How Not To Respond To The Online Mob

This Pride Month, reporters must be careful not to fall into the trap of spreading right-wing propaganda.

It goes without saying that the vibe is severely off this Pride Month. After years of multinational corporations trying to out-rainbow each other for ally points, suddenly there’s a renewed sense of apprehension toward associating too closely with queer people. Social media has only made things worse by amplifying malicious actors who seem hellbent on demonizing queer people. In turn, news outlets are reacting to the loudest people in the room and feeding into a moral panic that has already resulted in countless pieces of legislation rolling back LGBTQ+ rights nationwide.

In a similar vein to how Anheuser-Busch didn’t take a firm stance against the transphobic social media users who were infuriated by their Dylan Mulvaney collaboration and Target cowardly responded to their own far-right backlash by pulling some of their Pride merchandise, some media outlets are bending a knee to the mob by amplifying anti-LGBTQ+ sentiments, whether they mean to or not. 

I wouldn’t blame you for ignoring the cynical social media personalities who are driving Twitter conversations about whether or not queer people deserve to live in peace; go ahead and mute and block Candace Owens for your sanity. However, it’s important to take a step back and examine how far right personalities, whether they are on the internet or in the halls of Congress, use the media to push their messages. Take for instance what happened last week when conservative pundits expressed their dismay over a largely forgettable incident at President Joe Biden’s Pride Month celebration on the White House lawn. Rose Montoya, a trans model and activist, shared a video from the event on Twitter where she flashes her breasts and smiles. That’s all that happened. 

But outrage ensued, as conservative voices spanning from The Daily Wire to Meghan McCain weighed in, salivating at the opportunity to rack up some easy clicks. The New York Post published a Twitter roundup of furious conservatives; the Daily Mail shamelessly situated Montoya’s actions alongside Biden’s remarks in support of the LGBTQ+ community. By fixating on Montoya, right-wing personalities hijacked an otherwise positive story about the largest Pride celebration held at the White House by any administration, and generated their own sensationalist headlines. 

The uproar could have been contained to a specific, albeit noisy, corner of the web. But the media startup The Messenger, which caters to all-sides centrism, spread the story even further. The Messenger claims to be “objective,” and “non-partisan,” and has seemingly had a bit of an identity crisis since its launch. On June 13, the site saw an opportunity for traffic and published multiple articles about Montoya, one of which included a statement from a White House spokesperson condemning the trans model’s actions and barring her from future events. That same day, the same reporter published yet another piece aggregating the “backlash” Montoya faced, including from “those who identified as LGBTQ+ supporters.” All of these stories were decidedly filed under news. The Messenger used Montaya to do what legacy media has already been doing for years: it scapegoated a trans woman and used her as clickbait.  

The outlet’s decision to get a statement from the White House speaks to an odd editorial choice. By treating the right-wing echo chamber outrage as news that was worthy of White House comment, The Messenger legitimized the nonscandal. It’s a choice that contributes to a media industry that is rapidly becoming more and more hostile towards queer and trans people as the overton window shifts and queerphobia and transphobia are increasingly normalized.  

The coverage of Montoya was immediately followed by the Associated Press StyleBook announcing that journalists should avoid using the term trans-exclusionary radical feminist (TERF). According to the Stylebook, TERF should be dropped because supposedly it’s a “vague and politicized” way “to describe cisgender women or others who object to the inclusion of transgender women in women’s spaces.” 

On Twitter, the update was met with righteous fury. Though I’d like to avoid being overly pessimistic, I believe that unlike their opponents, queer people’s anger probably won’t lead to any institutional retractions or flip-flopping. Rather, this is an undeniable win for anti-trans reactionaries who are trying to normalize excluding and marginalizing trans women by framing themselves as the real victims. J.K. Rowling, a notorious TERF (yes, we still use the term), has analogously positioned herself as a witch getting burnt on the stake with the help of Bari Weiss’s propaganda rag. 

Many newsrooms hold the AP Stylebook in high regard. Having an objective set of style standards is surely appealing, but what constitutes those standards is thorny terrain that’s actually more political than the decision-makers at the AP would likely admit. Legacy media outlets already treat trans lives as something that can be reasonably debated (hacks like Weiss spread anti-trans talking points under the guise of a commitment to free speech). By advocating that journalists should change the ways they describe who is participating in a debate about trans inclusivity, the AP will only make the problem worse for trans people. Journalists need to be able to identify bigotry in their reporting.

As the 2024 presidential election kicks off, a vast majority of Americans, who don’t personally know a trans person, will likely be inundated with LGBTQ+ topics in campaign speeches and debates beamed into their TV sets and social media feeds. Elon Musk’s version of Twitter already is becoming a cesspool for anti-trans bigotry (which he seemingly condones). If the past is prelude, we should be concerned. The manufactured outrage over trans athletes playing in women’s sports may have resulted in an uptick of Americans saying they oppose inclusive policies, according to a Gallup survey. Recent polling on same-sex marriage seems to also suggest that right-wing talking points that we are all “groomers” may be catching on and undoing vital progress. In other words, what the media chooses to report on and what narratives they amplify matter. And yet, moments of journalistic malpractice like what happened at The Messenger or AP will likely happen again and again unless reporters choose to tackle these topics with rigor and care. 

