Perceptions of liberal bias still far outnumber perceptions of conservative bias
by Lymari Morales
WASHINGTON, D.C. -- For the fourth straight year, the majority of Americans say they have little or no trust in the mass media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly. The 57% now saying this is a record high by one percentage point.
The 43% of Americans who, in Gallup's annual Governance poll, conducted Sept. 13-16, 2010, express a great deal or fair amount of trust ties the record low, and is far worse than three prior Gallup readings on this measure from the 1970s.
Trust in the media is now slightly higher than the record-low trust in the legislative branch but lower than trust in the executive and judicial branches of government, even though trust in all three branches is down sharply this year. These findings also further confirm a separate Gallup poll that found little confidence in newspapers and television specifically.
Nearly half of Americans (48%) say the media are too liberal, tying the high end of the narrow 44% to 48% range recorded over the past decade. One-third say the media are just about right while 15% say they are too conservative. Overall, perceptions of bias have remained quite steady over this tumultuous period of change for the media, marked by the growth of cable and Internet news sources. Americans' views now are in fact identical to those in 2004, despite the many changes in the industry since then.
Democrats and liberals remain far more likely than other political and ideological groups to trust the media and to perceive no bias.
Lower-income Americans and those with less education are generally more likely to trust the media than are those with higher incomes and more education. A subgroup analysis of these data suggests that three demographic groups key to advertisers -- adults aged 18 to 29, Americans making at least $75,000 per year, and college graduates -- lost more trust in the media in the past year than other groups, but the sample sizes in this survey are too small to say so definitively.
Bottom Line
Gallup's annual update on trust in the mass media finds Americans' views entrenched -- with a record-high 57% expressing little to no trust in the media to report the news fully, accurately, and fairly, and 63% perceiving bias in one direction or the other. At the same time, the steady nature of these views stands in contrast to Americans' views of the three branches of government, which are all down sharply this year. Thus, in an environment in which few institutions elicit high levels of trust, it appears the media are neither gaining nor losing significant ground -- but are just managing to hold steady.
Obama's disregard for media reaches new heights at nuclear summit
By Dana Milbank Wednesday, April 14, 2010; A02
World leaders arriving in Washington for President Obama's Nuclear Security Summit must have felt for a moment that they had instead been transported to Soviet-era Moscow.
They entered a capital that had become a military encampment, with camo-wearing military police in Humvees and enough Army vehicles to make it look like a May Day parade on New York Avenue, where a bicyclist was killed Monday by a National Guard truck.
In the middle of it all was Obama -- occupant of an office once informally known as "leader of the free world" -- putting on a clinic for some of the world's greatest dictators in how to circumvent a free press.
The only part of the summit, other than a post-meeting news conference, that was visible to the public was Obama's eight-minute opening statement, which ended with the words: "I'm going to ask that we take a few moments to allow the press to exit before our first session."
Reporters for foreign outlets, admitted for the first time to the White House press pool, got the impression that the vaunted American freedoms are not all they're cracked up to be.
Yasmeen Alamiri from the Saudi Press Agency got this lesson in press freedom when trying to cover Obama's opening remarks as part of that limited pool: "The foreign reporters/cameramen were escorted out in under two minutes, just as the leaders were about to begin, and Obama was going to make remarks. . . . Sorry, it is what it is."
Alamiri's counterparts from around the world wrote of similar experiences in their pool reports. Arabic-language MBC TV's Nadia Bilbassy had this to say of Obama's meeting with the Jordanian king: "We were there for around 30 seconds, not enough even to notice the color of tie of both presidents. I think blue for the king."
The Press Trust of India, at Obama's meeting with the Pakistani prime minister, reported, "In less than a minute, the pool was asked to leave." The Yomiuri Shimbun correspondent found that she was "ushered out about 30 seconds" after arriving for Obama's meeting with the Malaysian prime minister. A reporter with Turkey's TRT-Turk went to Obama's meeting with the president of Armenia, but "we had to leave the room again after less than 40 seconds."
Even the Chinese president, Hu Jintao, was more talkative with the press than Obama. Michelle Jamrisko, with Japan's Kyodo News, noted in her pool report that Hu, at his session with Obama, spoke to the Chinese media in Chinese, while Obama limited himself mostly to "say hello to the cameras" and "thank you everybody."
