Advice column fell below Star’s editorial standards

A hard lesson was driven home at the Star this week about the importance of always being diligent when it comes to sensitive topics like domestic violence.

It all began after readers reacted angrily to words written by syndicated relationship advice columnist Ellie Tesher.

One reader wrote us to say she was “shocked” Tesher’s column was published, that the piece blamed the victim in a situation of domestic violence and that Tesher’s advice was “dangerous, harmful and judgmental.”

Tesher, a former long-time Star employee who now writes for the paper on freelance, has written her popular column for 20 years. For most of that period it ran six times a week, recently switching to three times per week (her daughter Lisi writes the column under her own name three additional days). Because it’s syndicated, Tesher’s column appears in many Canadian newspapers and has attracted a large and loyal fan base.

But she ended up in hot water Wednesday over her column about a woman who had been threatened with death multiple times by an abusive male partner in a rage over her infidelities.

The woman had written Tesher to say her partner had pointed a gun at her head and threatened to shoot. She asked Tesher whether the man’s anger was warranted given she’d been repeatedly unfaithful. The woman added she had apologized several times to the man for her behaviour and asked Tesher if more could be done to stop the threats.

Tesher’s initial advice was sound, including telling the woman to report her partner’s threats at the nearest police station — especially the gun incident — and to look into whether a lawyer’s letter and one from the police were needed to stop the man’s behaviour.

Then Tesher veered off course.

“Meanwhile, your own careless cheating throughout what you called a ‘relationship’ was deplorable and led to this frightening situation,” Tesher wrote. She warned the writer had placed herself in danger by playing “loose and careless” with her partner’s “pride and emotions.”

There was advice at the end of the column about not “trifling” with a partner’s pride and anger over cheating, especially if they own a weapon.

The wording was highly inappropriate and falls below the Star’s editorial standards. The newspaper has a long history of deep reporting on intimate partner violence, and categorically rejects the notion of blaming victims for their abuse.

Star readers, along with several of its journalists and editors, noticed the published column and reached out immediately to the newspaper’s senior editors expressing anger and concern. There were also criticisms on social media.

Star editors quickly removed the offending sentences and wrote a full apology that was placed atop an updated version of the online column.

That same day Tesher wrote a full apology that appeared on her column the following day. It said while she sincerely feared the danger the woman faced, as a relationship columnist she also addressed the woman’s infidelities and their impact on her relationship — but added “in this context of domestic abuse, this sent entirely the wrong message.”

To me, that said it all in a nutshell.

Tesher, who told me she is sorry, distraught and “feels sick” over her error and the fallout, says she chose to apologize right away because she doesn’t support violence or abuse in any way, whether against a man, woman or child.

“I really wasn’t intending to blame (the writer). I was intending to wake her up to get the hell away from this guy,” said Tesher.

Still, the episode begs questions about how the error made its way into print.

Star editor-in-chief Anne Marie Owens said the column clearly should not have been published. “This was a failure of editorial judgment, but also exposed a fault in our process for editing a column that often deals with sensitive personal and social issues and tricky moral questions,” Owens said.

“Going forward, at least two editors will review this column before publication,” Owens said. The same holds for the column by Tesher’s daughter.

“Domestic abuse is a profound and persistent problem that has become even more acute during the pandemic. We remain committed to covering the issue thoroughly and responsibly,” Owens said.

The Star editor who handled the column told me that because Tesher has been writing the column for so many years, readers want “her perspective, not mine.”

He continued: “I would be keenly wary of stepping in and even suggesting to a columnist of this standing that their perspective ought to be reconsidered.”

He said that led him to overlook the offending paragraphs. “I was thinking about her right to say it, and not thinking about what the Star’s own perspective on this would be,” the editor said.

He now says he should have reflected more on the paragraphs and suggested to Tesher that they be rephrased.

Star policy says opinion journalists have “wide latitude to express their own views, subject to standards of taste and laws of libel — including views directly contrary to the editorial views of Torstar news organizations.”

But Owens doesn’t believe the wide latitude notion applies here. “There are limits to that latitude and it was clearly over the line,” Owens told me.

In most other cases, the Star’s “existing infrastructure means that columnists and content are thoroughly reviewed by editors,” she went on to say.

Columns on sensitive and fraught subjects ought to be viewed by multiple editors, including a manager, she added.

I would just add that existing checks and balances notwithstanding, editors must always feel comfortable reaching out to any columnist if they feel in their gut that something they’re reading is problematic or crosses the Star’s standards.

These aren’t always easy situations, but as this week has shown it’s better to ask questions than remain silent.

Donovan Vincent is the Star’s Public Editor. publiced@thestar.ca