Wouldn’t ‘avowed’ or ‘averred’ be a better word choice than ‘self proclaimed’?
Proclaimed carries with it the implication of an official and public announcement. Did this gal do that, or does she just tell folks who ask?
We don’t know that she did tell the reporter. The reporter could have found out her sexual orientation in a number of other ways. Regardless, even if Davis did tell the reporter that doesn’t make it relevant to the story.
There isn’t enough information included in the story, as it is written, to know whether it is relevant or not.
It is possible that Davis made her wardrobe choice in order to make a political statement about her sexuality (though she apparently denies this). It is possible that the principal rejected the photo for reasons associated with Davis’s sexuality (even though the claim is made that it is merely on account of the dress code). In either case information about her sexuality, and the source of that information, is relevant.
Without a lot more information about the backstory, it’s not possible to know whether this information is relevant or not.
The 5 W’s and H – who, what, when, where, why, and how?
Yeah, it’s relevant. Maybe it’s none of our business, but making such a decision would in itselfg be bad journalism. It would amount to editorializing (hey, they don’t need to know she’s a lesbian! Let’s not mention it!). Good journalistic integretity means not hiding anything, that is, not leaving out any of the known “why’s.”
I asked this question over at Testy Copy Editors. They love to nitpick this sort of thing and they’re mostly, to my knowledge, actual copy editors.
So if she were heterosexual and posed in the tux, journalistic integrity would require including a statement of her heterosexuality? “Kelli, a straight A student and self-declared heterosexual, said she didn’t want to expose her chest.” Why is her sexuality any more relevant than for example her religion or race or height or shoe size? Would any copy editor, absent a specific declaration that her religion forbade exposing her skin, let stand a reference to her religion? “Kelli, a self-admitted Buddhist, said she felt uncomfortable exposing her chest.” The reporter is editorializing by including reference to her lesbianism. The reporter is saying that Kelli’s stated reason (discomfort with exposing her chest) is untrue or incomplete and that her lesbianism is the real or root reason for her decision to wear the tux.
ROFL!
No, I gather that the standards for official certification are in dispute, so nobody is authorized to make formal certification of official Lesbianness at this point. (There are several warehouses full of toaster ovens backed up pending recognition of an official recruitment.)
But getting this problem resolved is on the Agenda! :dubious:
I understand what you’re saying, Otto. But given the state of sexuality and gender politics when a girl decides to dress out-of-step it becomes a relevant piece of the story. Like it or not sexual orientation is a hot button issue in the US at this point. It’s worthy to put in, especially because the question WILL be asked by readers when covering a story about a girl who wants to wear traditionally male clothing for a class photo.
In an ideal world it wouldn’t be an issue. But in an ideal world the principal here wouldn’t be acting the maggot, either.
That’s an interesting thread, and i really like the answer that one guy gave:
Then she wouldn’t be “self-proclaimed.”
Well, yeah, that’s right. Exept the hetero part. That’s not a “why.” If Buddhism is a reason, than it’s relevant. You’re unfairly introducing political views into an objective argument. It’s relevant data because it’s not normal to be a lesbian. It’s an extenuating circumstance. It’s also not normal to be a Buddhist in the USA, so maybe it could be relevant. It’s no longer normal to smoke, so that could be a relevant datum. It’s all data; not editorialism. It’s up to the reader to decide. Does this work? Hell yeah – look at this very discussion here. There are those with varying opinions on the matter. Editorializing would have clearly stated the writer’s goals rather than leaving us to wonder.
She wouldn’t be self-proclaimed to the reporter. Which in my mind makes a difference but perhaps not in journalistic standards.
I think you’ll find that being a lesbian is “normal.” it is not, however, “the norm” which is what I assume you meant.
I am still not persuaded that her sexuality is relevant to the story. If she said at some point “I didn’t want to wear the drape because, as a lesbian, I felt uncomfortable wearing a female-identified outfit that exposed my chest” then her lesbianism becomes relevant because she is basing her decision at least in part on it. What she said, according to the article, was that she felt uncomfortable exposing her chest because “that’s just not me.” Her being a lesbian does not correlate to being reluctant to expose her chest. I know plenty of lesbians who have no qualms about exposing their chests and I know plenty of straight women who do. Unless Kelli stats that her lesbianism is what led to her discomfort with exposing her chest then her lesbainism is not relevant to the story and the reporter should have left it out.
Like it or not, if an issue involves cross-dressing, many readers are going to want to know the sexuality of the person wearing the “wrong” clothes. Whether or not a girl wearing a tuxedo is statistically more likely to be a lesbian is irrelevant (and yes, I know cross-dresser <> homosexual).
Right or wrong, it’s a question the reporter should answer if he or she can, because many readers will want to know. That’s the reporter’s job.
If I was covering this story and a friend of hers told me Kelli was a lesbian, but the girl herself would not confirm it, I wouldn’t write it. If Kelli told me herself and I didn’t write how I knew, people would want to know (or might even ask if I was just assuming based on how she dressed for the pic). Thus I’d say something to the effect of “self-proclaimed.”