Canadian Politics Today

I feel that reasonably balanced coverage of this troubling individual, and the nature of this case, and the way the defendants were treated by the tribunal process, would be inherently provocative.  I feel that presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated would require not presenting the full story.   

Ok, there are some new elements you introduced here aren't there ?  How the defendants were treated - I don't remember that from before.

"Presenting the story in a way that doesn't get people agitated" ... that's not journalism.  You present the facts.  Maybe people get agitated maybe they don't.  Of course stories are written with a point of view and we're all human.  But writing a story to make people get pissed off on purpose is stupid.

Public affairs don't necessarily need an emotional component.  That's actually the problem with public affairs today - if there's no entertainment value the issue gets neglected.

If we are indeed going to talk about Yaniv, we need to talk about all of Yaniv. These allegations exist, and trans-exclusionary radical feminists have been talking about her for a while now. To ignore these things in reporting about her is to act like we don’t care that said allegations exist.

It's a completely separate issue.  If Yaniv is suspected of being a bad actor, then you can still report that in journalistic tones.  You don't have to sensationalize it.  And as to the relevance of her character - it's about whether the claim is made in good faith.  She could be a convicted murderer and still have the right to file a human rights claim.

 

This is fuel for a fire that has been raging for some time now: the idea that she is a predator being painted as a victim in order to appease the overly woke left. Following a recent episode of CANADALAND Short Cuts, Twitter was awash with people demanding a denouncement of Yaniv, wondering why those allegations about her were not aired. To portray her as a trans woman that wanted someone to wax her genitalia, was refused service, and then raised herself up as a champion of human rights gives us an incomplete look at who this person is.

Because it's a separate issue.  If she was a convicted murderer would that give the tribunal authority to toss the case ?  No.  The ruling isn't for *her* it's for everybody.

 
 

If people don't feel they're getting the whole story from the media, they'll go to The Post Millennial or The Daily Caller or Twitter or someplace else looking for information. Self-censorship of potentially controversial aspects doesn't keep people from finding it out, it just undermines trust. It sends traffic to sources with lower standards. It makes people feel that they are hearing a slanted version of the truth from the mainstream press.
 

"Lower standards", though, are exactly what you are calling for.  You're not simply calling for details to be reported, but you are calling for the story to be presented to as to anger people.

 

Honestly, yes. This is really all I'm asking for.  The CBC article accurately notes that Rowling's opinions are "controversial", gives a brief summary of what she said and why some people object.  It contacts various stakeholders for their side of the story, including the people who put up the billboard, the city councillor who called for its removal, as well as some members of the trans community. I'm honestly pleasantly surprised by it.
 

But it's NOT written to anger people.  If people get angered, it's because the facts make them angry ... not tangential details.

There is a wide gap between what the right-media covered and what CBC said.  I don't think Canadaland would have accused the CBC article of being written to sensationalize the article.