*sigh* This article is actually not trying to ignore Doctor Whoās history so letās take a look instead of screaming about a headline.
First of all the headlineās been changed on the actual website but it doesnāt seem that Twitter reflects that.
The lede has always been about how theyāre talking specifically about the Doctor only as they are aware side characters have had same-sex kisses. I canāt verify for certain but I believe they added āexplicitly romanticā to clarify things as this section always existed in the article:
They always meant to discuss whatās actually new here: a completely reciprocal same-sex romance for the Doctor onscreen. We can argue about whether Nine was interested in Jack, but I think we can agree there was far more interest displayed by the Doctor when it came to Rogue. But itās perfectly fine that they wrote an article detailing what actually is a huge moment for the show and honestly that should be encouraged. I want to see more articles writing about queer parts of shows instead of ignoring them.
And yes, this whole thing is a side-effect of Disney but only because their licensing rights (they don't have any control over the show) have made Doctor Who far more accessible in the US. Plus, they're doing some pretty serious advertising to put the show on more people's radars, which is likely why anyone at Deadline Hollywood was even aware of Rogue and wrote this article. No one is pretending Disney has erased the show's past and is doing all these new "firsts".
The issue here is primarily that the headline is disingenuous. Their article has always been about the Doctorās first explicitly romantic same-sex relationship, but they wanted clicks so they wrote the headline to be vaguer and imply something much more groundbreaking. Even saying āfirst romantic same-sex kissā is a bit disingenuous, as it doesnāt clarify the kiss is referring to the title character.
Thankfully they corrected the article after receiving feedback from the fans, which is great.
But they did their research, which yāall wouldāve known if you bothered to look at the article (which isnāt actually behind a paywall! A rarity these days, though I canāt speak to access outside the US). If something seems informationally off to you, go to the source and actually look at what they're saying, then find the facts. We're not going to get anywhere if we just continue to yell about headlines without reading the actual article that, you know, expands upon the snapshot headline.
The topic of critique should be their poor headline, not the supposed lack of truth in their article. It's great to call them out for poor reporting, as they claim to be a news source and those should be factual, unbiased reporting as opposed to a tabloid. But the issue in their reporting here is simply their phrasing. Criticize them for misleading, not for an assumed lack of information that was actually acknowledged and present in the article. They need to improve but they won't until the real problem is highlighted for them.
dailybridgerton
andulkaphoto
s-u-f-j-a-n-s-t-e-v-e-n-s
snowghoul
pixelskylines
