Disgruntled Star Editor Takes Constructive Revenge
Drop Fees, End Poverty! And Also Do All These Other Things!
Kensington Market's Business, Soon to be Improved
Live Green Toronto's Bright Idea
Stacks of Tracks (in the Stacks)
If nothing else, Susan G. Cole, NOW's Senior Entertainment Editor, does live up to one part of her job title: she sure is entertaining.
Back in February, she wrote about how, if Slumdog Millionaire took home the Best Picture Oscar, it would be "the most violent film to do so ever," which is just about the craziest thing we've ever heard. (So aghast were we that we wrote about it twice.) In May, Cole wrote an article slamming Ezra Levant for his fight over regulating offensive speech. Commenters accused Cole of Antisemitism for the Photoshopped picture of bills shoved into Levant's mouth, but her piece was more accurately dismantled by those totally befuddled that a senior editor of any newspaper—particularly one that wears its political leanings on its sleeve—would advocate restricting speech simply because someone deemed that speech offensive. (In contrast, Eye's recent coverage of the Levant saga has been, without exception, excellent, and its stance on freedom of expression has been right on the money.) Last week, in the aftermath of Pride, Cole wrote an article about how nice it'd be if the parade was a little less inclusive, because straight people are such a buzzkill. Which is sort of offensive, though we're holding off on making a Human Rights Commission complaint about it.
That's nothing, though, compared to the last twenty-four hours. On Tuesday afternoon, the day after news broke that local radio legend Martin Streek had committed suicide, Cole wrote his obituary for NOW. Streek, Cole ended her article by saying, "had been trying to clean up over the past years—decades on the club scene had led to some dangerous excess. But he didn't make it. Toronto's lost a true original."
Suggesting not only that Streek had an ongoing substance abuse problem (the obituary began by saying that he "always lived on the edge," a bad pun about the station that Streek worked for), but that that substance abuse problem led directly to his death—both claims that, as far as we can tell, are close to the opposite of what was true—Cole has been raked over the coals by dozens and dozens of commenters, many of whom found their way to the article from a forum thread in the Facebook group devoted to Streek's memory.
(Commenters were also initially angry about a mistake Cole made that we made too, incorrectly saying that Streek was born in 1952. Notably, Cole said Streek was "never happy to reveal his birth date," when she almost certainly got his year of birth from either the joke bio on the Edge's website that Streek himself wrote or Torontoist's article, which was corrected and updated twelve hours before Cole's article was published.)
What's saddest, though, is that Cole's obituary was, for the most part, reverential. Streek, she wrote, was "all music...and very little ego, which was what made him stand out." She wrote about how "he loved his work, took it seriously and demonstrated zero attitude on the job." But in writing, as in life, conclusions matter a great deal.
add to stumble upon
add to reddit
tweet this
post to facebook
Don't forget her whining that the movie, MILK, about a gay politician and his personal and professional struggles & triumphs, "didn't have enough lesbians."
It seems as though as soon as NOW got rid of that other "dear diary"-style writing hack that wore her dyke factor on her sleeve, Sarah Liss, we were treated to an even more offensive one's drivel.
The headline on this story looks like you're suggesting Susan Cole be outed, only one of many things askew in this particular screed.
The frequency with which Torontoist writers throw stones from within your glass house is a consistent disappointment from an otherwise promising publication.
pt 2 - blame the reader
http://www.nowtoronto.com/daily/story.cfm?content=170310
I don't think she suggested that straight people are a buzzkill. I think she suggested - accurately - that sometimes Pride can feel more like a spectator sport for goggle-eyed heterosexuals than a community celebration. There's nothing wrong with being titillated, but the mass-attraction tourist vibe can sometimes take away as much as it contributes. It's like attending your favourite band's concert once it goes mainstream - suddenly the audience is filled with noisy, well-intentioned folks who only know the hit single; they don't have that personal investment you do, and that little-venue intimacy is sacrificed. Sometimes you miss that time before your band hit it big (although you're glad it did), when it was just you and other diehard fans, and not the loud dude behind you with an "ironic" beard spilling his Heineken onto your leg and crowing that he'd bang the lead singer (whose name he doesn't know).
Sometimes straight people attending Pride really do see it as freakshow entertainment, just as white people who attend pow-wows sometimes see it as a dance show with pretty "costumes". It becomes a little less "pride, fun, celebration" and a little more "observe the wild Gays in their natural habitat". I don't think Cole was railing against the participation of straight people, period, I think she was railing against the heterosexual voyeurism the parade sometimes facilitates.
