As anyone who has ever read Stuff.co.nz, they are rather atrocious at paraphrasing stories to produce short headlines for their main page. If the story involves rape or sexual abuse, they generally just use the word “sex” (presumably to use as few words as possible), such as calling someone who is facing charges realting to rape or sexual assault a “sex accused”, which I always think is horrible. Today, their story about a school teacher ( a deputy principal) who has confessed to sexually abusing students has a pretty great (and by “great”, I mean “hugely stupid and offensive”) title on the main page:
“School warned about sex teacher”.
Come on. COME ON. What exactly is a sex teacher? I mean, obviously, I can imagine (ha), but in the context of a school? There’s no such thing as a sex teacher. The closest thing would be a sex education teacher, and that is clearly not what is meant by this. Using the phrase “sex teacher” is soooooooo offensive, and doesn’t even make sense. If you didn’t have the additional story text (or weren’t familiar with the story), you would have no idea what the headline meant. Sex teacher? School warned about the sex teacher? About what exactly? That the teacher wasn’t very good at teaching sex? That they weren’t a real sex teacher? It’s a terrible phrase, and pretty offensive given the sensitive nature of the situation and the number of people who will probably see the headline.
So, that’s another tally mark in the “Stuff.co.nz fails at something” column, bringing the total to one million or so.