Covering and researching this as xyz journalists, as posed to journalists who cover xyz, is targeting them in an eerily similar way that asserts they can't be unbaised in their coverage.
## "LGBTQ+ journalists face high levels of abuse in UK, study finds"
https://www.gaytimes.co.uk/life/lgbtq-journalists-face-high-levels-of-abuse-in-uk-study-finds/
> "The research … found that online abuse targeting the sexual orientation and gender identity of LGBTQ+ journalists is now commonplace."
>
> "More than eight in 10 (82 per cent) respondents shared that they had faced online trolling, while over half (56 per cent) were subjected to homophobic harassment."
>
> "Many also believe their role to be dangerous, with 76 per cent of those surveyed either disagreeing or strongly disagreeing that media organisations are adequately protecting them from harassment and abuse."
>
> "Almost three quarters (74 per cent) of the professionals surveyed reported feeling anxiety over the abuse they received."
If Nostr really wants to be about free speech, then LGBTQ+ journalists need to feel safe enough to speak here. If bullies control Nostr then there is no free speech here.
#LGBT #journalists #FreeSpeech #gay #PressFreedom #harassment #LGBTQ
Discussion
I don't think you get the point. It's not about journalists getting harassed for covering LGBTQ topics. It's about the journalist covering a hurricane getting harassed because he's gay. It's not about the topic.
That said, there is a lived experience LGBTQ folks have that colors how they may cover a topic. So it's also about censoring certain points of view.
And yes, the same is true of other minority groups. You could substitute "black" or "Muslim" or a variety of minority groups and you'd probably find similar results. This study just happens to be about LGBTQ journalists.
from the report itself 
Right. It's kinda circular. Marginalization is like that…
I would love to see the questionnaire. I Dont see anything in the report that looks at the difference between gay meteorologists. Most of respondents are speaking about their experience covering issues related to their identity. One even said...
https://bcuassets.blob.core.windows.net/docs/lhc-reports-4523-133277545674237816.pdf
Whether it’s censoring topics or people, there’s a problem. Topics like that need to be able to be discussed on Nostr without the person being harassed. You can’t have free speech when it’s policed by bullies.
It’s not like the bullies can’t have their own space. But people need tools to protect themselves from harassment.
I was talking to an African-American friend the other night about what makes “black Twitter” special and what would be needed to get them to move to Nostr. The first thing he said was something along the lines of “black Twitter” is about black folks being able to talk freely amongst themselves without harassment by police or hate groups.
At the end of the day minority groups all need the same thing. They need safe spaces. And for the most part that’s defined by a lack of intolerance and hate.
You said I didn't get the point, but the report simply doesn't look at the difference between those covering and not covering it as a topic. That would be an interesting report to read, and if im missing where in the report that is explored, please point me to the page number.
Since Twitter released their algorithm as open source, it has become evident that Black Twitter had to make the most of their algorithmic confinement in a digital ghetto by using repost accounts due to alternative spellings being downgraded. While there is nothing wrong with making the most out of a challenging situation, As one respondent to that study said “there is a level of exhaustion when having to cover stories which are more based around our trauma then our joy” there is nothing wrong in developing methods to commemorate the joyful aspects of this not so pleasant time period in digital history. However, it is definitely not something to aspire to replicate.