Shonda Rhimes - screenwriter, director, and producer.
Growing up in a jazzy bohemian household I heard the the hipster slang term "
grey" used to reference "white people". Well, the venerable
NY Times is certainly "grey" not merely referencing its
newsprint to graphics ratio.
The Times is clearly quite white in its staffing in the area of television reporting (I hesitate to dub Alessandra Stanley's flawed work "criticism") and the same is true of its editors.
The firestorm that has erupted over "chief television critic" Alessandra Stanley's recently published piece on Shonda Rhimes, reducing her to an Angry Black Woman stereotype, rather than exploring Rhimes successful career as creator, executive producer, and head writer of Grey's Anatomy, ShondaLand's role in Scandal, and her executive producer position with upcoming How to get Away with Murder.
The Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan issued a confusing and tone deaf "nopology" "An Article on Shonda Rhimes Rightly Causes a Furor," with multiple "updates" which have made the situation worse.
Two of them stand out (my bold):
Update, 12:58 p.m., Monday: Early Monday afternoon, I spoke to the culture editor, Danielle Mattoon. She told me that arts and culture editors are well aware of the response to the piece, and she offered words of regret, as well as an explanation and a resolution for the future.
“There was never any intent to offend anyone and I deeply regret that it did,” Ms. Mattoon said. “Alessandra used a rhetorical device to begin her essay, and because the piece was so largely positive, we as editors weren’t sensitive enough to the language being used.”
Ms. Mattoon called the article “a serious piece of criticism,” adding, “I do think there were interesting and important ideas raised that are being swamped” by the protests. She told me that multiple editors — at least three — read the article in advance but that none of them raised any objections or questioned the elements of the article that have been criticized.
“This is a signal to me that we have to constantly remind ourselves as editors of our blind spots, what we don’t know, and of how readers may react.”
And then there was:
My final take of the day: I still plan to talk to Mr. Baquet about the article, its editing, and about diversity in the newsroom, particularly among culture critics.
The Times has significant diversity among its high-ranking editors and prominent writers, but it’s troubling that with 20 critics, not one is black and only two are persons of color
.
Troubling?
I would think so. Nice she noticed.
Follow me below the fold for more.
My question to The Times is how if you are "blind" (those pesky 'blind spots') is your editorial staff suddenly going going to see (other than with an Amazing Grace revelation) where they are consciously or unconsciously racist?
I spent a few hours reading outraged reader responses over at the Times, which are running about 10 to 1 negative, and many of those responses are from white readers who "get it", and thinking about cancelling subscriptions. I realize some of you may not be able to read over at The Times, so here is a sampling of responses.
walterrhett
Charleston, SC Yesterday
Triggers and dog whistles unartfully abound through Ms. Stanley's piece! The nexus of her style (pithy and pointed), her persistent unfamiliarity with how to discuss race clearly, her being totally tone deaf (as are some readers in the comments) about the legacy of offensiveness is vividly displayed by suggesting someone is "less classically beautiful" (the prima facie assumption of beauty standards from 18th century portraiture!), ignores that the idea of classic beauty in the African-American community is/was tied to a history of concubinage and rape by Southern property owners who destroyed the personhood of many women through forced, passively accepted, repeated sexual violence.
But worse, Stanley's denial blames twitter and ignores MSNBC's Melissa Harris-Perry's skillful parody published on Salon: She also did not note the points in: "Shonda Rhimes an "angry black woman"? Wrong, New York Times. She is so much more: [http://wp.me/p1mBVu-3lA.
Surely, these two of the articles made their way to her. Has she has engaged in reading more than twitter memes?
That said, in her article about Scandal's last year season opener, I found her work tone deaf and lacking substantive insights; she often misses context.
The larger issue is the Times dropped the ball. It's not about being politically correct, but best practices. This missed the standard by a long shot.
Douglas Moran
Austin, TX Yesterday
It's actually pretty straight-forward: If so many people "misunderstood" your "intentions"--and I believe we should judge actions, not intentions, but that's a whole different topic--then either you are wrong about your intentions, or your writing is so bad that said intentions were unclear. Blaming your readers for misunderstanding you, rather than taking ownership of your own crap writing, is not only disingenuous in the extreme, it's also cowardly and arrogant. (And blaming Twitter is just a cheap and easy shot, as if to say, "I write entire articles for the NEW YORK TIMES; you plebes just post quick-hit tweets. I am above you!" Spare me.)
Try again, Ms. Stanley. And this time, try a lot harder. The letter from Ms. Washington wasn't limited to 140 characters. The post by Mary Elizabeth Williams in Salon (blah) is more than 140 characters. This comment is more than 140 characters. How many folks need to castigate you at length before the opinion of the huge number of Twitter users is validated? Or will they only be validated in your eyes when Ms. Sullivan, Ms. Mattoon, and Mr. Baquet have confirmed that you blew it?
Back to the drawing board.
marie
NYC, NY Yesterday
I read this article when it was published. First and foremost, it is a terrible piece a of writing, a hodgepodge of incoherent and at times unrelated musings that the author seems to think have something to do with Shonda Rimes merely because she is black. That alone is lazily racist. But even worse, I frankly couldn't tell exactly what premise the author was trying to advance. The poor quality of the article was simply not up to the standards the Times has come to be known for.
