On diversity, Canadian media is throwing stones in a glass house - Macleans.ca
 

On diversity, Canadian media is throwing stones in a glass house

In defence of Hal Niedzviecki, top Canadian journalists crowd-funded an ‘appropriation prize’—a gut punch for a person of colour in media


 
Canada's Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (centre, R) and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang take part in a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada September 22, 2016. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

Canada’s Prime Minister Justin Trudeau (centre, R) and Chinese Premier Li Keqiang take part in a news conference on Parliament Hill in Ottawa, Ontario, Canada September 22, 2016. (Chris Wattie/Reuters)

A Twitter timeline is a dangerous thing to scroll through at bedtime. On Thursday night, I watched former Maclean’s and National Post editor Ken Whyte pledge to seed a $1,500 “appropriation prize.” By the time I put down my phone, just three hours later, the pot was up to $3,500. The contributors: a selection of the editors and senior-most staffers and writers at some of the largest media organizations in Canada. They are all white.

The context: In the latest issue of Write, the magazine of the Writers’ Union of Canada, editor Hal Niedzviecki urged the white, middle-class people who make up most of published Canadian literature to “explore the lives of people who aren’t like you.” The piece, titled “Winning the appropriation prize,” was criticized on social media for denying and advocating cultural appropriation, and in relation to its inclusion in an issue focused on the work of Indigenous writers. Niedzviecki then resigned.

Once reported on, the incident brought forth what has become a predictable response from white Canadian media. Columns were written and scathing tweets were sent, to the effect that this was an affront to free speech and another sign of “the left” gone too far. And Whyte set out to organize his prize, presumably taking his inspiration from the title of Niedzviecki’s piece. Watching the names—some of the top names at the National Post, Rogers Media, and CBC—pledging their $100 or $500 to his cause, my stomach flipped. It was a reminder, once again, that too many white decision makers in Canadian media don’t seem to listen when people of colour and Indigenous people are talking.

I don’t imagine all these people hold the same opinions, of course. And Twitter is a flawed lens through which to judge anything. But watch what some of them regularly retweet, snark at and bemoan, and a worldview emerges. Free speech and critical thinking are under threat from those who, because of hurt feelings or ideological puritanism, just won’t hear it. Identity politics, political correctness, cultural appropriation and safe spaces are the four horsemen of this apocalypse.

Yet the same charges of rejecting disagreeable concepts out of hand and being purposely blind to nuance might apply to these people when they take on their pet peeves online.

Two participants in Thursday night’s proceedings are worth particular mention in this regard. The immediate instigation for Whyte’s effort was a tweet about the Niedzviecki incident from Jon Kay, editor of The Walrus—who, in fairness, didn’t contribute to the crowdfunding—calling that incident “sad and shameful.” He also retweeted a response to that missive that read, “So when are they going to exhume Harper Lee to castigate her for appropriating the experiences of African American men?” The response is just the kind of willful misunderstanding that suits the anti-PC crowd so well. Writing about another race or identity group is not necessarily itself cultural appropriation. Rather, it’s when those ideas are cut wholesale out of context and then presented as the taker’s own. And it’s particularly when the taker is rewarded for something the taken-from wouldn’t be. An “appropriation prize” is literally the ultimate example of this—giving a writer a reward specifically for taking ideas from Indigenous people and people of colour who are systematically prevented from profiting from their creations or cultures themselves.

I have, it must be said, a related and so far one-sided quarrel with Kay. At a Canadian Journalism Foundation event earlier this year, he shared, unprompted, some thoughts on diversity in media, saying in part: “It makes much less sense for the sons and daughters of immigrants, who have scrimped and saved … and came to Canada precisely so that their children can make a lot of money and have a secure life” to become journalists, as against the privileged with wealthy families or who are stopping through the profession on their way to a professional degree. (That section of his remarks is in full here).

He’s said this kind of thing before. Later on and in response, I addressed a question to Kay in particular: “What are you doing to actually hire those people? Because if the answer to this question is, ‘Immigrant parents don’t want their kids doing this risky thing,’ or ‘Immigrant kids don’t want to do this risky thing,’ then you’ve thrown up your hands and you’ve not actually solved the problem.” (The full question is here).

Another panelist, Rogers Publishing head Steve Maich, noted that the contracting of newsrooms was making this more difficult, and outlined some ways the company was working to address that. Kay did not answer, nor did he respond when I tweeted the same question to him a few weeks later as part of a thread commenting on one of his articles. While The Walrus has of course published stories by people of colour in his tenure, when Kay talks about media diversity it’s clear that he does not want to engage critically with the need to actively work to increase it—or at least, he won’t talk about it with me.

