White men effectively control Canadian journalism. But recent events have shown that’s not enough: any challenge to their dominance must be condemned.

On February 18, BuzzFeed senior writer Scaachi Koul tweeted a call for longform writers, particularly those who aren’t white or male. This was a commendable step toward breaking down barriers preventing people from entering, and then overhauling, the white journalism enclave.

Unsurprisingly, those who benefit from the status quo reacted swiftly and with venom. Koul was continuously harassed as news of her effort to make newsrooms look a little less like a country club spread through social media, Reddit and right-wing blogs. The backlash wasn’t limited to egg avatars, either—prominent figures at bastions of privilege jumped in as well.

Buzzfeed Cda is hiring, White Males Need Not Apply (so, can I finally ban left-handed Albanians from the office?)

— Scott Gilmore (@Scott_Gilmore) February 20, 2016

This legal analysis lists all the Cdn human rights & labour laws violated by @Scaachi's look-at-me-I'm-edgy job ad:

— Scott Gilmore (@Scott_Gilmore) February 20, 2016

On Saturday night, Koul deleted or deactivated her Twitter account. Koul, a woman of colour who writes critically about racism and sexism, was forced off social media for giving an ear to those who often go unheard. This should disturb any journalist, regardless of whether or not Koul returns to Twitter.

But the implications of the incident go beyond Koul, perfectly encapsulating a dangerous deficiency in understandings of racism.

Koul’s call for non-white writers and her characteristically snarky tweets that followed were instantly deemed blatantly racist. Meanwhile, Canadian journalism is almost entirely white-owned. Leading editors across the country are overwhelmingly white, as are staff lists—including columnists, who help craft national conversation. For decades, people of colour have been telling stories about how they feel boxed-out of the industry or harassed if they attempt to carve out a spot for themselves.

And yet the reaction to these facts and countless lived experiences is always something like, “There isn’t a problem. No one is barred from applying for any job. Journalism is merit-based. People of colour just aren’t doing enough to get into the industry.”

The logical deficiency here is that the general public, as well as many journalists, conceive of racism solely as something explicit and direct. So, Koul encouraging non-white writers to pitch to BuzzFeed gets read as a segregation-era-style job ad. Meanwhile, the shameful state of Canadian journalism is portrayed as the product of an ideal meritocracy or just merely a coincidence, as if it fell into place by chance.

Koul’s post, of course, is not racist, or illegal.

@Scott_Gilmore @Scaachi it's clearly not a job ad, and it violates no laws to encourage women & poc to pitch. But yeah thx for the link.

— Craig Silverman (@CraigSilverman) February 20, 2016

Yet this doesn’t matter for the online mob who feel challenged by Koul’s search for writers. If these people fought actual racism even a fraction of how much they complain about “reverse racism,” there’d be substantial change.

But, as the harassment Koul faces illustrates, those who benefit from the current system don’t actually want change. BuzzFeed focusing on writers of colour would mean a white writer may miss out on “his” job.

For all the dudes who cried when BBC introduced its "minimum 1 woman per panel show" rule. Meet Dr. Michael Kimmel: pic.twitter.com/do5MazSiNx

— Bec Hill (@bechillcomedian) January 16, 2016

Nevermind the fact that BuzzFeed’s hiring is an iota of the overall Canadian market, where white writers are still disproportionately employed. A white man would still miss out on an opportunity, and that is unacceptable in their eyes.

This is exactly why people need to call bullshit on the countless editors and journalists who agree there is a problem, spout off about how lovely a more diverse journalism landscape would be and then do absolutely nothing to make it happen.

Changing the face of journalism means actually shifting where the money goes and who gets to decide its destination. Those unwilling to accept that don’t actually want change, and it’s time to stop relying on them to lead the way.

My fellow blog editor Fatima Syed wrote an important blog post yesterday responding to the Twitter debate regarding BuzzFeed Canada senior writer Scaachi Koul’s appearance on The National. I agree with the main argument put across in Syed’s post: we need to fight for newsroom diversity in order to allow more women of colour to have careers in journalism and reduce the unfair expectations placed on those who have attained some success.

