The Citizen, 2019-09-12, Page 5Other Views
Behind choosing what’s fit for print
If I only care about myself . . .
Shawn
Loughlin
Shawn’s Sense
The annual reunion of the Huron Pioneer
Thresher and Hobby Association is
always a memory-laden event for me.
Between the work we do putting together a
special section for it and spending hours there
to cover the event, it’s something I look
forward to every year.
It’s also where I took one of my favourite
photos: my daughter interacting with some
animals at the reunion’s petting zoo.
That photo, which ran in The Citizen and
now sits on one of my office boards, was a
tough one for me because I always feel there’s
someone else who should get that spot.
Earlier this year, my editor Shawn and I had
a similar quandary when a photo of my
daughter at the Dungannon Pro Rodeo was
chosen to go in The Citizen. Mary Jane was
learning to, as my wife said, tame broncos
(apparently no one really busts broncos).
I told Shawn that I liked the photo and we
could use it if we had room, going against my
usual stance of not putting photos of Mary
Jane in the newspaper.
For those long-time readers of my column,
you may remember that I’ve tried to limit the
amount of photos that I share of her, both in
the newspaper and social media because,
despite the fact that she naturally knows just
how to act in front of the camera (which she
didn’t get from me), I don’t want to make
those kinds of decisions for her.
Every time I share a photo of her, I ask
myself, would this upset me if, after growing
up, my parents had shared a similar photo?
While every era of parenting faces its own
unique challenges, I truly believe that parents
nowadays have a tightrope to walk when it
comes to over-sharing photos of their children.
That’s completely independent of the
lessons I’ve learned about over-sharing my
own photos (and thoughts) on social media.
This is about giving Mary Jane agency. We
take plenty of photos of her, but share few.
Back to the rodeo photo: Mary Jane was
enjoying herself at an event The Citizen’s
editorial staff wanted to cover and, as
Shawn would later say, if a photo of that
quality featured any other child, there
wouldn’t have been a discussion – it would be
in the paper.
The photo was actually taken by my wife
Ashleigh. After I saw it, I knew that it should
be shared and that it could go in the
newspaper. It’s not that I don’t want to share
photos of Mary Jane, it’s just that I’ve known
a reporter/photographer or two who have had a
tendency to make their own children the stars
of the show.
What it really comes down to is favouritism,
or at least perceived favouritism. I don’t want
people to think that Mary Jane gets a place in
the paper over anyone else.
It’s like the coach’s kid getting extra ice time
or the teacher’s kid avoiding detention.
Whether or not it’s deserved, it could still be
seen as favouritism.
We deal with perception a lot behind the
scenes at The Citizen. We’re very aware of
who we cover and how often because the last
thing we want to do is have people believe that
we’re showing favouritism to someone or
something.
Over the years, there has been a time or
two where someone has wondered why
someone or an event received coverage
while another didn’t and the simplest way to
explain it is, if you feel that way, then odds are
we felt the same way and have made sure
stories or photos are justified in being in the
paper.
What that means is that, if you’ve seen one
of the two photos of Mary Jane in the paper
(over three years, I think I’ve held a firm line)
it means those pictures honestly were the best
ones we had for the event being covered and
she just happened to be in them.
No one has made any comment about
the placement of the photo (except for
how cute she looked and I agree, though that
might be biased), but I felt that the photo
provided a great example to talk about the
times we can’t get things in the newspaper
right away.
We constantly hear about how some local
newspapers are less-than-receptive with
putting in photos or press releases and, at The
Citizen, we’re proud to say we make every
effort to accommodate. Sometimes that means
stories or photos that Shawn, myself or our
weekend reporters have taken have to take a
back seat for awhile.
And when I say awhile, I can mean months.
Sometimes we write stories or take pictures
that aren’t time-sensitive, so they get
overlooked and, by the time we get them in,
it’s been weeks or months since they were
created.
The goal is to have the best newspaper
possible from front to back.
Some stories don’t make the cut after weeks
warming up in the bullpen.
Very few people are as tough on us as we are
on ourselves in the editorial department when
it comes to trying to pick the right copy and
photos to put in the newspaper. That’s the way
it should be. We should be completely
comfortable with the decisions we make. If
there’s any chance something doesn’t deserve
the space we give it, we try and find something
that will fit better.
It’s a tough balance to strike, but I think we
do a pretty good job. What do you think?
Denny
Scott
Denny’s Den
THE CITIZEN, THURSDAY, SEPTEMBER 12, 2019. PAGE 5.
The One vs. The Many
I’ve always lived my life by a very simple
rule and that’s to leave people alone; the
idea being that the only life you should be
able to live and control is yours and that rule
then applies (or it should) to everyone else.
I took this cue from my parents. My father
was Catholic and my parents chose to raise us
as Catholics. To say our relationship with our
chosen faith was a bit loose would be an
understatement, but we went to Catholic school
and attended church. My parents would always
say that while we chose to be Catholics, if
others chose a different religion, or no religion
at all, that was their business and not ours.
They always resented, for example, religions
that would send people door to door trying to
recruit others and push their beliefs.
The concept of “live and let live” shouldn’t
be complex and yet so many people find it to be
that way. In this area we constantly have people
trying to tell others what they can and cannot
do on or with their property. If a developer
wants to build a high-density building, they
have to run the gauntlet of complaining
neighbours who, now that they own their own
home, only want people who can afford to do
the same on their block. We have groups that
want to be free of regulations on their land,
while at the same time protesting initiatives
like wind turbines on neighbouring properties,
which, it would seem, flies directly in the face
of their whole “let people do what they want on
their property” philosophy.
