Add New York Times public editor Margaret Sullivan to the list of people strongly objecting to the paper's piece on television titan Shonda Rhimes.
The Times' Alessandra Stanley set the Internet alight when she wrote about Rhimes last Friday. Her depiction of Rhimes as an "angry black woman," along with her overall take on Rhimes' shows, drew intense, near-universal criticism, not least from Rhimes herself.
In a Monday blog post, Sullivan sided with the paper's foes, saying the story had "rightly [caused] a furor":
Read the full post here.
The Times' Alessandra Stanley set the Internet alight when she wrote about Rhimes last Friday. Her depiction of Rhimes as an "angry black woman," along with her overall take on Rhimes' shows, drew intense, near-universal criticism, not least from Rhimes herself.
In a Monday blog post, Sullivan sided with the paper's foes, saying the story had "rightly [caused] a furor":
This is a preliminary post, and I’ll be adding to it later today, or posting again. But I’ll say this much: 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.
Read the full post here.
No comments:
Post a Comment