The paper's public editor details her inquiry into the editing process of the Alessandra Stanley-written piece, revealing that the article was approved by three editors before being published.
- September 23, 2014
AceShowbiz -
New York Times has responded to criticisms regarding the controversial article about Shonda Rhimes "Written by the longtime TV critic Alessandra Stanley, its first paragraph - with a reference to Ms. Rhimes as an 'Angry Black Woman' - struck many readers as completely off-base. Many called it offensive. Some went further, saying it was racist," reads the editor's journal.
The paper's public editor Margaret Sullivan says, "The readers and commentators are correct to protest this story. Intended to be in praise of Ms. Rhimes, it delivered that message in a condescending way that was - at best - astonishingly tone-deaf and out of touch."
Admitting "there are some big questions here - about diversity, about editing procedures and about how The Times deals with stories about women and race. They are worth exploring in depth," Sullivan says she has asked Stanley and the culture editor, Danielle Mattoon, about "the article and the editing process."
According to Mattoon, three editors read the article in advance and none of them raised objections. "There was never any intent to offend anyone and I deeply regret that it did," she says. "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."
Stanley, meanwhile, explains herself as saying, "I referenced a painful and insidious stereotype solely in order to praise Ms. Rhimes and her shows for traveling so far from it. If making that connection between the two offended people, I feel bad about that. But I think that a full reading allows for a different takeaway than the loudest critics took."
She continues, "I didn't think Times readers would take the opening sentence literally because I so often write arch, provocative ledes that are then undercut or mitigated by the paragraphs that follow."
Stanley previously said that her intentions were misunderstood. She also seemed to blame the Twitter culture for that, with a reference to 140 characters.
Sullivan says she will still take a closer look at the issues, planning to talk to executive editor Dean 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."