But I digress. What I’m getting at here is that
if we all just left each other alone, we’d have
harmony. However, in this day and age of
outrage, hypersensitivity and inalienable
human rights, we’ve lost the ability to see the
human rights forest for the trees.
I’m not suggesting blowing up the system of
respecting one another like political pigs
Donald Trump or Maxime Bernier, but when
someone claims their human rights are being
violated, it bears discussion to understand the
human rights of those on the other side.
Look at the case of the British Columbia
transgender woman who filed a human rights
tribunal case after being denied a Brazilian wax
at a number of salons because, despite
identifying as a woman, the salons would not
wax her male genitalia.
While the woman and a number of activists
claim transgender rights are under attack, no
one has discussed the rights of the salon
employees who have the right to deny those
with male genitalia for a variety of reasons.
Another case in Australia has just been
thrown out after a vegan woman filed a lawsuit
against her neighbours for barbecuing meat
next door, which she said violated her human
rights and prevented her from enjoying her
backyard. The case made it to Australia’s
Supreme Court before being thrown out, along
with her inevitable appeal.
Because one woman is a vegan and thus is
entitled to her human rights, she felt that others
around her should have their rights violated or
restricted so she could live her life in peace.
Again, here we have one person suggesting
the world should change to fit her perspective
and not the other way around. Now, thousands
of people are planning a massive barbecue near
the vegan woman’s home, presumably to
shame her and teach her a lesson.
Just as this woman should have let her
neighbours barbecue their dinner in peace, so
too should these people let this vegan woman
live her life, despite her silly court challenge.
Concerning yourself with your business and
your business alone is surprisingly refreshing.
Everyone should try it sometime.
In any election there’s always some
candidate who is urging me only to think
about myself when I make my choice.
Unless you’re a senior citizen like me, you’d
better hope I don’t listen.
If I only care about myself, at my age I’m
only worried about preserving what I have, not
building for the future. It’s in my personal
interest to keep taxes as low as possible. So
why should I care about a good education for
your children or grandchildren if I’m only
thinking about what’s best for me? The little
beggars are just a drain on the public purse
until they’re old enough to pay taxes. Granted,
they won’t pay as much tax if they can’t get
good jobs when they grow up but, hey, I’m not
likely to be around by then anyway.
My tax dollars are also being spent to build
things like highways, bridges, airports and
sewer and water systems, all of which will be
of limited use to me in my remaining years.
Besides, why should I spend money on treating
sewage just to keep the water clean if it’s not
going to matter to me when Lake Huron is
polluted some time in the future?
Taxes aren’t totally a waste, of course. I still
want police to make sure I, and the possessions
I’ve accumulated over a lifetime, are protected.
I guess an army’s a good investment too, even
though any army Canada has is going to offer
very little resistance if one of our powerful
neighbours decides to invade.
I definitely don’t want a carbon tax or any
other expense to protect the environment. Even
the most pessimistic forecasters say the planet
won’t become unliveable until I’m long gone. I
may have to live with some level of
inconvenience in the meantime but it’s worth it
to keep every penny I’ve been able to put aside
rather than pay some of it in taxes.
One place I can make the environmentalists
happy is that I wouldn’t want my tax dollars
helping build a new pipeline to get Alberta’s oil
to the west coast and on to foreign markets. So
what if Alberta’s economy is wrecked and
people are unemployed?
For that matter, why should my taxes go to
compensating farmers for losses they might
have as consequences of China’s temper
tantrum which has seen it ban imports of
Canada’s soybeans, pork and beef?
Now, given the vulnerabilities that come
with age, I’m fine if my taxes (and yours)
pay for a good health care system. Even
here, though, if I’ve earned enough in my
lifetime, I might be further ahead with an
American-style system where, if I (or my
insurance company), will pay the bill, I can
jump to the head of the line past those who
can’t afford to pay.
There are a few people like this in the
world. One who comes to mind is David Koch,
the American billionaire who died recently at
age 79. He and his brother Charles hated taxes
and so supported those who promised to reduce
the tax burden. They made their money from,
among other things, oil and coal, so fought
against legislation to combat climate change.
Though he was a major donor to support
hospitals, he also gave money to politicians
who promised to fight against former President
Barack Obama’s Affordable Care Act.
The Kochs gave major support to the Tea
Party movement in an attempt to shift
American politics more toward their libertarian
beliefs. The result assisted the election of
Donald Trump as American president. In a case
of unintended consequences, Trump’s America
first policies led him to impose tariffs on
imported goods and resulted in retaliatory
tariffs by other countries that hurt the Koch
brothers’ businesses and led them to become
anti-Trump.
Their libertarian beliefs in the freedom of
the individual have been given new impetus
from the “me first” philosophy of President
Trump. Born rich, Trump finds it impossible to
imagine a world where the odds are stacked
against some disadvantaged individuals.
Imagination is a key to why people choose
not to just put themselves first when they vote.
Though I might save money if funds for
education were cut, I can imagine what that
would mean for my grandchildren and their
grandchildren. I can see that, while I may not
benefit personally, my country will be better
off if we have a dynamic society where the
poorest child has an opportunity to rise above
her station.
With imagination, I can also see that during
my grandchildren’s time on this earth, life as
we’ve known it during my lifetime, may be
drastically altered by climate change. My
generation is the first in 200 years not to pass
on the hope of a better world ahead.
Writing a blank cheque for government also
isn’t the answer, of course. That makes it hard
work for us, as voters, to decide who offers the
right blend of vision, yet restraint, in how to
balance the promise of tomorrow with the
reality of today.
Keith
Roulston
From the
cluttered desk