Andrew Coyne, meanwhile, told Whyte to count him in. Coyne, who is one of the more influential voices in Canadian journalism, has used his column inches to put forth the argument that in fact we are all diverse. “To elevate the relatively trivial differences between different groups over the profound differences between us can only be achieved by ascribing a false homogeneity to members of the same group… It is the very opposite of diversity,” he wrote. Coyne is undoubtedly a well-regarded writer of words—notice how much work “relatively trivial differences” is doing in that sentence, sweeping away centuries of institutional and systematic discrimination on the basis of race and gender and the continuing effects on such things as access to education, employment and power.

His gambit is to deny the whole thing: If we’re all diverse, then it doesn’t matter that white men like himself hold most of the positions of power and wealth in Canadian society, not to mention media, because they’re as different from each other as they are from say a black or brown woman. It’s a facile argument, one most of us didn’t buy when it was packaged as “everyone’s special in their own way” in grade school.

I wish I could quantify here the degree to which Canadian media is white. Then-Canadaland reporter Vicky Mochama once asked Canadian media outlets for diversity data. They were reluctant to cooperate, and did not opt instead to collect and publish the data themselves; it is, after all, harder to criticize organizations for what we can’t count. A J-Source attempt to gather self-reported diversity data about columnists produced incomplete results in part because some of those contacted were actively hostile to any such measure. So the best I can offer is that looking around newsrooms, the senior ranks are disproportionately white, and the people of colour present are more commonly found towards the bottom of the masthead and in strung-together contract positions or internships. The result of not having people in the building who understand specific identities and cultures is that your publication does not cover them often, if at all, and when it does it’s often in an insulting or stereotypical way.

Look, you can’t stretch your legs in Canadian media without kicking someone connected to you. Of those who opted to pledge their support for the appropriation prize online, Alison Uncles is editor-in-chief of this publication, and Maich runs the publishing arm at Rogers, which owns Maclean’s. (Both noted they were acting as individuals). Whyte himself was at Rogers until recently, while National Post editor-in-chief Anne Marie Owens and Coyne left Maclean’s a few years ago.

However permissive the workplace, it is always the case that to criticize or question the lack of diversity and pervasive whiteness of Canadian media is to risk alienating someone who may one day be a coworker or boss. To be clear, and for what it’s worth, I’ve never had it so much as hinted to me by those I work with or for that I should be less vocal about these topics. But faced with an industry whose power players often actively reject or else pay lip service to diversity, both in the workforce and the subjects covered, I’m left to wonder how often I can bring it up before it becomes my label—“that brown guy who keeps whining that we’re not diverse enough.” (Or in a more egregious example, think of Desmond Cole, who wrote about race too often, according to the Toronto Star’s publisher).

Told there’s nothing wrong, or that things aren’t as bad as we make them seem, we press our case again and again. With every passing insistence, white decision-makers are increasingly able to dismiss us as shrill and one-noted, muting us with calls for “civil discussion” in rooms reserved for higher-level, disproportionately white staff. Already, that repeated denial of what we see in our lives— “gas-lighting”—has a chilling effect of its own, teaching us that we best not talk about these things because we won’t be believed or taken seriously.

So imagine how discouraging it is to see the decision-makers who cannot find money in the newsroom for more diversity gladly offer to give their own for a cause that people of colour and Indigenous people have pointed out actively devalues us.

Of course, I don’t expect the people who pitched in to Whyte’s effort to pay for a permanent reporter position out of their own pockets, though the total they’ve pledged would have covered a month of my first full-time salary. And it’s true that “not quickly enough” will always be my view of how fast newsrooms must work to diversify. But the symbolism of white Canadian media decision-makers sponsoring an appropriation prize via a Thursday night Twitter thread—that’s something people of colour and Indigenous people in the industry could have done without.

In an article that touches on appropriation I cannot fail to mention the influence that the thoughts of people of colour, and in particular the tweets of Vicky Mochama, Navneet Alang and Scaachi Koul, have had on my thinking on this issue.


 

On diversity, Canadian media is throwing stones in a glass house

  1. So Murad Hemmadi hates white people or white men because they prevent him from becoming a media mogul. My question to Murad is what are we going to do with all these white folks because they are the 90% majority of Canada? Are you suggesting they be removed from their jobs, like Andrew Coyne, too powerful? Then when you achieve the mythical diversity you seek, will it satisfy you or will you then say it is not the right kind of diversity? The whole appropriation question and the constant use of the word systemic shows that the activists will never be satisfied and their arguments is bunk. Humanity is diverse and we are not robots spewing fascist like responses to PC questions.

    • Beaulieu, It looks as if Murad has misinterpreted Jonathan Kay’s remarks – that he provides a link to. Kay said those things that he said, nothing to do with with the current controversy but as a matter of fact, asking “Would you advise a young person to become a writer now”? He realizes how difficult it is to get established as a journalist, unless one has the money to keep oneself going when there is no work (for example).

      And yes, I do see a problem with people in the profession inviting one and all to try out, when it can be so difficult, just easier if one has money. There are many competent people in this world, able to do the job well, but they do get excluded if they don’t have the support and the money, no matter how good they are.

