Stereotype. The word comes to us from the printing trade. In days of yore, stereotypes were the metal plates that went round and round on a newspaper printing press.
At the risk of oversimplification, let’s just say stereotypes were copies of the original type that was assembled in pages and locked into page formes.
Like most printing technology in vogue when the ombud was a 1960s kid reporter, the stereotype is a rare artifact in our high-tech age of computer wizardry.
Yet, the word “stereotype” has gradually assumed a new and negative meaning in our blossoming multiculture.
A stereotype, according to the Canadian Oxford Dictionary, is “a preconceived, standardized and oversimplified impression of the characteristics which typify a person, situation, etc.”
For example: “I’m not a thug. Please don’t stereotype me just because I’m young, black and male.”
Make no mistake. There are probably few among us who aren’t guilty at some time of judging an entire group by actions or characteristics of a handful.
And those judgments needn’t be negative. In some cases the popular stereotype is overwhelmingly positive, but also wrong or unfair.
Recently, in an article about adoption, the Star reported a well-documented desire by Westerners to adopt South Korean children isn’t accidental.
The article said Korean kids have a “reputation for intelligence and even temper” that puts them “at the top of the racial pecking order for international adoption.” Huh?
As one reader noted, the positive stereotype of South Korean kids could also be seen as a negative stereotype of children from other lands. To her, the description reflects a misguided popular sentiment that’s borderline racist.
Early this week, another reader, Stuart Alexander, saw something offputting in a published interview with Scott Turow, a successful U.S. crime novelist. In the piece, Turow noted his parents didn’t want him to be a writer.
“Like all Jewish parents,” the article continued, “they worried about their son’s earning power.”
The reader said the Jewish-parent stereotype was gratuitous. “It was unfortunate stereotyping that didn’t add anything to the story,” he said.
Indeed, the Star’s policy manual makes that point: “No reference, direct or indirect, should be made to a person’s race, colour or religion unless it is pertinent to the story (Italics mine).”
Recently, the Star has come under fire for adhering to this policy in an attempt to avoid racial stereotyping.
One commentator said it’s “patronizing” for the paper not to automatically mention a suspect’s race when police include it in a news release.
Sure, there may be times when witness descriptions are so specific snake tattoo, livid scar on left cheek, missing right index finger that an argument can be made for reporting race. It might help police close a case.
But why mindlessly report that police are looking for a generic 26-year-old black male, 5 ft. 8 or 9 in., 150 lb., wearing a winter toque, when doing so feeds a racial stereotype of a group to fear?
Thousands of law-abiding young men in Toronto could fit such a description. Why stigmatize an entire community?
Journalists juggle competing ethical values in deciding what to print or how best to tell a story.
To me, it’s good when an editor stops a dubious stereotype before it goes to press.
————————————————————————