Yet if we’re going to discuss race and representation in Canadian journalism seriously, it needs to be with nuance. Syed’s post lacked a bit of that nuance because she ignored, or wasn’t aware of, an important part of the conversation that Koul’s appearance sparked.

Syed characterized the backlash Koul faced solely as “abuse,” or as inappropriate comments about her appearance and mistaken whiteness. Koul certainly did receive disturbing abuse from some, and it’s no secret that women of colour on social media are disproportionately harassed. But Koul also faced very legitimate criticism from a number of black women, most notably another female journalist of colour, Septembre Anderson.

Anderson’s criticism of Koul’s appearance on The National focused on her perceived lack of insight regarding the importance of women of colour in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet. Anderson presciently noted that focusing solely on arguments for gender parity without deeper critical analysis will likely result in white women dominating the cabinet.

After Koul published an article at BuzzFeed Canada defending herself from perceived attacks, and attempting to address her privilege, Anderson responded in the comment section by saying, “So, rather than address the very real criticism you use your power and privilege to humiliate Rachel Décoste [a woman whose tweet was linked in Koul’s article], totally downplay accountability and play victim? Classy.” Anderson also took to Twitter claiming Koul unfairly portrayed her as aggressive, an “age old” tactic used against black people.

Syed unintentionally perpetuated this portrayal by characterizing the entire backlash Koul faced as abuse, without pointing out the valid criticism that came from other female journalists of colour like Anderson.

Obviously, Koul is not solely to blame for the fact that a panel on gender parity did not have enough critical insight regarding race. If the demographic of Canadian journalism reflected Canada’s population instead of being dominated by white people (especially older men), the responsibility for this sort of nuance would not have rested solely in Koul’s hands.

Still, Anderson and others absolutely have the right to critique Koul’s performance on the panel, as well as the perceived privilege they believe she used in an inappropriate manner. This sort of critical discussion should be encouraged instead of demonized if we truly want to build a more diverse Canadian journalism landscape, because nuance is of the utmost importance in this matter.

As with many things on the internet, it all started with someone stating their 140-character opinion about something they had watched.

what else do i need to do here pic.twitter.com/zi8HpLpOA7

— Scaachi (@Scaachi) November 2, 2015

The comment was made in regard to Scaachi Koul’s appearance during a segment on The National about affirmative action in Prime Minister Justin Trudeau’s cabinet.  Koul, a senior writer for BuzzFeed Canada, spoke in agreement with Trudeau’s promise to have a 50-percent-female cabinet, which placed her in opposition to her fellow panelists Jonathan Kay, editor of The Walrus, and Tasha Kheiriddin, a CBC political commentator and National Post columnist.

Koul was the only person of colour on the panel. That’s a double-edged sword. It’s great for diversity and representative opinions. It also, however, implicitly means she has higher standards and expectations to meet, which she notes in her response to all the comments she received:

“I spent too much of the morning looking at Twitter, watching my feed fill with people trying to guess my race, whether I represented WOC appropriately, whether I had been crushed by the other two panelists. Not just the question of whether I did an okay job, or if I made valid points — rather, was I everything?”

The internet applauded Koul’s blunt reponse. From André Picard to other women journalists like Denise Balkissoon and Heather Mallick, many retweeted affirmatively. All of them implied that the abuse female pundits like Koul face is absurd, unwarranted and just plain wrong. I say “implied” here because that’s how I interpret the quoted retweets of Koul’s article.

Retweets, however, are not a step toward affirmative change. As an industry, we talk a lot about the need to increase newsroom diversity, but we refuse to delve into specifics. If we do, we don’t see changes implemented, or  we haven’t yet.

Why not, though? Why have we still not taken steps toward addressing the integration of journalists of colour? It is so rare to see a panel that is representative of society in terms of gender and race, which is probably why those who try to break the glass ceiling receive reactions like the one above.

Judging by the retweets, Koul is not the only female journalist of colour who has had to face more commentary about her appearance than her content. While most of Twitter may have responded in kind, there is a discussion to be had about the formation of panels, who is on them and how we respond to them. As Koul wrote,

“I want to do the panel and try to be the voice, but it so frequently results in coming home to attacks on my character, my race, my looks, my existence. If I don’t do the panel, my existence is merely entirely ignored by the public consciousness. You suffer consequences either way.”

