in the same way that other people with physical or mental challenges face probably would prefer to be ‘normal’) and prefer not to be reminded of it. Regularly. Insultingly. Unchallenged.