Something in the tone of public discourse surrounding homelessness issues has become unbearable. From the dismantling of encampments exposed with total shamelessness for those who lose everything to the psychodrama of the affluent neighbourhood of Maison Benoît Labre to the startled users of the Montreal metro, the “crisis” is visible everywhere, but the humanity of those experiencing homelessness is taking a hit.
To the point where, last week, the Réseau d’aide aux personnes seules et itinérantes de Montréal (RAPSIM), which brings together Montreal homeless groups, deemed it urgent to intervene publicly by urging journalists and columnists to show “greater sensitivity and modesty in media coverage of homelessness.” “Media coverage of homelessness has real, harmful impacts on the daily lives of people experiencing homelessness and workers in this environment,” writes the letter, which was also sent to the Quebec Press Council and the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec.
In a context where the homelessness crisis is worsening, its media visibility is also inevitably increasing. Except that the journalistic methods chosen too often lack respect for the dignity of people experiencing homelessness. The dehumanizing nature of capturing images of obvious moments of crisis — during the dismantling of a camp, for example — is highlighted.
Joannie Veilleux, author of the letter and community organizer at RAPSIM since 2020, explains to me that the problem is not in the public interest: it is normal and desirable that these issues be addressed by journalists, especially given the worsening crisis. “We understand why there is an intensification of media coverage, but we are at an extreme in the exposure of the problems, without talking about the causes of the crisis, structural issues or possible responses. We stick to anecdotes.”
Anecdotes that have significant consequences, such as publicly exposing people who rely on anonymity to ensure their safety. The letter cites the example of a woman attending a community resource who was found by an abusive partner following a “see what’s happening here” video capture. Convinced that transparency, even indiscriminately, always serves the public, journalists do not always seem to be aware of the effects of their presence on some of the most vulnerable people in our society.
Journalists have a duty to cover stories that are in the public interest, even when their presence is disturbing. This is not to limit the scope of this duty. However, in fulfilling their duty of balance, we must also consider the social impact of certain types of coverage, especially when it comes to sensitive subjects. What does the choice of a particular angle, of a particular coverage, have on the general feeling towards people who live on the streets? Are we participating in presenting these people as “problems” and not as full citizens, by approaching things in a particular way?
This summer, in the wake of complaints from neighbours to Maison Benoît Labre, Québec City suggested, like a balloon released into the public space, that we could perhaps ban the “homeless” from schools or daycares. We must take into account the social violence of such a decision. The fact that such a thing could be suggested by the government in the public space did not come out of nowhere: the ground had to be prepared for such dehumanization.
Homelessness issues are approached either as a news story or as a “social problem.” However, more often than not, this problem is approached in a way that distances the humanity of people living on the street. Sometimes, it is the very angle of a report that operates this distancing: talking about the terrace owners bothered by the presence of homeless people and drug users in the Village, the “nuisances” caused by the camps, the “incivility” and incidents in the metro.
By placing oneself solely from the point of view of those who are inconvenienced by the presence of vulnerable and (sometimes) unruly people in public spaces, it is suggested that these people are really not part of society. That they are nothing more than a problem to be contained, to be made to disappear.
Similarly, when we talk about the housing crisis and its impact on homelessness, we put forward all sorts of hypotheses, but we approach the issues of homelessness as if the increase in visible distress were not the result of conscious political choices — in housing, health, employment, immigration — that lead to the impoverishment and precariousness of large sections of the population.
As if homelessness were a spontaneous generation, an individual moral failure that spreads like an epidemic and not a deliberate production, the fruit of economic and political decisions that we have chosen to give free rein.
In Montreal, on the viaduct on Rue des Carrières, at the corner of De Lorimier, graffiti appeared in the wake of the dismantling of a camp set up nearby: “Your neighbour who lives outside is still your neighbour”. It’s all there: people who do not have access to housing, who face all the challenges that lead to homelessness on a daily basis — poverty, mental health issues, addictions — are part of our communities in their own right.
These people are not a problem to be solved, hidden, eradicated. They are people to whom we owe solidarity and respect. Let us tell their stories accordingly.