Star eclipsed by Globe

Image supplied by: By Adam Zunder

In the midst of the controversy surrounding former Canadian Forces Colonel Russell Williams, a dispute has sprung up between two major news outlets covering the case.

Photos of Williams posing in women’s lingerie stolen from his victims and home invasions have circulated in the media and online. On Oct. 19, the Globe and Mail published an explanation of its decision to limit these pictures to its online content. The Globe’s print coverage was limited to a cropped photo of Williams’ face on the cover, and a grouping of women’s undergarments presented as evidence in his case on an inside page. In contrast, the Toronto Star published the revealing photos on its front page and featured them prominently on its website.

The Globe explained that the newspaper was unwilling to force disturbing content on unsuspecting readers. Instead, they provided a great deal of written coverage about Williams’ actions, and directed readers online if they wished to see the photos.

Three days later the Star published a similar explanation. They acknowledged that overt exposure of the photos would likely upset some readers, and stated that their decision would likely hinder, not help, sales of the publication. However, in the words of the Star’s publisher, the images are “the most honest portrayal” of the story.

The Globe’s approach was not only more appropriate, but also more responsible. The Globe didn’t suppress the controversial photographs, but tried to provide its readers with the ability to make an informed decision before viewing them. While people have the ability to stop reading an unsettling article, they can’t “unsee” a photograph—a fact that the Globe’s decision took into account.

The Star’s argument that the photos are the best representation of “the evil wielded by a man of power over his female victims” doesn’t add up. The reality of Williams’ crimes is far more graphic than photographs of a man wearing women’s underwear. In fact, the photographs eclipse Williams’ crimes, because they’re so easily absorbed—they finish conversations instead of starting them.

The Star’s consultation with an expert on the ethics of photojournalism feels like an attempt to disavow responsibility for the paper’s decision. Quoting this expert as commending the Star’s “bravery,” hints at damage control. The final line of the Star’s article: “Who among us after all would have ever wanted to face the ugly truth about Col. Russell Williams?” suggests that those offended by the photos and the Star’s decision are somehow condoning Williams’ actions. It’s a suggestion that is both absurd and offensive.

Ultimately, there’s no final word on the “right” decision each publication should have made. But for now, one paper’s explanation holds more water than the other.

All final editorial decisions are made by the Editor(s)-in-Chief and/or the Managing Editor. Authors should not be contacted, targeted, or harassed under any circumstances. If you have any grievances with this article, please direct your comments to journal_editors@ams.queensu.ca.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

Skip to content