I guess even a march organized by a woman and expected to draw more than 200,000 women to the nation’s capital needs men. Or, at least that’s the message the Washington Post Express sent today with their big ol’ OOPS.
Crashing The Symbolism
The print cover of the Washington Post Express today turned some heads, adorned as it was with the “male” symbol.
Shout out to The Washington Post Express who accidentally put the MALE symbol for the WOMAN'S march on their cover today pic.twitter.com/xGS0XE8RTd
— Kimberly Betsill (@kimmybetsill) January 5, 2017
The image was Photoshopped from a stock image and is found in various incarnations around the internet. It’s unclear whether or not someone on staff at the Express made the image, but the reaction from Twitter was swift, fierce, and hilarious, as usual.
https://twitter.com/samthielman/status/817022669564551168
Hi Washington Post Express! I use spell check & look at my images before posting my tweets. Hire me! pic.twitter.com/06NKsUKFJM
— Fascist American Horror Story (@chipgoines) January 5, 2017
[runs up, out of breath]
You guys!
<huff huff>
Guys, you-
<gasping for breath>
With the sym-
<hard breathing>
You used the wrong-
<dies> pic.twitter.com/2ipT6jNxlE— Grave Robert (@mcnees) January 5, 2017
No matter how badly you mess up today, it can't be "used male symbol to cover women's march" bad. https://t.co/hW1g9vDqDs
— Veronike Collazo (@VeronikeCollazo) January 5, 2017
I suppose that’s one way of looking at it.
The Express apologized for their error quickly. Twice. And some of the responses to the apologies were equally funny.
We made a mistake on our cover this morning and we’re very embarrassed. We erroneously used a male symbol instead of a female symbol.
— Express (@WaPoExpress) January 5, 2017
It was so funny I'm not even mad. @WaPoExpress
— Laura Shortridge is a Witch (@DiscordianKitty) January 5, 2017
I'd like to apply for the position that's now hopefully open on your copy desk.
— Brandy Hadden (@BrandyHadden) January 5, 2017
Of course, the question must be asked: how did that cover make it to print? It would be one thing if it had only occurred on an electronic version — one that may have had one or two pairs of eyes on it before that “publish” button was clicked. But a print version? That should have passed through several hands before a final “OK” was given, and yet, there it is. The male symbol in all its erect glory.
Some Twitter users started asking about the gender breakdown of the editorial staff. A fair question, given the situation, but I think the winner for best response is this:
At least mix it up with like the Prince symbol or something, geez.
— Kirsten Killibrand (@flungoutofspace) January 5, 2017
Featured Image by jazbeck via Flickr/CC BY 2.0
