If only it would hurry up and croak, already.
Stein's article doesn't just indicate glaring bad taste and a racism that defies all comprehension, it begs the question: just what is wrong with his editors at Time? Although one Internet rumor suggests that a vindictive editor ran the uncorrected article just to show the world what a big jerk Stein is, I think it illustrates a bigger problem with Time and publications like it.
America is becoming steadily more diverse. Our traditional news rooms, less so. The greatest thing about the blogosphere (love or hate it) is that it allows for a vast diversity of voices to be represented. There's an entire online literature dedicated to fat women who love fashion, for example. Since when did Vogue give a frack about representing these people? There are a lot of people out there who are poor and have been hit hard by the recession. But despite vague efforts and noises, the New York Times, with its city-glamour slant, can't really relate (which is not to cast aspersions on the excellent writing that they actually do).
If there had been a couple of non-white newspeople above Stein in the chain of command, or even people sensitive to the large non-white American market and reality, this piece would never have run. But Time's editorial board clearly lives in some time-warp, a time when hate crimes like the ones Stein makes light of were thought of as "boys letting off steam."
Hearteningly, tons of Indian-Americans sprang up to defend their own (and to those who didn't: the Joel Steins of the world will come for you too, you know) Including in print. The Wall Street Journal and the Huffington Post both ran excellent responses, penned by Indians and Indian-Americans, denouncing the article. The Huff Po is an online medium. The WSJ, on the other hand, is famous for its active pursuit - rather than grudging acceptance of - an Indian readership. Is it any surprise these publications are thriving??
No comments:
Post a Comment