Could we have some honesty please!

The mass shooting in British Columbia is an appalling event. In a small town (2,500 pop.) it will hit even harder than the mass shootings which have occurred in other places. Any mass shooting is horrendous. It is to be condemned.  It is wrong.

It is also wrong to pretend it is something it is not. In this case I heard the news of "an active shooter" being reported as, "The police are saying it is a woman." 

I wondered about that at the time. There were a number of reasons for this. Women who murder rarely do so using a gun as a weapon of choice. Women who murder often do it to protect their young. Going into a school and randomly shooting seemed highly unlikely. This was coming from the police in the town and a usually reliable news source.

The international news service repeated the story. They used the word "woman".

This morning there was a picture of the person alleged to have done the shooting. That person is said to be eighteen years of age. That person had a very obvious need to shave - or grow a beard. Perhaps there is a legal requirement to say "female" but I suspect the vast majority of people will look at the photograph and say, "But that's a man." Would it be better to say, "A person who identified as female." Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

A neighbour, out washing his car, told me, "That's not a woman. It reminds me of all those ridiculous claims about being indigenous when you have blue eyes and fair hair like that so-called professor of indigenous agriculture." Would it be better to say, "A person who identifies as being indigenous"? Possibly. Would it be more accurate?

Would it help people understand the event? In the tiny town where it happened I am sure the reasons for the shootings are being discussed and discussed at length. There will be an investigation and many people will wonder why they or others "missed the signs" but trying to suggest that the answer is simply, "They were "transgender" or "that person was a woman" " is not the answer. It should not be reported in that way. 

Our media has been making much of the visit of the Israeli President. Those who did not want the visit to occur have had most of the coverage, of course they have. If however we rely entirely on what they have to say and what the media has said then we only have part of the story. As I pointed out yesterday these people often deliberately break the law. It makes good news footage. Police bashing can be talked about and that is always considered useful news. It has taken the columnists, not seen or heard by the majority, to point out that at least some of what is being said is completely incorrect.

On a number of occasions I have been interviewed and I have not enjoyed it. Why? Because so often what I have said has been twisted to suit the agenda of the interviewer. When it is further reduced to fit the time or space available the message can get completely lost.  Is this dangerous? It can be. Is it dishonest? Yes.