[Wamvan] My letter published, but censored, in G&M

[Susan Hughson]

Good letter Nat. In regard to pros and cons, one of the best things about airing an opinion in this country at this time, is that you can use other formats to criticize main stream media when they neglect to print your opinion, or conversely, edit it beyond recognition. I suggest you ask the editorial desk why they chose the edits they did, and that you were expecting some feedback as to why this was considered LIfe and Arts, not news.
If they fail to respond, perhaps a list of WAM signatures would help reinforce their understanding that women's health and medical issues are indeed news.

Sue

On 2013-09-21, at 11:13 AM, Megan Ryland <megan.ryland at gmail.com> wrote:

> Loved the editorial and I appreciated you putting words to that sentiment. It sucks that they edited it, but (sadly) not a big surprise. Thanks for doing the work to get that statement out there though!
> Megan
> 
> 
> On Fri, Sep 20, 2013 at 10:10 AM, Natalie Hill <nhill10 at gmail.com> wrote:
> **If anyone can't access these links because of G&M's pay-wall, but want to, let me know and I'll copy paste the content.
> 
> Morning,
> 
> Earlier this week this column was published in the Globe and Mail, about the ridiculously low level of urgency and seriousness afforded to birth control recalls over the past few months.
> 
> I was pleased to see a letter I wrote about the column published in the Globe and Mail today. Disappointingly though not surprisingly, they omitted the section of my letter that called out the G&M for repeatedly assigning the news to the Life and Arts section (not just this column). Of course, they also deleted my sassy last line.
> 
> Link to today's letters (see "Lifestyle issue?")
> 
> Would love to hear other people's thought on the pros and cons of engaging with the media in order to bring attention to its flaws, censorship and the futility of using an outlet's own platform to criticize it. 
> 
> thoughts? other people's experiences?
> 
> Below is my original, bolded parts are what they deleted.
> 
> 
> Carly Weeks is right to ask why faulty birth-control pills are being
> treated as a minor inconvenience, categorized as a "Type II" hazard by
> Health Canada, or a non-urgent problem with low probability of serious
> health consequences. As her column outlines, information related to an
> increased risk of unwanted pregnancy is news of a serious and urgent nature
> to any woman on the pill.
> The very same question should be directed at the Globe and Mail, which
> assigned news of such birth-control recalls to the Life & Arts section, not
> once but many times as the story developed. It is telling and ironic that
> Weeks's column lamenting a disregard for women's health was also published
> in the Life & Arts section.
> When will the Globe and Mail take Weeks's advice, and stop treating news of
> faulty birth-control pills as a minor inconvenience?
> 
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wamvan mailing list
> Wamvan at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wamvan
> 
> 
> _______________________________________________
> Wamvan mailing list
> Wamvan at lists.resist.ca
> https://lists.resist.ca/cgi-bin/mailman/listinfo/wamvan

-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: <http://lists.resist.ca/pipermail/wamvan/attachments/20130922/e9e9f5a3/attachment.html>