In re irritability
The September 29th fatal helicopter accident in Nepal continues to freak me out. It's hard to avoid "that could've been me"-type thoughts (I'd previously checked out the possibility of fleeing Mumbai for Kathmandu; the deputy director of Nepal's USAID office was aboard). But there's also something bothering me about the press coverage: in the cable traffic, the deceased are listed as "Forestry Minister Gopal Rai, his wife, WWF program officer Matthew Preece..." That's repeated by Reuters.uk, Yahoo.uk, the Washington Times, and even on the U.S. Embassy to Nepal's freakin' message of condolence.
In some other coverage, including the IHT, the wife disappears entirely. I can understand that, actually, in news terms: 24 people died; if the paper can't list them all, it lists the ones with titles. That's mature journalism, and it's ok.
Naming "the wife" only to not name her, amid a string of other named individuals, is not.
Her name was Mina Rai. It only took about four seconds to find.
It's one thing -- albeit sloppy journalism -- to give a photocredit to a live person simply as "spouse of," for a minor social function. I find it mystifying, maddening, and utterly inexcusable to report someone's death that way.
I can still remember pricklings of proto-feminism at a grade school fieldtrip to Arlington Cemetery, on discovering headstones marked simply "His Wife." Never mind the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier -- there was a whole field full of Unknown Women out there.
How is it possible that, nearly thirty years later, it's still acceptable to sum up the entire life and identity of a human being as a man's possession -- and that so many editors apparently don't even find it to be a jarring sentence?
In some other coverage, including the IHT, the wife disappears entirely. I can understand that, actually, in news terms: 24 people died; if the paper can't list them all, it lists the ones with titles. That's mature journalism, and it's ok.
Naming "the wife" only to not name her, amid a string of other named individuals, is not.
Her name was Mina Rai. It only took about four seconds to find.
It's one thing -- albeit sloppy journalism -- to give a photocredit to a live person simply as "spouse of," for a minor social function. I find it mystifying, maddening, and utterly inexcusable to report someone's death that way.
I can still remember pricklings of proto-feminism at a grade school fieldtrip to Arlington Cemetery, on discovering headstones marked simply "His Wife." Never mind the Tomb of the Unknown Soldier -- there was a whole field full of Unknown Women out there.
How is it possible that, nearly thirty years later, it's still acceptable to sum up the entire life and identity of a human being as a man's possession -- and that so many editors apparently don't even find it to be a jarring sentence?
0 Comments:
Post a Comment<< Home