Immediately after a military judge gave the defendant known as Bradley Manning a 35-year sentence for sharing secret documents with WikiLeaks, Manning’s attorney David Coombs appeared on the Today show (8/22/13) to share a letter from Manning. “I am Chelsea Manning. I am female,” the letter explains. Manning went on:
I hope that you will support me in this transition. I also request that, starting today, you refer to me by my new name and use the feminine pronoun (except in official mail to the confinement facility).
But the message of Manning’s announcement seemed to befuddle many in the media, with some outlets apparently unclear about how to identify her. (During the interview on Today, anchor Savannah Guthrie called Manning “her/him” once, but also referred to her as “she.”)
As Dylan Byers of Politico wrote (8/22/13):
Initial reports by the Associated Press, Reuters and the New York Times all referred to Manning as a male. The AP did so unapologetically, while Reuters and the Times did their best to minimize use of the pronoun.
After some criticism about how the Times handled the issue, reporter Brian Stelter (8/22/13) tweeted:
FYI: NYT stylebook (http://t.co/OImFX0wjeK) says we use transgender person’s preferred name & pronoun “unless a former name is newsworthy.”
The link Stelter provides goes to a GLAAD page that summarizes the Times‘ stylebook:
Transgender (adj.) is an overall term for people whose current identity differs from their sex at birth, whether or not they have changed their biological characteristics. Cite a person’s transgender status only when it is pertinent and its pertinence is clear to the reader. Unless a former name is newsworthy or pertinent, use the name and pronouns (he, his, she, her, hers) preferred by the transgender person. If no preference is known, use the pronouns consistent with the way the subject lives publicly.
It’s not hard to spot the problem with this; almost any newsworthy individual who makes an announcement like Manning’s could forever in the eyes of the Times be Bradley, and not Chelsea. Stelter doesn’t get to change the Times stylebook, obviously, but if you look at the NewsDiffs tracking of his story, some of the male pronouns were changed after it was first posted–“his defense team” became “the defense team,” “his trial” became “the trial.”
As for the subject’s preference–which is part of what is supposed to guide the Times–Chelsea Manning would prefer to be known as Chelsea Manning. The Times should do that, and have faith that their readers will not be confused by which newsworthy WikiLeaks-linked whistleblower they are referring to.
The thing about a media outlet’s style guide is that it can evolve.
You’re playing gotcha on this on the very day it was announced?
There will, unfortunately, probably be occasions to criticize how media are failing to handle Chelsea Manning’s changed gender identification in an enlightened and appropriate way, but pronoun-hunting on the actual day of the announcement is both manufacturing a story and trivializing the issue.
Why has Private Manning’s gender identity issue suddenly become newsworthy, unless it serves to distract the public from the facts of the case? What’s newsworthy is that a brave soldier has been wrongly sentenced to 35 years in prison for informing the American people of the atrocities being committed in our name, while the war criminals exposed by Manning are going scot-free! Manning is a (s)hero, regardless of gender identity. Free Bradley/Chelsea Manning NOW!
This is weird now beyond belief – but totally in its ambiguity.
What is the public to think? Has Bradley Manning been a “transgender individual” since before the Wikileaks revelations, or was he tortured and mentally broken so much that this is the result?
Or is his transgender desire something that would have come out anyway in him/her eventually?
Or could this be some kind of mind control media game to bad-jacket all whistleblowers as weird and off-center in some way … and what if they are?
Or is this some way to cast the whole whistleblower support activity in his favor as somehow feminine and therefore irrelevant to war commentary?
We do know he was basically mentally raped in prison by not being allowed to sleep or have any body covering. In my view whatever the situation it not Manning that should be found guilty its the US government for torturing an American citizen.
David G,
Chelsea’s decision is not the first of it’s kind in history. It’s not like this is something that has never happened before. Media outlets who still don’t know how to handle it correctly deserve criticism.
Asking for basic respect for a human being is not a “gotcha”.