      Sometimes, it is just the wrong time in history, when there is too much unemployment, the economy isn’t working, and more and more people are entering the country. sometimes there are more pressing issues, such as getting homes for older people already here, or jobs for young people already here, or healthcare for Canadians already here who are not getting it.

      A similar situation happened when feminists decided to enter non-traditional fields of work, and to attend the same in education – like engineering, for instance. We can’t call it appropriation when women take jobs traditionally held for men. But that’s what they did, upsetting people like Marc Lepine. And it wasn’t only men who got left out.

      I believe that editor should have tried to be more sensitive to the issue. It’s actions like that who tend to
      get those who are excluded angry. At least wannabe writers know how to write, is one advantage, of course.

  2. It is not colour or gender …as such….it’s attitude. The solid ‘establishment’ attitude of white Canadian males

    Stolid, grey, unimaginative…..

    • Actually a better word for it is ‘surface’.

      Surface news. News lite.

      Leaving Canadians wondering what is going on in their country.

  3. The glibness of those “gatekeepers” is disgusting. Absolutely gross.
    If their writing and journalism was even a little incredible and without that snarky glibness, people may have found their attempt at “comedy” a teeny bit funny.
    Unbelievably unprofessional, too.

  4. This article in itself is offensive in the way that it equates culture and racial characteristics – that is at the very least insulting and dismissive of the many cultures and insists on stupid compartmentalization: should people of color be excluded from Octoberfest celebrations (or even performing there) or should German Canadians be banned from Caribbana? How diligently should the author avoid listening to Mozart? In any case, the concept of race that the author seems so invested in is just a concept and not a very useful one except in as much as it simplifies alienation. It’s not even capable of precision: a Vancouver mob once strung up a Chinese man while protesting Japanese immigration. More generally, we increasingly encounter the notion of good cultural appropriation and bad cultural appropriation: if so then we must debate ‘is Eric Clapton a bad man?’ and should we ban the exhibition of Michelangelo’s David as a blatant rip of Greek culture or should we take off Stratford for casting persons of color in Shakespeare plays about ‘Englishmen’ (Oh wait … even Shakespeare did that) and sundry other pointless arguments,

    On the other hand, Macleans is an interesting venue for the discussion of equality – if that is what this is. One need merely pull down the authors tab on the web page to see that this isn’t anything like Trudeau’s cabinet.

  5. Diversity has been increasing among journalists but not enough in Hemmadi’s well-argued view.

    The perceived lack of diversity of racial or other identity groups is important to Hemmadi because he delineates cultural appropriation as taking ideas wholesale from another identity group and presenting them, out of context, as the taker’s own; particularly when the taker gets paid for doing so and the source identity group does not. (Some people define cultural appropriation more broadly, as usage of elements of a different culture, with or without permission.)

    This seems to be about a concept of idea protection or attribution rather than protection of specific wording.

    Of course, the legal notion of copyright does extend to protection of an elaborate sequence of ideas regardless of literal word equivalence, especially for fictional works.

    Unfortunately, it’s unclear what rules can be used to draw a line between “wholesale” and/or “copyright” infringing appropriation on the one hand, and acceptable discussion without attribution on the other hand; and on this point Hemmadi gives no solution.

  6. “Writing about another race or identity group is not necessarily itself cultural appropriation. Rather, it’s when those ideas are cut wholesale out of context and then presented as the taker’s own. And it’s particularly when the taker is rewarded for something the taken-from wouldn’t be. An “appropriation prize” is literally the ultimate example of this”

    This is the main point, as it says above, that the problem was the making fun of and rewarding cultural appropriation. This is not a new issue – not altogether. The question has often been raised as to whether men can speak for women, or social workers for children, and so on. If no one spoke or wrote on behalf of children, then nothing would get written (except of course, we were all children once).

    The problem was that the editor in question didn’t address the subject sensitively. I see now that Jonathan Kay is going to step down, having had differences with his magazine ‘s people, The Walrus, over this. That’s too bad, because he seemed to have the right idea, I thought.

  7. If we eliminated rich white women gazing at their navels, their would be no media at all.

  8. The near constant bleating and wailing of snowflakes, AKA, SJW’s . like this Murad fellow is becoming mild nauseating.

  9. The near constant bleating and wailing of snowflakes, AKA SJWs, like this author, is becoming mildly nauseating.

  10. “the senior ranks are disproportionately white”

    To be *senior*, especially in a language-based profession, you probably have to be in the country for a little while. So let’s say that to work your way up in this profession, you had to be here at least since the mid-90s–when Canada was 90% white. Then we’d expect about 90% white based on that alone, without any other factors included whatsoever. But we can’t wait just a little while here. We don’t have that kind of time.

    Since this whole diversity thing started, I’ve seen people complaining that there are no minorities at companies in little 98% white British towns. Prevaricate as you will, but the core sentiment is that [A] white people are a problem [B] no matter how quickly we’re fixing this problem, it needs to happen faster.