What the editors at The Globe and Mail chose to print wasn’t edgy. It wasn’t clever. It wasn’t even sharp. It was lazy, inflammatory, and grotesquely irresponsible
News on the Net --Alise Mills, Bio and Archives--February 26, 2026
News in Brief—News Headlines | Comments | Reader Friendly | Subscribe | Email Us
To describe the “state of the union as a zoo” and the U.S. men’s hockey team as “the monkeys” is not satire, it is dehumanization. Full stop.
“Monkey” has a long, ugly history as a racialized slur. It has been weaponized to demean, to belittle, and to strip people of their humanity. Any newsroom with even a passing familiarity with language, history, or basic decency knows this. This is not obscure. It is not subtle. It is not debatable.
And this wasn’t some rogue tweet fired off at 1am. It was edited. Approved. Published. That means multiple "adults" in a professional newsroom looked at that wording and thought, “Yes, that’s fine.” That failure is institutional.
Let me say this about the @globeandmail 's decision to run this lede.
— Alise Mills (@DiaryofaFixer)February 25, 2026
What the editors at The Globe and Mail chose to print wasn’t edgy. It wasn’t clever. It wasn’t even sharp. It was lazy, inflammatory, and grotesquely irresponsible.
To describe the “state of the union as a… pic.twitter.com/cYWftJ03qH
If the paper intended metaphor, they failed. If they intended provocation, they succeeded but at the cost of their own credibility. If they intended humour, they should consider a different line of work.
A national newspaper carries influence. It sets tone. It signals standards. When it chooses language that echoes dehumanizing tropes, it lowers the bar not just for itself, but for public discourse more broadly.
And at a time when media organizations constantly lecture the public about civility, standards, and responsible speech, the hypocrisy is glaring.
Criticism of American politics? Absolutely. But equating human beings with animals — especially in a context loaded with historical baggage is beyond the pale.
An apology would be the minimum. A serious internal reckoning about editorial judgment would be wiser.
Because if this is what passes for commentary at one of Canada’s flagship publications, then the real circus isn’t on the ice.
View Comments
News from around the world