Bearpaw:
We’re talking about the reporting on the actual day of an announcement of a change in name and gender identity of someone who has been a huge public figure for several years. Some news organizations and commentators will be 100 percent on top of that right off the bat, starting with the very first “she” and its antecedent Chelsea, and good for them. But to pontificate about those who are less than pronoun-perfect *on the actual day it happens* is indeed a pointless gotcha, and trivializes the idea of “basic respect for a human being”.
Moreover, Manning’s change in name and gender identification will raise unusually complicated issues, both because of the notability she achieved as Bradley, and the fact that for the foreseeable future her former name and gender will have ongoing newsworthiness as she will still be a federal prisoner and appellant in her own criminal case under the old name and sex (unless the Army decides to get really enlightened, really fast).
For example, Kevin Gosztola at Firedoglake, who has been tirelessly and sympathetically covering Manning’s case, wrote a post today outlining what his approach will be, and it’s a bit complicated. Other responsible commentators will find some slightly different approaches. (And I would note that in today’s post *announcing the change* Gosztola continued to use masculine pronouns for Manning in a way that will probably change *after today*.)
As I wrote in my original post, I expect there will be a valid need for some media criticism on this topic (though I hope it won’t overshadow continuing attention to the vital information Manning has sacrificed so much to make public), but could we maybe wait to have one evening meal between learning about female Chelsea Manning and getting on our high horses about those who haven’t yet completely incorporated the new terms of reference?
Brux:
There has been plenty of reporting about Manning before now to make this change less than completely surprising. There’s no reason to find it to be anything other than a honest expression of Chelsea Manning’s gender identity and preference in names.
He won’t have to worry about being treated as a woman once he goes to prison. His fellow inmates will be more than happy to call him Chelsea.
Agree with David G. This post is below FAIR’s standard. There may be occasion to take the media to task for its treatment of this, but the issues cited above are trivial. Stay on target.
Great post, Peter,
Remember when Muhammad Ali changed his name from Cassius Clay? So much authoritarian fuss ensued in the refusal to comply with Ali’s wishes.
It is useful to discern hateful ad hominem attacks from substantial issues by the way one is addressed.
Letting people choose the way they address you is the first step in their attempts to define and own you.
Muhammad Ali went to jail for resisting a corrupt government, too.
I agree with Peter and Brux and Bearpaw, but most importantly, i agree with Chelsea.
I wish Chelsea Manning all the help and support she can get, but the prison to which she is going does not provide medical help in sex change. Hopefully, her parents can get the necessary treatment in hormone therapy started, but the prison may not be cooperative with actual sex-change surgery. We will see, but her travails suffered at the hands of American imprisonment may, unfortunately, continue.
I don’t really care what he wants to be called or what anyone calls him, he’s a traitor and should be hung for treason. As far as a name change so what, a sex change, well you can mutilate a chicken all you want but it will never be a duck dumba&$
Personally, as a female, I’m proud to welcome Chelsea Manning to my gender. That the emotion I had when first hearing of this. That is one hell of a brave human from any gender.
Ed Soja — The war against Iraq that our foolish leaders started cost us trillions of dollars and the lives of thousands of soldiers, plus at least tens of thousands more maimed for life. What Manning did to inform us (that is, We the People, the rightful rulers of America) is heroic of the very highest order and exactly aligned with our interests, and deserves our deepest respect and gratitude. (And it was also profoundly humanitarian; our false rulers have needlessly ended the lives of at least 1 million Iraqis and wrecked the lives of millions more.)
For this, all true and enlightened Americans owe a huge debt to Manning.
Sad commentary about how to (and having to) avoid being butt-raped by males in a “secure” prison setting. Or how to (and preferring to) inhabit a cell outside the general prison population. And why.
Hmmmm we are supposed to move immediately to honor a request (in a sensitive manner, that (gives respect to a persons inner self)of a convicted felon for crimes against his country.Yeah let me get right on that.Heard OJ wants to be referred to as Orenthal James from here on out.He no longer likes OJ.Well how about we compromise How about we call one prisoner D16074?And the other one CA9726481-6?We will try to make sure your eggs are done over easy ,and your baths are drawn ,and just the right temp.How about that?
Irrelevant.
Tressco is correct.It is IRRELEVANT what we call this criminal