Obama's official schedule for Tuesday would have pleased China's Central Committee. Excerpts: "The President will attend the Heads of Delegation working lunch. This lunch is closed press. . . . The President will meet with Prime Minster Erdogan of Turkey. This meeting is closed press. . . . The President will attend Plenary Session II of the Nuclear Security Summit. This session is closed press."
Reporters, even those on the White House beat for two decades, said these were the most restricted such meetings they had ever seen. They complained to both the administration and White House Correspondents' Association, which will discuss the matter Thursday with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs.
The restrictions have become a common practice for the Obama White House. When Israeli Prime Minister Binyamin Netanyahu came to the White House a couple of weeks ago, reporters were kept away. Soon after that, Obama signed an executive order on abortion, again without any coverage.
Over the weekend, Obama broke with years of protocol and slipped off to a soccer game without the "protective" pool that is always in the vicinity of the president in case the unthinkable occurs. Obama joked about it later to Pakistan's prime minister, saying reporters "were very upset."
In "bilateral" meetings with foreign leaders, presidents usually take questions, or at least trade statements. But at most of Obama's, there were only written "readouts." Canada: "The president and the prime minister noted the enduring strength of our bilateral partnership." India: "The two leaders vowed to continue to strengthen the robust relationship between the people of their countries." Pakistan: "President Obama began by noting that he is very fond of Pakistan."
Finally, away from other leaders, Obama took reporters' questions for 20 minutes. They were tough and skeptical questions that punctured the banal readouts: pointing out that the nonproliferation agreements weren't binding, noting China's equivocation on sanctions against Iran, and pressing Obama on the failure to curb North Korea's weapons. The Post's Scott Wilson asked Obama if he would call on Israel, which skipped the summit, to declare its nuclear weapons.
"I'm not going to comment on their program," Obama said.
Not surprising. But it's still important that the questions are asked.
Media blunders of 2009 By: Michael Calderone December 31, 2009 05:58 AM EDT
Upheaval in the media world continued in 2009, with 15,000 newspaper jobs lost, some glossy magazines killed and Washington bureaus either cut back or shuttered completely. And yet, online outlets sprouted — a few beefing up the ranks in D.C. — while more journalists embraced Twitter, blogs and platforms that don’t require ink on paper. While a number of this year’s more noticeable media blunders occurred through simple carelessness, some could be also considered growing pains in adjusting to changes in the media, such as reporters jumping the gun on Twitter, experimenting in video, cutting-and-pasting text from a blog or getting caught when homemade video surfaces on YouTube.
Top 10 Media Blunders
1) CNN mistakes Coast Guard drill for attack: On Sept. 11, of all days, CNN blasted the following via Twitter: “BREAKING NEWS: Suspicious boat in river near Obama in DC. Police scanner reports of shots fired. Circumstances unclear." As it turns out: very unclear. What the CNN reporter actually heard over the scanner were conversation about a training exercise taking place on the Potomac. But the false alarm spread quickly over Twitter, and the network quickly corrected the report on-air shortly thereafter. Still, the White House wasn’t amused. Press secretary Robert Gibbs slapped CNN on the wrist, saying that “before we report things like this, checking would be good.”
2) The Washington Post’s “Salongate”: It’s understandable that newspapers are seeking new revenue streams, but the Post took things to another level this summer. The newspaper sent a flier to lobbyists and potential corporate backers promising an off-the-record, nonconfrontational sit-down with editors and reporters in the home of publisher Katharine Weymouth. The price per salon: $25,000. Shortly after the news broke of what smelled like a pay-to-play operation, the paper canceled the series. But the Post’s top brass continued dealing with questions on how the salons were organized and promoted for months to come.
3) Fox’s tea party trifecta: Fox News had a banner ratings year, and throughout 2009, it gave extensive coverage of Obama administration opponents, especially the so-called tea party movement’s events on April 15 and Sept. 12. But coverage of that latter event led to a couple of apologies later on. Video surfaced of a Fox News producer rallying protesters for a live shot, while Sean Hannity mistakenly used the 9/12 footage in describing a smaller rally on Capitol Hill later in the fall. (Hannity owned up to the error, apologizing to of all people, Jon Stewart!). Ironically, Fox News had actually criticized other networks in a full page newspaper ad claiming they “miss[ed] the story” of the 9/12 rally.
