Below is an excerpt of a question-and-answer session with a former editor “weeklyed” at The Weekly. The exchange originally took place on a discreddit thread in the McGall subdiscreddit.
weeklyed: Hi all, knowing this group’s fascination with The Weekly over the last couple years, I thought there might be interest in views from the other side of the edboard; how the editorials really get published. Ask me anything!
jerk2STEM: Can you tell us a bit more about the editorial-writing process at The Weekly? Do the editors really whole-heartedly believe all the radical shit that gets published?
weeklyed: Actually, the editorials are dictated and sometimes ghostwritten by several different Canadian labour unions in association with the black bloc. During our Monday night edboard meetings, we video conference with our overlords to hear their decisions as to the content and structure of the editorials before a tribute is chosen to write the piece from among our lowly ranks.
moderationinallthings: Would you characterize the editors of the paper as good students and thoughtful people, or do they just like to pitch and write articles that confirm their existing biases? Among those journalism hopefuls, are there any who have a genuine interest in reporting the facts?
weeklyed: The Weekly editors generally do not deign to resort to “facts,” “statistics,” or “quotes from primary sources” to back up their assertions and accusations of systemic discrimination, except when they do, which is usually. Most of the reporting is done to prove a point, unlike other news organizations which completely remove the human element to ensure that interpretations are entirely objective. For this reason, The Weekly’s system of recruiting human editors and writers, and interviewing people who have a stake in the relevant issues is entirely outdated, and frankly one of the reasons I left.
moderationinallthings: Any other reasons for leaving?
weeklyed: Well, besides the overpromotion of minorities, I was too rational for the literal, full-on anarchy that was edboard, and my intellectual curiosity was really quite overwhelming to them.
turnthepinktide: I heard the elections process is particularly nasty, as it pits people against each other. Can you explain the elections process?
weeklyed: Certainly. First, section editors subject their candidates to Clockwork Orange-style sensory overload, with images of their competitors and all things right of “mildly socialist” mixed with classical music and images of rabid dogs, nuclear weaponry, and general death and destruction. After that, they are placed in a pit, where they first have a competitive, timed debate over the finer points of intersectionality before fighting to the death.
adam_smithy: What does the Daily office smell like?
weeklyed: Besides human sadness, it smells like hot dogs, Boustan, Indian food, old coffee cups, and literal full-on anarchism.
jacobinmcgall: Who was your favorite co-editor?
weeklyed: Can’t answer that question, as I fear it would give away my identity :( . But I gotta say, I’m impressed with the coordinating editor this year, as they’ve really strived to make the paper more palatable, which is why nobody is calling them anti-zionist or reverse-racist at all anymore.
2manychainz: Is the edboard aware of their opposition or negative reaction to pieces?
weeklyed: Yes. Editors regularly read comments on the website and social media, and then openly weep, except when the comments clearly come from intractable ideological differences that will likely never, ever be solved, especially on the internet.
schmequity: How many minorities did you promote?
weeklyed: I can’t even keep track. The paper is practically drowning in minorities.
peein_more: Thanks so much for doing this. Can you please confirm everything I’ve ever thought about The Weekly, especially how bad I think it is?
weeklyed: Yes! It’s exactly as bad as you think.