![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
I did something tonight that I never thought I would do... EVER! I wrote a letter to the editor of our local paper. It won't make it into the paper as this one has no Letter to the Editor section. It's not even very big.
The problem that I have found so irritating as to make me take up my pen (well, my keyboard) is the movie review column. Have a gander at the latest issue. You'll find Mr. Kane's review on page 10.
If I had merely disagree with Mr. Kane on how good the movie was (or not, in his opinion), I would have thrown the paper away in disgust. More and more, I keep tearing out the columns with the thought to complain about the misogynistic undertones running through them. Mr. Kane doesn't appear to like women very much, nor does he really think they should be in the movies. If they are the main focus, he calls them "chic flicks", including many well-respected movies such as The Iron Lady (which I don't think anyone would shelve under Chic Flick).
In this day and age, this sort of thing should be fought against. It's a small town. What can I do?
I wrote a letter to the editor. All day, I let the words and concepts run around in my brain and decided that I can no longer let this slide without saying something.
Dear Mr. Johnston,
I feel as if I've let this email slide off my To-Do list for far too long. With today's paper, I find that I can't let it go any longer. Overall, I like your paper. There are editing errors that get in the way of my enjoyment but the articles are engaging and I look forward to it every Wednesday, readily picking it up with the Journal to read at lunch time.
From the very beginning, I have found Jonathan Kane's movie reviews to be laughable and crude. Perhaps we don't have the same taste in movies, I kept telling myself week after week as I would grit my teeth over one statement or another. But this week has gone too far. It's one thing that Mr. Kane didn't like The Avengers (although I think we saw two different movies as I saw the one that is the third highest grossing movie worldwide to date) but it is another thing altogether that he once again reverted to the misogynistic undertones that his column has lately come to showcase. I don't feel that including the phrase "Other than Scarlett Johanson in a super hot black leather suit..." was at all worthy of any journalistic endeavor. A frat house kegger flyer, perhaps.
This is not the first time that Mr. Kane has denigrated women in his column. Any movie with a woman lead is often referred to as a "chic flick", including many that would never be truly classified in that category. Just because a woman has been given the lead role, does not immediately mean that the movie is a "chic flick" but I don't think he fully understands the use of the title (a phrase, incidentally, that I have no problem with in most cases) or how it should be used.
I do not care if Mr. Kane likes a movie or not. That doesn't bother me or change what I chose to see. I do, however, have a problem with the language he uses to describe women and the derogatory tone his column often has. In a world where women are still fighting for equal rights, I feel that your journalist is giving your paper a decidedly negative slant.
There's not much I can do to show you my depth of feeling on this issue. It's a small town so it's not like I can stop shopping at the stores that use your newspaper for advertising. There isn't a letter to the editor portion of your paper for me to vent my growing anger. I will do what I can with the resources that are at hand. I will be using my voice and my words, both in person and online, to show my displeasure and I will be linking back to the offending column and the contact information that can be found there. The increased traffic may seem like a good thing but I don't feel it will be for any of the right reasons, Mr. Johnston. Not with the way that Mr. Kane has been abusing his journalistic privileges. Perhaps, in the future, he might be asked to give a second thought to the way he uses his words.
Thank you for your time.
And I'm talking about it in a more public setting. By all means, if you feel this man is crossing the line, I would love for you to send the editor a note (the contact information is here). The world is getting smaller and I don't feel that one small town should have to endure such a mockery of womanhood without it leaking out to the larger consciousness.
Perhaps you don't think this column was so bad. Oh, just wait. I'm sure next week will be just as girl-bashing as ever. I intend to repeat this same journal entry next week and the week after until something is done. Yes, there is such a thing as freedom of speech... and I plan on using a little of it myself.
The problem that I have found so irritating as to make me take up my pen (well, my keyboard) is the movie review column. Have a gander at the latest issue. You'll find Mr. Kane's review on page 10.
If I had merely disagree with Mr. Kane on how good the movie was (or not, in his opinion), I would have thrown the paper away in disgust. More and more, I keep tearing out the columns with the thought to complain about the misogynistic undertones running through them. Mr. Kane doesn't appear to like women very much, nor does he really think they should be in the movies. If they are the main focus, he calls them "chic flicks", including many well-respected movies such as The Iron Lady (which I don't think anyone would shelve under Chic Flick).
In this day and age, this sort of thing should be fought against. It's a small town. What can I do?
I wrote a letter to the editor. All day, I let the words and concepts run around in my brain and decided that I can no longer let this slide without saying something.
Dear Mr. Johnston,
I feel as if I've let this email slide off my To-Do list for far too long. With today's paper, I find that I can't let it go any longer. Overall, I like your paper. There are editing errors that get in the way of my enjoyment but the articles are engaging and I look forward to it every Wednesday, readily picking it up with the Journal to read at lunch time.
From the very beginning, I have found Jonathan Kane's movie reviews to be laughable and crude. Perhaps we don't have the same taste in movies, I kept telling myself week after week as I would grit my teeth over one statement or another. But this week has gone too far. It's one thing that Mr. Kane didn't like The Avengers (although I think we saw two different movies as I saw the one that is the third highest grossing movie worldwide to date) but it is another thing altogether that he once again reverted to the misogynistic undertones that his column has lately come to showcase. I don't feel that including the phrase "Other than Scarlett Johanson in a super hot black leather suit..." was at all worthy of any journalistic endeavor. A frat house kegger flyer, perhaps.
This is not the first time that Mr. Kane has denigrated women in his column. Any movie with a woman lead is often referred to as a "chic flick", including many that would never be truly classified in that category. Just because a woman has been given the lead role, does not immediately mean that the movie is a "chic flick" but I don't think he fully understands the use of the title (a phrase, incidentally, that I have no problem with in most cases) or how it should be used.
I do not care if Mr. Kane likes a movie or not. That doesn't bother me or change what I chose to see. I do, however, have a problem with the language he uses to describe women and the derogatory tone his column often has. In a world where women are still fighting for equal rights, I feel that your journalist is giving your paper a decidedly negative slant.
There's not much I can do to show you my depth of feeling on this issue. It's a small town so it's not like I can stop shopping at the stores that use your newspaper for advertising. There isn't a letter to the editor portion of your paper for me to vent my growing anger. I will do what I can with the resources that are at hand. I will be using my voice and my words, both in person and online, to show my displeasure and I will be linking back to the offending column and the contact information that can be found there. The increased traffic may seem like a good thing but I don't feel it will be for any of the right reasons, Mr. Johnston. Not with the way that Mr. Kane has been abusing his journalistic privileges. Perhaps, in the future, he might be asked to give a second thought to the way he uses his words.
Thank you for your time.
And I'm talking about it in a more public setting. By all means, if you feel this man is crossing the line, I would love for you to send the editor a note (the contact information is here). The world is getting smaller and I don't feel that one small town should have to endure such a mockery of womanhood without it leaking out to the larger consciousness.
Perhaps you don't think this column was so bad. Oh, just wait. I'm sure next week will be just as girl-bashing as ever. I intend to repeat this same journal entry next week and the week after until something is done. Yes, there is such a thing as freedom of speech... and I plan on using a little of it myself.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-14 06:15 am (UTC)From:I think it's a brave and laudable thing to write to the editor and I hope it will see some results.
no subject
Date: 2012-06-14 02:33 pm (UTC)From:This isn't necessarily his worst review but it's the one that sent me over the edge. He doesn't like the script, fine. He doesn't like the acting, fine. But the only good thing is Scarlett's skin tight suit? I'm taking affeont to that.