4) ABC correspondent tweets Obama’s OTR “jackass” swipe: While a tweet is at most 140 characters, one blasted to more than a million followers can ping-pong around the Internet within seconds. That’s what happened when ABC correspondent Terry Moran tweeted some preliminary, off-the-record chatter between President Barack Obama and CNBC’s John Harwood. He wrote: "Pres. Obama just called Kanye West a ‘jackass.’” Moran’s apology for publishing the off-the-record banter didn’t end the matter, as audio, and later video, of the exchange made its way online. Harwood thought that Moran erred in tweeting the comment, but took things in stride, calling the ABC reporter "a class act and a good journalist.”
5) MSM misses Van Jones, ACORN stories: The resignation of an environmental adviser in the White House may not be Watergate, but the Van Jones controversy — propelled by conservative blogs and right-wing talkers like Glenn Beck — showed the potential for partisan media to move the news cycle even as most mainstream outlets ignored the story. Similarly, Andrew Breitbart’s BigGovernment.com conducted an undercover investigation of ACORN that prompted follow-up in the press and calls for investigations from public officials. The New York Times, for one, took notice, with top editor Bill Keller even assigning an editor afterward to start monitoring the budding controversies in the opinion media.
6) NY Post’s Obama/chimp cartoon: The New York tabloid thrives off attention-grabbing tabloid covers and some of the best headlines on the planet. But the paper can also go too far when it comes to attracting eyeballs, such as publishing a cartoon showing two police officers shooting a monkey, with the text reading: "They'll have to find someone else to write the next stimulus bill.” The cartoon immediately struck some as a racially motivated slight against the president and resulted in apologies from the paper and, a few days later, from the man on top: Rupert Murdoch.
7) Milbank-Cillizza Web show gets pulled: The first-ever White House beer summit — remember that? — prompted a lot of jokes in the media. And Washington Post writers Dana Milbank and Chris Cillizza mocked the summit on their “Mouthpiece Theater” Web show, by coming up with what beers political leaders would likely drink. Their suggestion for Secretary of State Hillary Clinton — “Mad Bitch beer”— did not go down well with bloggers, drew a rebuke from women’s media groups and resulted in a great YouTube parody. Both Milbank and Cillizza apologized; Post executive editor Marcus Brauchli went a step further — he killed the video show.
8) Dowd borrows from TPM (by way of “friend”): New York Times columnist Maureen Dowd is a Pulitzer Prize-winning writer. So the fact that she had borrowed a passage nearly verbatim from Talking Points Memo inevitably drew attention, and the reason she gave — that a “friend” had sent it to her — failed to end the minicontroversy. While the Times corrected the column, the paper wouldn’t answer whether it’s accepted policy to allow columnists to use passages from others without any attribution. The episode was also a bit ironic considering that Dowd was the one who reported on Joe Biden plagiarizing a British politician just over two decades earlier.
9) Olbermann, Maddow misquote Murdoch and Limbaugh: It’s not always easy to admit you’re wrong — but it must sting a bit more when you have to apologize to ideological foes in the process. MSNBC’s Keith Olbermann had to issue a correction over comments he attributed to Murdoch, a frequent target on “Countdown.” Olbermann had quoted Murdoch as saying that News Corp. has "never been a company that tolerates facts" — actually, he said “fat.” Later in the year, Rachel Maddow acknowledged having falsely attributed a quote to Rush Limbaugh about wishing to honor Martin Luther King Jr.’s assassin — that’s something the top radio host never said.
10) WaPo’s Public Enemy correction goes viral: Craig Silverman, of RegretTheError.com, called it the “the correction that launched a thousand tweets.” And he’s right. Last month, the Post noted that an “article in the District edition of Local Living incorrectly said a Public Enemy song declared 9/11 a joke. The song refers to 911, the emergency phone number.” It was a simple mistake that occurred in the editing process, but the correction somehow hit the sweet spot in media and pop culture and led to imitators on Twitter offering their own faux Post corrections in a chain that followed long after the correction was made.
Dishonorable mention: And my biggest blunder of 2009? — Another example of how one line quickly posted on a blog can reverberate the wrong way. When Louisiana Gov. Bobby Jindal walked out to respond to Obama’s speech before Congress in February, someone on MSNBC uttered “Oh God.” I blogged that it was Olbermann, before listening again and writing a few minutes later that who said it was unclear (Indeed, it was actually Chris Matthews.). It landed me on Olbermann’s “world’s worst person” list the following night. After explaining the mistake in a subsequent blog post, there was redemption — I was on the next night’s “best persons” list.
