AddThis SmartLayers

Weekly columnist backs Jones in Orlando homophobia row

Bury Free Press Pictured: Paul Derrick, John Henderson, Adam Howlett and Laura SmitihA weekly newspaper journalist has joined the criticism of the initial media coverage of the Orlando shootings, calling it ‘homophobia by omission.’

Gay writer Owen Jones stormed out of a Sky TV interview on Monday after a presenter refused to accept that the massacre was an attack on the lesbian gay bisexual transgender community.

Now Bury Free Press news editor Paul Derrick, who is also gay, has backed Owen’s stance in a first-person piece on the paper’s website

He said it was obvious that the shootings were a “homophobic hate crime” and echoed Owen’s uneasiness about media coverage of the incident.

Wrote Paul, pictured:  “The mass slaughter of 49 people at an LGBT club by a lone gunman in Orlando has stirred many emotions.

“For me there was the obvious horror and heartbreak but as media outlets staked their respective corners, a half expected anxiety took hold.

“Yes this was an act of terror but why were some omitting to call this what I felt it blindingly obviously was – a homophobic hate crime.

“Like many gay men and women I have been on the receiving end of homophobic bigotry – the scars have made me question how I should present myself in public but ultimately have strengthened my resilience.

“So initially I thought I was being overly sensitive based on past experiences but then journalist Owen Jones walked out of a Sky TV debate over this very issue.

“For me, he gave voice to an uneasiness about how certain quarters of the media have treated this massacre.

“Was this homophobia by omission? A reluctance to speak of or to the LGBT community which some in society are still deeply uncomfortable with?

“I do not know the answer. What I do know is my own experiences in my short life and how far we’ve come , yet how far we’ve yet to travel to full equality and acceptance.”

Writing in The Guardian, Owen defended his decision to walk out of the interview.

He said the Sky presenter had refused to accept the massacre as an attack on LGBT people, and had become “increasingly agitated that I – as a gay man – would claim it as such.”

7 comments

You can follow all replies to this entry through the comments feed.
  • June 16, 2016 at 9:37 am
    Permalink

    I disagree.

    Owen Jones may have had good reason, but the way he stormed off did nothing but make him look like he couldn’t sensibly debate this – or any other issue – without losing his temper.

    I agree with his points, but he needs to be more sensible with his reaction.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • June 16, 2016 at 9:38 am
    Permalink

    Dave, that’s the most important thing you can come up with out of this whole article?

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • June 16, 2016 at 9:52 am
    Permalink

    He should have stuck with his initial gut reaction that he was being over sensitive.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(2)
  • June 16, 2016 at 10:26 am
    Permalink

    Look, this debate needs some common sense. The presenter, Mark Longhurst (trained journalist, ex Brighton Argus), reacted strongly when Owen Jones said he could not possibly understand because he wasn’t gay. This was not fair. Longhurst had been trying, not unreasonably, to broaden the argument and reflect the disgust of all sections of the community to this act. Remember Je Suis Charlie? Same thing. You didn’t see the French up in arms for the use of their language as people expressed their heartfelt feelings. Jones wanted to emphasise the fact that the atrocity was specifically aimed at the LGBT community, which it most certainly was, and seemed to resent Longurst’s attempt to introduce other elements into the debate. He also didn’t want to let anyone else get a word in edgeways – only he should be heard. His storming off seemed petulant to me when he could have stayed and argued his point with people who weren’t disagreeing with him, but coming at it from a wider angle. We now know, of course, that the shooter was a frequent visitor to the club so it’s complicated. Everyone, LGBT or not, has to make allowances as we all try to explain the unexplainable.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(7)
  • June 16, 2016 at 10:30 am
    Permalink

    My view is that Owen made a valid point which wasn’t a good fit with the broad brush that’s used in rolling news coverage.
    Like Paul, I believe he was 100 per cent correct in his assertion but that’s not how I feel about his decision to storm off the show.
    I did understand his frustration however
    And by the way – and some of you might disagree-I think we’ve some way to go in newsrooms over this issue.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(4)
  • June 17, 2016 at 8:49 am
    Permalink

    Paul obviously put a lot of thought into what he wrote, which is more than can be said for “Dave”. Enquiring camera girl: you’re spot on.

    Report this comment

    Like this comment(3)