New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan has updated a post she published this morning regarding Alessandra Stanley’s wildly racist article about Shonda Rhimes where she repeatedly called her an Angry Black Woman.
Sullivan reached out to Stanley, Culture Editor Danielle Mattoon and Executive Editor Dean Baquet for comment. She has since received responses from Mattoon and Stanley that are almost as obtuse as the original article.
“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.”
Intent is not impact. Intent is not impact. Intent is not impact. Why is that so difficult to understand? In terms of importance and relevance here, your intention is secondary, at best, and qualifying your apology with a, “Well, I didn’t mean it,” doesn’t exactly bolster your sincerity.
Not only did Stanley begin her essay with that “rhetorical device,” or as everyone else is calling it, racism, she continued to use it over and over again throughout the piece.
Besides, we already know that upholding racist images of black women probably wasn’t your direct intent. The general cluelessness displayed throughout the piece made it clear that no one involved in the article really knew what the hell they were doing anyway.
The idea that the piece “was so largely positive” is also laughable. Ask any black woman if they found the article positive. Shonda Rhimes herself didn’t find it positive. But please, white lady, continue to explain why she should be flattered. By centering the entire essay around a racist characterization of Rhimes, there was little room left for positivity. Mattoon’s argument is essentially, she may be an Angry Black Woman but she’s a successful Angry Black Woman.
Describing Shonda Rhimes through racist rhetoric but continuing to bless her with your special special New York Times ink does not equal positivity.
Further, referring only to the Angry Black Woman language ignores the fact that Stanley insulted not just Rhimes, but all of Rhimes’ black female characters, her ability to write characters who are not black women and invoked additional racist tropes when discussing Viola Davis.
Suggesting that the piece was largely positive is farcical and frankly, makes me question Mattoon’s reading comprehension and ability to sympathize with experiences other than her own.
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