Media mogul Rupert Murdoch, whose empire includes a
host of predominantly conservative-leaning institutions, accused his
competitors, on Tuesday night, of being the ones with the biases.
Speaking at a forum for the public affairs TV series, The Kalb
Report, the News Corp. CEO valiantly declared that his rival networks --
MSNBC and CNN -- "tend to be Democrats" while those at his own Fox News
"are not Republicans."
Reminded that Fox currently houses the 2008 Republican Vice
Presidential candidate Sarah Palin, Murdoch replied that he wasn't sure
how often his chief at the network, Roger Ailes, used her for news. "I
know whenever he does the ratings leap... I'm not adverse to high
ratings."
Asked later during the question and answer session to name a single
Democrat who worked for Fox News, however, Murdoch struggled.
"They are certainly there... Greta Van Susteren is certainly close to
the Democratic Party," he said, after blanking on names first and
insisting that Ailes would have a long list. "She doesn't do many
political stories. She is just a great journalist... but people who have
been involved in Democratic politics and so on, yeah we have people..."
It was a one of many crests to a winding and often frank take (from
an often enigmatic figure) on the entire waterfront of the media
landscape. Ever the industry competitor, Murdoch offered the same
charges of bias to his main print rival, the New York Times,
which has been placed in the News Corp bull's-eye ever since he
purchased the Wall Street Journal.
"I have great respect for the Times except it does have an agenda,"
he declared. Asked what, exactly, that agenda was, he replied: "anything
Mr. Obama wants. You can see it. You can see it in that the White House
pays them off by feeding them stories and so on."
Story continues below
He pointed, as evidence, to an interview the president gave for
Tuesday's edition with reporter Peter Baker on the administration's new
nuclear weapons policy. "A very good story," he acknowledged with a
tinge of envy, "which we would have liked." From there he suggested that
the Times was anti-Israel in its coverage of the Middle East.
The indictment was a bit mild, all things considered, when placed
next to the comments Murdoch made about The Washington Post. "I
don't read the Washington Post," he said. "I probably should, but I
don't."
The mogul was peppered with a host of questions related to his media
empire's political leanings, and in each case fought the perception that
he's made his fortune by catering to the conservative audience. Asked
by an official at the progressive watchdog group, Media Matters, whether
it was ethical for officials at Fox to promote the Tea Party movement
(as has been documented on some occasion) he replied without hesitation.
"No. I don't think we should be supporting the Tea Party or any other
party. But I'd like to investigate what you are saying before
condemning anyone."
Murdoch even waded into the political arena. Doing little to dissuade
the widely-held belief that he closet-ly favored Barack Obama over John
McCain during the 2008 presidential campaign, he said he would
"absolutely, very strongly" back the president if he were to take a
strong stance on education reform (apparently one of Murdoch's pet
issues).
"Unlike the rest of the country," he said, "I hope he does well."
"We are criminal in this country in that we are turning out a new
generation of people worse educated than their parents," Murdoch added.
As for the Arizona Republican, the News Corp header was less
forgiving. "I didn't find him personally likeable," he said. "He's
somewhat a little hard to read wondering which side of the bed he got up
on that morning. But he is a great patriot. Any man who has been
through what he's been through, you can make a lot of excuses for."
Finally, Murdoch made news on the business side of the news
operation. He pledged to make all of his newspapers paid-for content,
requiring sites to fork over money to use their articles. This, combined
with the New York Times incorporating a pay-for firewall on
its website, he predicted, would set the trend for the rest of the
industry.
"I think most papers in this country are going to be putting up a pay
wall," Murdoch said. "How high does it go... We'll see."
"We will be very happy if they just publish our headline or a
sentence or two and that's it," he offered earlier. "Followed by a
subscription form."
With buyouts and layoffs in progress, the mood at ABC News cannot be good. It was probably not enhanced by the ratings report for the first quarter of the year showing that the network’s evening newscast, “World News,” had sunk to the lowest numbers the program has had in a first quarter since the People Meter was introduced by Nielsen in 1987.
The same situation prevailed at CBS, where the “Evening News” also hit a new low for the months of January through March.