Anyway, I don't know what it is with heterosexuals who make no particular efforts to be queer-inclusive, but get all indignant when they don't feel, for once in their lives, entitled to party it up in everyone's space. Your offense is a short cry from the "OMG BUT ISNT THIS REVERSE DISCRIMINATION?!! WHAT ABOUT TEH INCLUSIVITY!!!" hypocrisy-trolling so often performed by people who don't understand how power and privilege differentials render "queer people getting to have a parade" and "straight people getting to feel welcome" very different animals. White people do not need White History Month, and straight people (of the ogling variety) do not need to feel lovingly embraced by the queers they take pictures of in June and promptly forget about in July.
*it's important to note that there are some serious diversity issues within queer communities and Pride festivities, especially - ironically - in the pre-popularity era Cole lovingly reminisces about. straight people feeling welcome are really last on the grocery list of internal community oppressions.
"...sometimes Pride can feel more like a spectator sport for goggle-eyed heterosexuals than a community celebration."
I really don't know why anyone would expect differently from a parade(!) that marches down Yonge(!) and accepts municipal, provincial and federal tourist funding(!).
Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a coherent and united queer community, do they want to be equal or separate? Do they want their lifestyle and community to be considered ordinary or special? I really don't see room for compromise.
I really don't know why anyone would expect differently..."
I don't think anyone does expect differently. Cole acknowledged that many queers like the voyeuristic aspect, I acknowledged that the parade facilitates that kind of dynamic. Nobody's surprised that straight folks will show up to see a bunch of half-clothed queer people in a massive parade, nor is anyone surprised that they aren't chasing after the floats screaming "I RESPECT YOU AND RECOGNIZE YOUR INNATE HUMAN COMPLEXITY!" or whatever. It's supposed to be a light fun event. I think her message was less "omg what happened?!" and more "I wish this parade was like it used to be before it became an 'attraction'."
Pretending for a moment that there is such a thing as a coherent and united queer community, do they want to be equal or separate? Do they want their lifestyle and community to be considered ordinary or special? I really don't see room for compromise.
I'm not really sure what this has to do with Pride. Could you explain? I don't think her issue is with queer events being straight-inclusive - I don't think she really wants separatism - I think her beef is with queer events that originated as "by and for queers" becoming events that are "by queers, for straights". I don't see a community-only event as mutually exclusive from inclusiveness and acceptance. As to the ordinary/special thing, I'm not sure what that has to do with Pride either - many queers would like to celebrate their sexuality, in light of it getting regularly smacked down, without simultaneously being reduced to pin-ups of craaaaaazy sexuality for the hetero masses. That's no longer the specialty of Pride, however, and I think it's that loss that she's lamenting.
"I don't think anyone does expect differently... I think her message was... 'I wish this parade was like it used to be before it became an "attraction".'"
And what I'm saying is I don't think that's possible when such gains have been made on the civil rights and popular acceptance & representation side of the coin. That's the direction the rest of my post was heading, not specific to Pride.
"I don't see a community-only event as mutually exclusive from inclusiveness and acceptance."
When it's held in public on a main street and paid for by everyone and advertised in mainstream media, I don't think it has the option of being community-only. If that's truly what the community wants then there needs to be massive changes to the organization of Pride.
i completely agree with david. it's also hypocritical that you criticize her for using a bad pun... some of the headlines on this site are cringe-worthy. it's like torontoist is a farm system for tsn writers.
what a dumb twat. NOW sucks.
montauk, tl;dr
Oh! Well let me just pare it down for you in terms you will understand:
Some straight people act like twats at Pride. Cole is not a twat for making that observation. In fact, one might argue that Torontoist is a twat for taking offense in the first place. (Cole might indeed be a twat, but not because of her piece on Pride.)
Please let me know if I can assist your little twat brain further.
Excellent! Thank you for the condensed version, I agree with your opinion and glad you catered to my attention span which is most often compared to a fruit fly’s! I find that when your established in the industry of entertainment writing, your either a pussy, or a HUGE CUNT!
>Some straight people act like twats at Pride
and nobody at all in the 'community' does?
unreal.
...I never said no one in the community does. If you want to get the nuanced view, read my nuanced comment, not the one where I try to interject "twat" as much as possible. Nobody here is arguing that the queer scene is a ballroom of soft pillows and soap bubbles here. I can say "some straights act like twats" without shoving in a beyond-obvious disclaimer that "all sexualities are capable of twattage".
well if it makes you feel any better i stayed in my apt for all of pride weekend, not because i dislike gays, because i figured i didn't belong there.
happy now?
