We’re listening to — and learning from — our readers

Hey there, time traveller!
This article was published 24/01/2024 (639 days ago), so information in it may no longer be current.

The Free Press has long been a place to turn to for not only the news of the day but also a wide range of commentary on those headlines.

In editorials, columns, op-eds from outside experts and even letters to the editor, there is never a shortage of points of view designed to stir debate and help you draw your own conclusions on the issues of the day.

The commentary we provide is always clearly flagged as distinct from our news coverage. The commentary we deliver is designed to be strong and compelling. We don’t hold our punches and being provocative is often deliberate.

However, we don’t want our pages and pixels to sow division in a world that is already far too divisive. We don’t want to be sexist, especially since we have taken others to task for sexism. We don’t ever want to leave the impression the Free Press is mean-spirited.

In recent weeks, opinions we published have left us open to accusations we were divisive, sexist and mean-spirited.

At the same time, since the Oct. 7 Hamas attack on Israel that our editorial described as an act of terrorism, my inbox has been in the cross-hairs of those on both sides of this bloody war. The opinions we published have led to allegations the Free Press is antisemitic, while simultaneously facing charges we are biased against the plight of Palestinians in Gaza.

What’s an editor to do?

My first instinct is to always consider the feedback we get, both positive and negative.

Part of that reflection means revisiting what we published and having discussions with my team of editors and others involved, because everything we produce is part of a collective effort.

In the case of a column about Heather Stefanson’s legacy in the days following her decision to step down as Tory leader, the hard-hitting critique included suggestions she allowed men to have undue influence on her time as premier.

By applying a gender lens in that way to the province’s first female premier, we diminished the vital role women bring to politics and public service — and for that we apologize.

In the case of a column earlier this month regarding COVID-19 vigilance, the language, tone and attacks on the unvaccinated provided us with no immunity against the criticism that came our way.

This is not to suggest COVID-19 vaccinations aren’t effective or a key tool in the public health arsenal. Rather, there is rarely anything healthy about mocking those you disagree with.

In the case of ongoing criticism of coverage and commentary of the events in Gaza and Israel, please know we are always listening and willing to take action, whether it is tweaking headlines, soliciting new and different opinions or adjusting the mix on our letters page.

In these cases and others, our practices and procedures are always open to finding ways to do better for all our readers. In these cases and others, we offer a forum so viewpoints contrary to those we published can also be shared on our platform.

Taking the temperature of the room isn’t always easy. Taking the temperature of a community is all the more difficult.

Fortunately, readers are always there to help me with setting the thermostat.

As I have written before, I am grateful for the time you take to read the opinions we publish. I am equally grateful to have you share your opinions with me on what we got right and what we got wrong. As always, our commitment is to listen, to learn and to be better.

In the process, you are helping the Free Press be stronger, a trusted place you can turn to for defining the news of the day and debating the issues of our time.

Paul Samyn is Free Press editor

paul.samyn@freepress.mb.ca

X: @paulsamyn