Toronto Star columnist’s published fit exemplifies industry’s problems
The Toronto Star recently published a column from Heather Mallick, online and in print, attacking the Ryerson Review of Journalism, specifically my article, “The Unbearable Whiteness of Canadian Columnists.” You may have read her column. Don’t worry if you haven’t. I’m going to summarize what happened because even those who read it have little idea of what is going on.
In November 2015, I published an online feature at the RRJ taking a critical look at the lack of diversity among Canadian opinion columnists. The article contained a GIF with portrait photos of columnists and a featured image with a collage of the same portraits. Most columnists depicted were white (to reflect the industry,) but there were also people of colour.
On March 28, a full six months after the article was published, Mallick sent an email to the RRJ demanding we publish a correction to the story. She alleged that we had mistakenly labelled her as a white woman when she is in fact “of mixed race.”
We haven’t issued a correction because there is no mistake. The GIF and photo in the story depict some columnists who are very obviously not white. See for yourself.
As such, the only possible way Mallick thought we identified her as white is if she also thought we believed everyone in the GIF is white. Or, if she jumped to conclusions before taking the mere seconds needed to understand the purpose of the GIF. These thoughts are too condescending to deserve serious consideration, much less a correction (And it’s worth noting that the exact same situation played out with Toronto Sun staff members in December, which I responded to at the time. Who knew a GIF could cause such chaos in our industry?)
On April 1, Mallick decided to act in the festive spirit and dedicate her column, “You’re Pretty Pale Yourself, Ryerson,” to complain about not getting her correction. Here are some points from Mallick’s characteristically incoherent column that are worth discussing:
“I am diverse. I contain multitudes. In fact, I am diversity incarnate. When it comes to race, I’m practically transgender, which is cool right now.”
This comment disturbed me for a number of reasons, but one especially comes to mind. Mallick’s column was published a couple days after the “International Transgender Day of Visibility.” This day was first commemorated seven years ago to as a way to help shine a positive light on trans people and counterbalance stories usually focused on the chillingly high murder and suicide rates that plague the community. But being trans is just a cool fad, right?
“Why didn’t the Review go after editors and their unbearable choices instead of the recipients of their largesse?”
At least three quarters of my article was actually dedicated to looking at how people in power at newspapers aren’t doing enough, and how they should be held accountable. I would quote the relevant portions of my article here, but that would mean posting over 700 words. So, check it out for yourself.
“I could not make the Review understand that it had insulted/flattered me for something beyond my control.”
Of course she couldn’t, because we hadn’t. Mallick was one of over 20 people in the article’s featured image and over 30 in the GIF. I wasn’t sure how she could centre the article around herself until I read that she came across it in the first place by spending a sick day Googling “Heather Mallick.”
“Ryerson’s journalism department, lovely people all, posts photos online of its teaching staff, including faculty, adjuncts, contract lecturers, etc. There are 49. How many appear to be white? About 44.”
Ryerson’s journalism department is disproportionately white. Agreed. And if my article was written by the administrator responsible for hiring these staff members, then perhaps Mallick would have made a valid point.
The RRJ is produced by students, however, who have no capacity to determine the makeup of staff at the university. As such, Mallick’s column is effectively an 800 word exercise in deflection, diverting attention from the homogeneity of Canadian journalists.
“What matters most is talent, and whether columnists nailed by the Review have it is beyond my remit.”
This is the most dangerous fallacy regarding the lack of diversity in journalism. The idea put forth is that people are hired solely on their merit, with no consideration of demographic factors. As such, this argument implies the homogeneity of Canadian columnists is due to the existence of a well-functioning meritocracy, and that the lack of non-white male columnists is because of a lack of talent.
This is wrong for two reasons. First, there is an abundance of talent among communities not well-represented in Canadian journalism. Second, an ideal meritocracy, or anything close to it, doesn’t exist. The sort of columns published in Canada’s most prestigious papers should make this quite clear.
Mallick’s article is certainly absurd, but it shouldn’t be brushed off. In fact, it is a reflection of the tactics those with power in Canadian journalism have used to avoid making needed change: misrepresentation, deflection, excuses and smears. Mallick isn’t responsible for creating these problems, but her rhetoric does little to solve them.
