(The Root) — On Monday, CEO Steve Hannah posted a rare apology on behalf of the staff members who called 9-year-old best actress nominee Quvenzhané Wallis the c-word in a tweet from its official Twitter account during the broadcast of the 85th Academy Awards on Sunday. “It was crude and offensive — not to mention inconsistent with The Onion’s commitment to parody and satire, however biting. No person should be subjected to such a senseless, humorless comment masquerading as satire,” he said in a Facebook posting.
But the apology came hours later, giving the appearance at first that the publication had chosen to ignore the incident.
On Sunday, a staffer tweeted: “Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a [c--t], right? #Oscars2013,” the Hollywood Reporter reports about the Onion, which today boasts 4.6 million followers @TheOnion.
The message, which was sent about 8:42 p.m. PST on Sunday, quickly made the social media rounds but was deleted about an hour later, reports show. But not before igniting an uproar. The Twitter hashtag#unfollowtheonion captures some of the blowback.
Canadian poet and short-story writer Elizabeth Hawksworth was among those expressing outrage. Shetweeted: “Quvenzhane Wallis is a nine year old woman of colour. Let’s let what @TheOnion did sink in and remember that Dakota Fanning never had this.”
I saw this, saw the apology, saw the reaction, and wondered . . . exactly the same thing as you stated: “So, what makes her a cunt?”
I’ve seen and/or read every interview this young lady has given; while I’ve not seen the movie, I have seen excerpts in which she appears. Even her CHARACTER could not be reasonably described this way.
IF this were some misguided attempt at sardonic humor . . . it failed on a scale unprecedented in the annals of entertainment. The use of this particular derogatory term, which really does not bear repeating, is usually reserved for only THE MOST extreme and vile of accusations against an equally perceived (factual or not) act on behalf of the targeted woman. People will throw around “bitch” and “ho” all day long, and STILL not go near this term.
Which, again, begs your question: what would make someone call her a …. ? I’m quite sure there is an Onion staff member, and their supervisor, and probably THEIR supervisor, all asking themselves that very question as they ponder their now wide-open career possibilities (having been liberated from the shackles of the Onion). Was it exposure? Yup, got plenty of that. Was it ratings? Well, we’ll have to see on that one. Was it sexism/racism? Perhaps, but I’m not sooo sure it was even that.
I’ve read a few articles on this incident, and literally a hundred plus comments on those articles. What terrified me was the number of people who DEFENDED the tweet, saying “it’s only humor . . .” or “it’s not a real news organization . . .” and the best one “it’s only satire . . .” That one was echoed many times. Now, I have a pretty good sense of humor; some would say a dry and sarcastic wit . . . which is pretty accurate. That said, I find it extremely annoying when those who do not possess a true sense of humor attempt to do so. I hate amateurs. And you know, I think this particular case is just that . . . an amateur who attempted extremely “low-brow” shock humor . . . picked the wrong word (you don’t use a nuclear weapon when fire-crackers will do), on the wrong target (sarcasm, innuendo and irony are best utilized against those over eighteen who are supposed to know better), at the wrong time (this wasn’t a roast, you twit, it was the Oscars). Even IF satire was the intention . . . of what, exactly? Satire, in it’s truest form, exaggerates a condition to display it’s truth, which is usually negative, hold it to ridicule, and attempt to change it through the court of public opinion. What in Quvenzhané’s young life is so negative that it requires satire in a public forum to show it for what it is? There is NOTHING. No wrongdoing or negative condition . . . no satire. Therefore, NO EXCUSE OR REASON for this tweet, other than ignorant shock value. Well, they got that alright.
As for your Drew Barrymore comparison . . . it’s not the two years in the actresses relative ages that’s the issue Vivien. It’s the thirty years of disintegrating civility, manners, and common decency (let alone courtesy) since ET was made that is the difference. I have no doubt her ethnicity has something to do with it, but I truly believe that this is primarily a case of a spineless turd picking on a little girl from behind a keypad on HIS (no woman would say C…) cell phone because he lacks common reasoning skills and any sense of humor (satirical or not). I’m quite sure toilet humor is above this guys head. Like you, The Onion lost me as a fan yesterday.
Samuel Paul Dutcher - February 27, 2013 at 12:31 AM |
It’s interesting that you mention “the number of people who defended the tweet.” While their doing this irritates and annoys me, it does not surprise me. I encounter folks like this almost every single day. They will expend voluminous amounts of energy trying to convince me that it is I who am the racist/overly offended person, etc. (because I’m offended) rather than exert one iota of energy trying to understand a different perspective. Obviously, they’re as tired of talking about race as I am of “experiencing” it… And because we now live in a “post-racial” society, racism no longer exists… And now that they’ve taken the term “nigger” out of “Huckleberry Finn,” that never happened, either…
As for the amateur, low-brow humor, I couldn’t agree more. Though they probably didn’t *mean* to be [overtly] racist, their smallness, mean-ness, and pettiness managed to seep through… And I suppose, given that they may have seen Quvenzhané’s interview with Vogue, and perhaps, her movie (with her next role being that of “Annie” with Will and Jada producing…), realizing her exquisiteness, they thought , in their ignorance, that the juxtaposition might have been, somehow, “funny,” they were incapable of imagining such humor precipitating the ‘fail’ that it did… Wow. I’m having tremendous difficulty inserting that punctuation mark known as a period…
Your statement “…don’t use a nuclear weapon when firecrackers will do” couldn’t be more spot on. Obviously, someone got a big head (or a little one) when they realized they were tweeting in a venue with worldwide exposure… While I do have a Twitter account, I haven’t done anything with it. It appears to be a technology both wonderous and dangerous… I wonder if there’s an official demarcation between tweet-ing and twit-ing?
Vivien E. Zazzau - February 27, 2013 at 11:38 AM |