From one female journalist of colour to another, I salute Scaachi Koul for surviving yesterday and bringing problems faced by female journalists of colour to light. It’s not just about the inclusion of diverse voices anymore, but the acceptance of those voices without commentary on what they look like.

The irony is that so much time was spent on Twitter yesterday debating the pros and cons of a 50-percent-female government cabinet, when the mirror in front of us shows that we, the journalists, should be talking just as seriously about parity and proportional representation.

We’re very sorry to throw you out of your routine by pushing the Alumni Essentials to Tuesday this week, but hopefully our piece on Jesse Brown and media criticism made up for it. We won’t make you wait any longer with this intro, below are some of our favourite recent pieces:

Winter 2012 multimedia editor Marta Iwanek’s most recent work for the Toronto Star is part of the moving story about Richard Wang, a single father struggling to raise his 8-year-old son. After the original profile was published, a Star reader reached out and gave Wang his first stable job. If you think these photos are beautiful, you definitely need to check out Iwanek’s 2014 year in review.

Sticking with 2012, senior online editor of the summer edition Matt Braga is settling in nicely to his role as editor of Motherboard Canada. In the past couple of weeks he’s turned out stories on experimental malware that can take down your Mac, the padlock that failed to protect the Communications Security Establishment of Canada headquarters and an art project that lets you watch all movies being pirated in real time.

Finally, Braga’s masthead mate, she-who-shall-not-be-named, wrote on Naheed Nenshi’s time in as mayor of the “whitest” city in the country.

That’s it for this week. Got anything we should feature here? Email the blog editor.

As journalists, we spend most of our time catching up with breaking news. Interviewing experts, people at a scene other journalists, for the latest tips and stories, while checking libraries and databases for context. This week, we’re looking at alumni who are taking a step back to look at the process of how their characters, our society and themselves got to the points they’re at.

First up is summer 2012 production editor Scaachi Koul, who, try as we might, we can’t ignore—whether she’s yelling on Twitter or writing an honest, funny and often insightful piece. This week it’s the latter, as she recounts the bucket list she made at 11 years old and the awkwardness and embarrassment we face as we push ourselves towards our goals.

Next, former instructor Bill Reynolds wrote a short series of posts on his book, Life Real Loud: John Lefebvre, Neteller and the Revolution in Online Gambling. Reynolds opens up about his interest in the story, John Lefebvre as a main character, and the seven-year writing process.

Finally, spring 2007 editor Julia Belluz chats with sports nutritionist Matt Fitzgerald about diet cults, eating fads and how we got so stupid when it comes to food.

Do you have a piece that should be up here? Email the blog editor. And while you’re reading this, be sure to follow the Review and its wonderful masthead on Twitter. Feature image step backward designed by useiconic.com from the Noun Project. 

When a story like the Jian Ghomeshi saga gets as big as it has, it presents a challenge for media organizations: how to differentiate themselves. The Toronto Star is breaking the coverage, and everybody else is picking it up and often just repeating it. This week’s Alumni Essentials shows how important intelligent, contextual analysis is as a story unfolds like this.

Summer 2012 production editor Scaachi Koul’s “How Predator’s Get Away With It” uses her personal experiences as a student and working journalist as a call for the media to start speaking out against abusers. This is a reminder that this story is much bigger than Ghomeshi himself, as Koul details harassment from professors and her list of male media employees to avoid.

Focusing back on Ghomeshi, winter 2012 departments editor Carly Lewis analyzes the former Q host’s Facebook letter and the tactics he used in it to rally fans and admirers around him. Lewis—with the help of some experts—examines the careful crafting of each line in the letter and the science behind it to show how Ghomeshi set himself up as a victim.

As the story continues to unravel, journalists will need to find different ways to tell it—ways that add value to readers trying to make sense of this case.

It’s about to get bigger.

Do you have a post by an alumnus that should be showcased? Email the blog editor. And don’t forget to follow the Review and its masthead on Twitter.