What’s going on at the Dalhousie Gazette?

Last week’s paper contained a rather overbearing editorial, making the argument that photographers had the right to take pictures of anything they damn well want to, making reference to two specific protests: Take Back the Night and the SlutWalk. The editorial calls the concerns of protesters who don’t want their images broadcast as “backward,” and that although journalists were intrusive, it is their job to intrude.

“If you march down a main street in a bra, the media will take your photo,” editor Dylan Matthias wrote. “If you lead a march protesting violence against women, you will get reporters asking tough questions. It’s naive to expect otherwise. Welcome to public life.”

Seems to make sense. Photographers have a right to take photos on public property. But readers did not get a chance to read the letter that prompted the moralizing editorial, nor know the full story behind it.

Emilia Volz, a third-year gender and women's studies student at Dalhousie University, opened the newspaper one day and was confronted with a huge picture of her half-naked torso, with her head cut off, next to an article about the Slutwalk march.

Ok, she thinks. I did wear a bra to a protest. So maybe I was asking for this to happen...

Wait!

Isn’t that the problem that SlutWalk seeks to address? No matter what women wear, they aren’t asking to be objectified, raped, sexually harassed, or used by anybody else as a sexual object to draw attention to a story in a newspaper?

It’s tricky. Emilia wishes the photographer had used her face in the photo, instead of turning her into nothing but a torso, and she also wishes the photographer had talked to her, got her name, and perhaps asked her why she was at the march. In other words, give her a voice. Maybe even asked for consent.

But the letter Emilia dared to write to the newspaper, which prompted the chastisement of the editor, didn’t even bring this up. Instead, it’s actually about another big problem she had with the article: factual inaccuracy and lazy reporting. She wrote:

Hello,
The other day I opened the Gazette in class and immediately was
confronted with an image of myself, though cropped, in my bra at
Slutwalk. This was quite a surprise for me as NO ONE had asked if it
would be ok to publish this picture. I am not mad, at all, I just
wanted to bring light to the fact that if anyone else had a photo like
that in the paper without express permission they would be quite
pissed off. I do not want an apology or anything of the type to be
published.

That article on Slutwalk quotes Brody Rolston, a good friend of
mine, as being at Slutwalk and speaking to a reporter. Firstly, he was
never at the rally or march.Secondly, after speaking with him I know
he was quite mad about being quoted and made to sound unintelligent.
Having quoted someone who was never at the march makes it seem like
this reporter was never there themselves which is quite unprofessional,
if they were writing about it.

I just wanted to bring light and express my views on the somewhat
questionable practices of the Gazette.
Emilia Volz

You can read the Gazette’s Slutwalk article (including the quote from absentee Brody Rolston) here. Rolston is quoted as saying “Being part of a group working for change makes me feel empowered. I’m not wasting another Saturday watching reruns of Jersey Shore.”

But Volz's letter was never published, nor was the error she pointed out corrected. Instead, the next week Volz again opened the newspaper to another surprise—the editorial addressing her, but again without naming her or giving her a voice.

So she took action. She got in touch with the Dalhousie Women’s Centre, and they sent this notice out to their members:

"It has come to our attention that the Dalhousie Gazette published a photograph of a woman's body without her permission in print and on the Internet. When she objected they refused to take it down and the Editor-in-Chief wrote a victim blaming editorial: ‘Smile you’re at a protest.’ We believe it’s unethical to distribute pictures of individual’s bodies without consent, that this picture was taken without context and thus defeating the purpose of the event and that the Gazette's Editor-in-Chief is perpetuating the victim blaming culture that the protest was fighting against. If you have as much of a beef with this as we do, come by tomorrow and write or sign a letter from 10am to 4pm at the Centre."

Volz says she still hasn’t had any private response from the editor of the newspaper to any of her emails.

She says her next step is to file a complaint with the student union, but she feels pretty powerless about the whole thing.

She said she didn’t mind if we at OpenFile re-published the bra photo that started it all, but we decided to take a picture including her face, for good measure.

Another result of this was that the sex columnist at the Gazette, Hayley Gray, quit in protest of the paper's treatment of Volz. She sent this letter—which also hasn't been published by the newspaper:

Gazette Editor-in-Chief Blames the Victim while trying to cover up unethical, non-consensual Journalism and Sexualizing Students

As a city full of journalism students, you know fuck ups will sometimes happen. Some kids will drastically misquote, take things out of context, forget to ask permission. It's no wonder so many groups working with marginalized communities in the HRM don't talk to student journalists.

However, the editor-in-Chief of the Gazette should know better. Over the many years where Take-Back-the-Night has been running, organizers have worked hard to make it clear to the press that this was not a photo shoot for the media, that women didn't want to be identified in photos because they continue to live in fear of their attackers finding them. This event wasn't for the press, or even the public: it was created to support survivors of gender-based violence.

Slut Walk had a different mandate: to end the judgment and objectification of women. Its message was that, no matter what someone wore, they deserved to be treated with respect and asked for their consent. So “If you march down a main street in a bra” I get to snap your photo and not try to ask for consent, doesn't cut it. It actually perpetuates the rape myths and victimizing culture that enraged individuals to create slut walks in the first place. Want to cover a protest? Awesome. Want to be part of the problem that created a need for a protest in the first place? Fuck off.

I've seen many photos taken at Slut Walks that I think are great. Photos of women with banners, with signs, with body paint; protesting, looking at the camera, empowered. This photo is problematic because it's the message without the meaning. Yes, there were people dressed sexily at this march. Yes, they were in public. But why? Aren't journalists supposed to care about the why? It was not, simply as Dylan puts it, because they “wanted to get noticed.” They were there because they wanted to end objectification, rape and non-consensual behaviour (including taking sexualized photos of someone without permission—or as the media likes to call it, illicitly publishing indecent material, aka porn).

I'm not opposed to sex, sexy photos or media coverage at a rally. I am opposed to non-consent, victim blaming and irresponsible journalism that prioritizes shock value over storytelling.

I urge the Gazette to take down the photo and for Dylan to apologize for the mistreatment of his public, the students, the ones that pay his salary. I am not comfortable continuing my column until this issue has been resolved.

I believe in the freedom of the press, but I also believe in its responsibility. Listen to your public, ask questions, stay objective. But don't objectify us; we get enough of that as it is.

Seems as though The Gazette could better serve their readership by not abusing or alienating half of them.

Bethany Horne was copy editor at the Dalhousie Gazette last year and worked with both Dylan Matthias and Hayley Gray.