To the extent Stanley states that she was trying to praise Rimes for somehow flouting stereotypes, well, that message was quickly upended as Stanley herself adopted sexist and racist stereotypes over and over again throughout the article. Davis is not classically beautiful? Only if you're looking at her through a sexist and racist lens. Rimes actually is an angry black woman? Only if that is the only way you can see a wildly successful television executive who happens to be a black woman.
My advice to Stanley: take the criticisms seriously and address your own inability to look at these talented, accomplished women independent of the racist and sexist stereotypes that appear to overwhelm your judgment. You'll be a better person and writer for it.
learninghappenseverywhere
New England Yesterday
As a longtime New York Times subscriber, I want to know:
Why does Alessandra Stanley still work for this publication?
Why keep a writer long notorious for producing articles riddled with inaccuracies and errors?
Why keep a critic who, in more recent years, has regularly failed to provide astute, thought-provoking criticism?
Why keep a television critic who cannot be bothered to differentiate between the creator and the producer of a television show? Who, with a childlike lack of abstraction, fails to understand that a writer's individual identity is not inherently infused in the fictional characters of his/her creation? Who judges superficially, from a narrow and outdated perspective, demonstrating an egregious lack of cultural awareness?
Frankly, I don't really care how Ms. Stanley responds, whether it's in 140 characters on Twitter or a thousand words here at the Times. She's had her say. All I want to know is what the NY Times plans on doing about it.
Is this publication committed to providing cutting-edge content? Does the Times value its readers?
Or will the wagons circle around one of their own?
Karen
CT 21 hours ago
It wasn't solely the lede, as unfortunate a choice it was. Throughout the piece, the commentary is remarkably consistent, emphasizing and re-emphasizing, the most unflattering stereotypes of black women. Starting with potent libidos and menacing sexuality to Florida the maid, and Viola the maid, to the not-so-finely tuned exclamation point that Ms. Davis is not classically beautiful. Your stubborn protestations of innocence reveals your complete and utter inability to even acknowledge the humanity of the hundreds of thousands of black women who have told you the piece was insulting. We really did not misunderstand your piece - believe me. You speak of black women as if we are creatures to be observed, with a clinical curiosity that harkens back to the Venus Hottentot days. You should probably avoid writing such pieces again. Your writing ability suggests you don't even really deserve to have the position that you do - except I'm sure as a classical beauty, you're quite confident that your tenure should not even be questioned.
In the course of wading through comments, several readers also mentioned that
The Times new and recently revamped "Food" section has a staff of food editors/chefs who are glaringly all white.
SKJ
USA 22 hours ago
Ms. Sullivan, may I suggest you write a column about current diversity - by race - numbers at the Times, similar to the one you did about women. Not just editors: the entire news staff.
After all, the Tech department has been covering the information release by companies such as Google/Facebook/Twitter of their workforce diversity numbers. It seems appropriate to take a look at the current Times makeup, too.
It's not something that normally crosses my mind. But the other day I looked at the new Times Cooking section/soon to be Cooking app. In the section "Our Cooks" what do I see? Photographs of eight white food writers. So...only white people know how to write about food, know how to cook, or write/test good food recipes? You found eight people for a staff but not a single person of color who knows how to cook well and write about it?
If I noticed it, surely others did too. You've heard it before, but I'll say it again. You're the Times. You're supposed to be better than this.
Gee. Guess there are no qualified foodies or cooks who meet
The Times standard for writing about Black (read American Southern) cuisine, or Caribbean, Latino or Asian foods.
One of the most illuminating responses to all of this was from NPR's Linda Holmes, "The Only One: A Talk With Shonda Rhimes" which is worth a read.
Other Responses:
There Are Just So Many Things Wrong With the New York Times’ Shonda Rhimes Article
Melissa Harris-Perry on the Times, Shonda Rhimes and Angry White Men
Melissa Harris-Perry tackled the angry black woman stereotype on Sunday with a twist — what if television’s white guys were positioned as angry white men?
Kissing off Alessandra Stanley's deeply flawed New York Times piece, Harris-Perry questioned: what if all of writer Aaron Sorkin’s characters were dismissed as furious instead of complex?
The MSNBC host asked a great question, which my colleague Kara touched on when she noted that black women have all the emotions of a regular person, much like most humans, but often we’re reduced to several stereotypes. Meanwhile characters of other colors can deliver self-important monologues and annoying diatribes — like Sorkin's Will McAvoy on HBO's The Newsroom — and be described as “multi-faceted” or “nuanced.”
NY Times Sees It's In A Shonda Rhimes Hole, Keeps Digging
How not to write about Shonda Rhimes — or anyone, really
Ebony had an in-depth piece, "Mainstream Media vs Black People:Trolling or Indifference?"
Richard Lyon covered it here on DKos "Media Brouhaha Over "Angry Black Woman", as did Black Kos yesterday, which featured TPM's coverage.
The New York Times, needs a paint job. "Grey" is not the rainbow colors of its readership, nor of this nation.
2:18 PM PT: Margaret Sullivan has just issued another statement, "Diversity, Strong Editing and Moving Forward from the Shonda Rhimes Furor"
http://publiceditor.blogs.nytimes.com/...
with quotes from Executive Editor Dean Baquet
3:28 PM PT: Posted full update here:
http://www.dailykos.com/...