Subscribe to our RSS Feed

:: everyday journalism ::

not just a profession, but a way of life

  • Pages

    • About Suzanne Yada
    • Portfolio
    • Résumé
  • Categories

    • business of news
    • Uncategorized
  • Archives

    • November 2008
    • October 2008
    • August 2008
    • July 2008
    • June 2008
  • Google Ads

  • Blogroll

    • Andy Dickinson
    • Cynthia McCune - SJSU j-school prof
    • Dan Pacheco
    • Daniel Sato
    • David Cohn
    • Frustrations of a Young Journalist
    • Howard Owens
    • Joe Ruiz
    • Katie Welch
    • Kiyoshi Martinez
    • Kyle Hansen
    • Matthew Mountford
    • Meg Berry
    • Megan Hamilton
    • Meranda Watling
    • Nate Dern (for fun)
    • News Designer
    • Pat Thornton - The Journalism Iconoclast
    • Ryan Sholin - Invisible Inkling
    • Shaminder Dulai
    • SPJ
    • Steve Outing
    • Steve Sloan - SJSU Tech on a Mission
    • Susan Kuchinskas
    • Teaching Online Journalism
    • They’d arrest me if I didn’t have this on my blogroll
    • Wendy Withers
    • Will Sullivan
    • Yoni Greenbaum
    • Zac Echola

The only one in town offended by this headline?

Author: Suzanne Yada Date Posted: August 19th, 2008 (2:19 pm)

This morning I got up, looked forward to a productive day of freelance work, when I came across this story about the U.S. women’s soccer team in my newspaper and almost choked on my Cheerios:

First thought: Wait… whaaaaat… Did I just see that? Is that… um… WHAAAT?

Second thought: No.. I must be overreacting. There’s a logical explanation for this.

I looked up the word at Merriam-Webster, then at Urban Dictionary, (generally NSFW), just to be sure I wasn’t misunderstanding. Oh no, I wasn’t misunderstanding.

I couldn’t possibly be overreacting. This is serious, like employee-discipline serious, right? I posted my shock to Twitter and got these responses:


boml @suzanneyada Wow, that is bad. And not an isolated case http://tinyurl.com/6rs8kt
Icon_star_empty reply to boml

byline25 @suzanneyada That headline is tasteless. It is seriously one of the most offensive headlines I’ve ever seen in my life.
Icon_star_empty reply to byline25

MaryTrigiani @suzanneyada Where is Visalia? Don’t blame you for being irate.
Icon_star_empty reply to MaryTrigiani

pickoffwhite @suzanneyada I find it pretty offensive. Especially as someone who plays/loves soccer.
Icon_star_empty reply to pickoffwhite

mikeoz @suzanneyada eeek. yeah, that’s not good.

woobie @suzanneyada Yeah, that does seem to cross a line — would the run the same headline for the men’s team?

Icon_star_empty reply to mikeoz

Boml’s link lead to a blog post about another paper in Australia who wrote a similar headline:

The debate with this one, though, is that “digger” has a different connotation down under. But even so, the caption on the news website has since been changed anyway.

So what excuse does that give a Californian paper? None.

I called up the senior editor, whom I respected when I worked there. He’s one of those old-time journalists, the kind who knows the news industry inside and out, has a million stories to tell, loves whisky and wears suspenders.

And he just… didn’t… quite… see… the problem… of that headline. And I had a hell of a time convincing him.

The first problem was that he told me I was the first person who called in to complain about the headline. I don’t believe that for one second. I called him at 11 am, well after the issue hit the streets. And this at a paper whose phone lines were flooded with calls once because someone put the word “freaking” in a headline. As in, “freaking cool.” Yeah.

So I had to explain to him the meaning of the term “gold digger” and that it’s a derogatory term for women who date richer men just for their money. He said he understood it could be taken offensively and tried to explain it was not meant to be taken in that context. I told him there was no other context to take — the headline would have never been used for the men’s soccer team. He tried to say it was for effect, that if they wrote the headline “Women’s Soccer Wins 3-2″ it wouldn’t have made as much of an impact. By then, I truly believe he forgot he was on the phone with me, someone that’s written headlines for them for three years. I know why they write headlines that aren’t straight-forward, I know how much labor it takes to making one headline as accurate as possible in the space allotted. This one seemed to be a filler headline the sports desk put in until they thought of a better one — and they never did change it.

He seemed sympathetic but wanted to stand his ground in the headline’s defense. I don’t think I made my message clear enough until I told him that there’s a strip joint in Bakersfield [my bad: Fresno] called Gold Diggers. That seemed to shut him up a bit.

I wonder if I spoke to the executive editor — a woman — I would have had a different reaction.

I just… I just can’t believe for a second I’m the only one in Visalia who called in. I’m outraged because a) this is MY paper, that I love and respect, b) I know the people behind it, and c) THEY KNOW BETTER!

…Or do they?

EDIT TO ADD: I’ve called a couple other editors and confirmed that yes, there pretty much was only one person who called in to complain. I don’t consider myself (or those who responded to my Twitter) a femi-Nazi-type. Am I off? Or is the town?

I was also told that the editor who wrote it truly didn’t realize how offensive it would be and meant no harm. I am just… confused. Really confused. Sometimes I wonder if I’m the one living in an alternate reality.

Tags: gold digger, headlines, olympics

Category: Uncategorized

You can leave a response, or trackback from your own site.

3 Responses to “The only one in town offended by this headline?”

  1. Mary Trigiani Says:
    August 19th, 2008 at 5:09 pm

    A good test for the editorial team and management: would they have used that headline for the men’s team? Didn’t think so.

    And, “meant no harm” is no excuse for poor editorial judgment. That’s bad performance. Management is under-reacting.

  2. Eshu Says:
    August 26th, 2008 at 2:39 pm

    I wonder if the team themselves would’ve been offended. I guess it might depend where their nerves are.

  3. Tom Cheredar Says:
    November 11th, 2008 at 12:27 am

    This headline is a perfect example of why old people should never text message. Can you even imagine the damage?

    (Kidding! Good job for taking the extra step and calling it in. At the very least, you’ve averted future misuses of urban slang on our news pages.)

Leave a Reply

« The whys and hows of Twitter and journalism
Where to get unbiased election information »

  • Enter your email address:

    Delivered by FeedBurner

  •  

    August 2008
    S M T W T F S
    « Jul   Oct »
     12
    3456789
    10111213141516
    17181920212223
    24252627282930
    31  
  • Recent Posts

    • Business of news: Finding the hard numbers
    • The business of news: The beginning of a series
    • Where to get unbiased election information
    • The only one in town offended by this headline?
    • The whys and hows of Twitter and journalism
  • My posts at San Jose Metblogs

  • Full disclosure

    I use an Amazon affiliate program with any books or products that I link to. If you purchase an item through any of the posted links, I get a small cut of that profit.
  • Admin

    • Log in
    • Entries RSS
    • Comments RSS
    • WordPress.org

:: everyday journalism :: Designed By: Accident At Work Made Possible By: Insolvency for TomTom Sat Navs and Blackpool Hotels