(Globe and Mail) Rarely do we get as clear an insight into how people see a particular newspaper as we did overnight after some cheeky Occupy Wall Street captions alongside a celebrity photo slideshow on the Globe and Mail‘s website. “Actor Jeremy Piven strikes a blow for the disenfranchised at the Veuve Clicquot Polo Classic in Los Angeles on Sunday,” was one of the funnier ones. I awoke to this on my more media-savvy-than-average Facebook feed: “Dudes… check this right now before someone at the Globe wakes up and changes everything.” “holy crap! i have screenshots of the whole thing..” “what the hell? have they been hacked by Go Fug Yourself or something?” “Wow! Must share before they take it down!” “I do not exactly understand what is going on here. Is the Globe actually, like, running this satire as officially-produced-Globe-content. Or is some awesomely hillarious web flunky about to lose their job? Or something else?” “i’m still trying to figure it out… is it possible that someone has gone back and changed the other captions as well? i just can’t see that the globe would publish this. but then, it’s been up for at least a few hours now. i would figure if it were a hack or something it would be down by now…” “Wow-wow-wow-wow-wow!” “Caption Writing Person, I love you.” “OMG. Reading the captions — brillo. [I have a feeling someone’s just tendered their resignation at the Globe]” “What Globe staffer would get bombed or ‘channel’ some nasty muse and then come up with these zingers?” The reaction was noticed at the Globe itself, which sometime overnight or this morning added this to the top of the slideshow: “Editor’s note: Each week, Globe and Mail editors supply tongue in cheek captions to our celebrity of the week photos. This week: our Occupy Wall Street edition. Disclaimer: this isn’t an endorsement of any political position, just a spot of fun.” The absolute and extended incredulousness is fascinating. (The Standard‘s Navneet Alang provides his take on it here.) People simply could not bring themselves to believe that an authorized Globe person could have done this. Anyone who reads the Star will know that Malene Arpe does this sort of thing every week, and though her centre spreads are never themed (at least as far as I can tell), are not attributed to a mysterious (and presumably collective) pseudonym, and don’t come with either political overtones or notes from the editors disclaiming those political overtones, they are often a good deal funnier. No one would have raised an eyebrow if this had appeared at the Post‘s site. Even the Economist runs funny captions. We’ve known for a long time that people take the Globe very seriously, including, of course, people at the Globe. (I should point out that at least one of the above comments is actually from a Globe staffer.) But this reaction, the assumption that some lone runner has come along with a hammer, Apple-1984-Superbowl-ad-like, and smashed through its usual confines implies that it goes beyond serious into humourlessness. Even with its colour, its glossy front page, its Life section that does everything but roll over and ask you to scratch its tummy to get you to like it, people still see the paper as the journalistic equivalent of a not especially friendly headmaster. But people liked this (check the comments). Whether they liked it for its inherent humour, or the perceived friction between its humour or politics and the standard Globe ethos, doesn’t matter so much at the moment, though it might if the paper decides to pick this ball up and make a game of it. What this reaction says more than anything is that the Globe has a granite-solid brand. That’s a valuable thing. Cracking it, and filling the seams with Silly String, could work, or it could come off like the Prince of Wales in a baseball cap. For what it’s worth, the mistress of the form approves. “They’re very good,” Malene Arpe said this morning. “I’m kind of envious. I wish I had written some of those.” __ Bert Archer is the Toronto Standard Media Critic.