I am not advocating that outlets ignore what happens in conservative echo chambers altogether. Thoroughly covering these incidents could help the average reader, who may just be getting one side of the story on social media, connect the dots. NBC Out, for example, published a piece about the Montoya incident that contextualized it with the hostile environment for queer and trans people across the US. But the onus shouldn’t be on the few remaining queer outlets to disrupt the extremist discourse facing queer communities. 

Editors need to stop taking the far-right bait, do the due diligence in providing the necessary context, and stop treating queer and trans rights like a topic to be debated in the court of public opinion. News outlets can report on social media outrage as a digital culture story while providing the proper context, rather than allowing a few hateful chronically online people to dictate how they cover LGBTQ+ issues. 

Don’t ask the White House to comment on a story that likely originated from an Alt Right Discord server. You won’t be thrown into a penal colony if you disregard the AP Stylebook. A TERF is a TERF. The desire for objectivity, traffic goals, or to appeal to all sides of the political spectrum are just flimsy justifications for what is at best cowardice and at worst, hatred. Grow up. 

---

COMINGS AND GOINGS

—Danny Chau is back to covering the NBA as a senior staff writer for The Ringer.
—Luke Ottenhof is now an assistant editor at Premier Guitar, “the world’s foremost authority on all things guitar and bass.”
—Zak Jason is now a deputy editor at Insider, where you can now pitch “bold, bizarre, deeply reported, definitive, heartbreaking, delicious, can’t-put-down, big-swing narratives and big idea essays.” Send them to [email protected].
—Stephanie Murray is covering the 2024 election and writing a new politics newsletter for The Messenger.
—Liz Johnstone is stepping down as managing editor of NBC Politics after seven years.
—Alexandra Suich Bass is now Culture editor at The Economist, which means the magazine is hiring a new correspondent.
—Anna Gross is starting as a political correspondent for the Financial Times, covering the Democrats, and health, education, immigration, tech, science and DCMS policy.
—Tal Barak Harif left Bloomberg as a senior editor after 17 years. 

---

EVERYTHING ELSE

—Last week, G/O Media CEO Jim Spanfeller laid off 13 employees, including four from The Onion Union. In a tweet, the Onion Union said that management hadn’t contacted them prior to the layoffs, which they describe as an “incredibly callous decision.”
—Everyone please give a very cold welcome to the newest media worker in town — Boris Johnson. The former prime minister of the United Kingdom, who fell out of favor with the British public after throwing a party in the midst of COVID-19 lockdown, announced that he’s giving “journalism” another go by picking up a surely lucrative gig churning out columns for The Daily Mail. Just so we’re clear: Johnson isn’t allowed on our listserv or Slack channel, unless he agrees to shave his silly blond mop of a hairdo on a livestream.
—The podcasting production company Pineapple Street Studios now has two new leaders. Staffers Bari Finkel and Je-Anne Berry will take over as the studio’s new co-heads, and co-founders Jenna Weiss-Berman and Max Linsky, who founded it in 2016 will take on new roles at parent company Audacy. “There had come a point where it just became clear to me that not only did [Finkel and Berry] not need me anymore, but they were better at it than I was — and that’s a humbling moment, but also just a thrilling one,” Linsky said in an interview with The Hollywood Reporter.
—An Apple TV+ executive says the quiet part out loud: Giving striking Hollywood writers a fair contract “encourages industries in some countries to unionize in order to make more money. It’s not so much the direct costs of the WGA deal. It’s all of the fallout costs across the company.”
—This week marks one year since Roe v. Wade was overturned. Covering abortion rights with precision and care remains as important as ever. Read the Study Hall Guide to Reporting on Abortion by Anna Furman.

---

CALL FOR MEDIA GOSSIP

Have any media tea you’d like to share? Email [email protected] or [email protected] with your piping hot gossip! What we’re looking for: overheard in the Condé Nast cafeteria or elevator; media executives who have a penchant for maxing out the company’s business card on vampire facials; a Slack channel that has gone off the rails; a celebrity’s PR team lurking over a journalist’s shoulder. Tea can be anonymous, but should also be S-C-A-N-D-A-L-O-U-S. 

---

READ OUR LATEST ORIGINALS:

—Subscriber Syris Valentine writes about conflicts of interest, and what stories lose when we fixate on antiquated notions of objectivity.
—Study Hall subscriber Andrew Lusk interviews Erin Reed, a transgender journalist and activist tracking anti-LGBTQ legislation and misinformation.
—Long-time Study Haller Ian Frisch writes a guide to landing a narrative feature.
—Subscriber Luke Ottenhof reports on a nonprofit that is silencing Palestinian journalists.
—SH newsletter editor Daniel Spielberger blogs about what the Insider Union won in their recent 13-day strike.