I'm "in the community", technically, and I don't even feel like I particularly belong there.
Also I hate parades.
I find it interesting that you've demonstrated so well what Montauk posted in her longer, more nuanced post, EG. To wit: "Anyway, I don't know what it is with heterosexuals who make no particular efforts to be queer-inclusive, but get all indignant when they don't feel, for once in their lives, entitled to party it up in everyone's space."
I don't know if you make any efforts to be queer-inclusive, EG, but you certainly have the indignance down pat.
I believe Montauk's point (and Cole's as well) is that many straight people lose sight that Pride isn't about them and their fun. It's about gay people and their efforts to gain equality. Want some ownership of Pride? Be part of those equality efforts throughout the year. Can't be bothered? Then at least be aware of the fact that you're a visitor in the community, not a participant--by your very own commitment or lack thereof.
Is Pride a community event? Sure is. Is it set up in such a way that anyone who wants to can attend? Sure is. That doesn't mean Pride is a big party with no meaning or purpose. And those who treat it as if it is such a party detract from that meaning.
zzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzzz
wake me up when you've finished your babbling.
The knee-jerk reactionist writing of Now is why I rarely pick it up anymore. Some of their writers can't cover the smallest, simplest thing without finding some politically incorrect minutiae about it and spending half the article complaining.
I think the point of the article is that Cole is intellectually lazy. I definitely agree. I am not a regular NOW reader but every time i come in contact with her writing, i find it jarring and often partially inaccurate.
For instance, she wrote this on Heather Mallick's column on Sarah Palin last year:
Mallick's exact quote from the article is:
Which i think speaks for itself. (as an aside, Mallick didn't let it speak for itself: "I called Palin white trash... because she is white and she is trash")
Also, in Cole's review of Ezra Levant's book, there is no indication whatsoever that she even read the book. She attacks the man, but curiously leaves out any intellectual comment on the content of the book.
I don't understand why she is published. She certainly reduces NOW's credibility.
I contacted NOW magazine to register my complaint, and spoke with several members of senior staff.
They couldn't have been more smug, dismissive, unsympathetic or unapologetic. They were practically gleeful in their sociopathy. It was almost as sickening as Susan Cole's nonapology.
I'm sure they're counting on this 'just going away' so they can pursue the same old, same old self-interested agenda. And meanwhile, taking our tax dollars in the form of government grants to keep the paper going--and their own asses in cushy jobs on our dime.
Well, call me crazy, but I don't think we should let them. I think we should stand up.
So, toward that end, please allow me to issue another invitation to join my FB group about Susan Cole and her so-called 'journalism':
http://www.facebook.com/group.php?gid=100440287276
Yes, I know, we all hate getting group invitations (believe me, I hear you), but this one might be worth joining.
Thanks for reading. And to anyone who wants to add to the links or the group description, please do leave your thoughts. I promise to incorporate all. Also, anyone who wants to be an admin, let me know, and I will add you immediately.
Cheers. And RIP Martin Streek.
i stopped reading NOW over 4 years ago. I've tried to read it again but the articles and writers make me nauseous. It does come in handy when i need to mop up dog pee though.
It's also great for menstrual blood!
So, Cole suggested a famous D.J. took drugs? Oh, my! She also questioned the motives of a neoconservative who turned a well-staged attack against a bureaucratic office — a long held Conservative bugaboo — into a best-seller? How dare she! Read the review of Levant's Shakedown on the Literary Review of Canada website before touting Levant as a defender of anything other than the status quo. What is offensive is that Cole was one of very few "alternative" voices to question Levant's B.S. Cole is more punk than snark, and Libertarianism is beginning to sound a lot like next-generation Conservative thought, without all that pesky racism and homophobia and stuff.
If you read the comment storm (which is quite an undertaking), people aren't upset that she 'suggested' drug use- she stated it outright, which no one takes issue with, but also implied that drug use was somehow connected to his death. Commenters claim that he had been clean for years and that the final sentences in her piece make it sound like he had succumbed to his addiction.
Au contraire, libertarianism is all about being racist. It's about getting rid of those pesky human rights laws that say you can't refuse to serve black people at your restaurant, or refuse to rent your apartment out to a Jewish person. After all freedom of contract trumps everything!
chazm, what you're saying is, she's "alternative", whatever that means. What i'm saying is, she's lazy. Perhaps, "alternative" = lazy?
Who reviews a book without reading past the first page, who reviews a column without reading past the third paragraph, and who doesn't apologize when they're outed?