The beneficiary was NBC, where “Nightly News” scored its best first-quarter numbers since 2005.
Over all, the numbers were: 9.92 million viewers for NBC; 8.27 million for ABC and 6.45 million for CBS.
Is this a signal that viewers are abandoning network newscasts in droves?
Not really. The number of viewers still watching the three shows together — more than 24 million in the first quarter — continue to dwarf any news program on cable.
But “World News” has had a falloff since Diane Sawyer took over for Charles Gibson. The show is down about 3 percent — 215,000 — from a year ago.
Transitions often result in some audience defections. ABC’s morning show, “Good Morning America,” was also down in the first quarter by about 4 percent in viewers and by a more sizable 12 percent among the news audience that advertisers seek, those 25 to 54 years old.
The show is also in transition to George Stephanopoulos as the chief anchor from Ms. Sawyer.
ABC News executives also say that the first quarter contained some especially favorable weeks for NBC News because that network was covering the Winter Olympics. NBC’s “Today” show was devoted almost completely to the Olympics for more than two weeks in February and the “Nightly News” took advantage of the network’s association with the Olympics as well.
CNN continued what has become a precipitous decline in ratings for its
prime-time programs in the first quarter of 2010, with its main hosts
losing almost half their viewers in a year.
Left, Jose Luis Magana/Associated Press; Fred
Prouser/Reuters
Fox’s Glenn Beck and CNN’s Larry King.
Jonathan Torgovnik/Reportage, via Getty Images
Anderson Cooper, seen reporting on the aftermath of
the earthquake that hit Haiti, has had trouble holding onto viewers.
The trend in news ratings for the first three months of this year is all
up for one network, the Fox News Channel, which enjoyed its best
quarter ever in ratings, and down for both MSNBC and CNN.
CNN had a slightly worse quarter in the fourth quarter of 2009, but the
last three months have included compelling news events, like the earthquake in Haiti and the battle over
health care, and CNN, which emphasizes its hard news coverage, was
apparently unable to benefit.
The losses at CNN continued a pattern in place for much of the last
year, as the network trailed its competitors in every prime-time hour.
(CNN still easily beats MSNBC in the daytime hours, but those are less
lucrative in advertising money, and both networks are far behind Fox
News at all hours.)
About the only break from the bad news for CNN was that March was not as
bad as February, when the network had its worst single month in its
recent history, finishing behind not only Fox News and MSNBC, but also
its sister network HLN — and even CNBC, which had Olympics programming
that month.
CNN executives have steadfastly said that they will not change their
approach to prime-time programs, which are led by hosts not aligned with
any partisan point of view.
But the numbers are stark: For the network’s longest-running host, Larry King,
who has always been regarded at CNN as the centerpiece of prime time
because he drew the biggest audiences at 9 p.m., the quarter was his
worst ever.
Mr. King’s audience dropped 43 percent for the quarter and 52 percent in
March. He dropped to 771,000 viewers for the quarter from 1.34 million
in 2009. More alarming perhaps, Mr. King, whose show has been regularly
eclipsed by Rachel
Maddow’s on MSNBC (and is almost quadrupled by Sean Hannity’s
show on Fox), is now threatened by a new host, Joy Behar on HLN
(formerly Headline News.)
In her first full quarter competing with Mr. King at 9 p.m. Ms. Behar
wound up beating him in the ratings 21 times.
CNN has given no indication that any changes in its lineup are imminent,
but recently announced that it would try a series of specials in a
talk-show format at 11 p.m. with its current 10 p.m. host, Anderson
Cooper. The specials are interpreted by some at the network as a trial
run for a new 9 p.m. show with Mr. Cooper.
Mr. Cooper has long been regarded as the strongest host at CNN, but his
show has suffered badly as well. For the quarter, Mr. Cooper dropped 42
percent in viewers and 46 percent among the 25-to-54-year-old audience
that the news channels use for their sales to advertisers.
In the past, CNN relied on big audiences for Mr. King’s show to deliver
viewers to Mr. Cooper. Now Mr. Cooper sometimes finds himself losing to
repeats of shows on MSNBC and HLN. (At the other end of prime time, Campbell
Brown’s show on CNN at 8 had its worst quarter ever with the
25-to-54-year-old audience.)
Even in the morning, CNN is sliding. Its “American Morning” show dropped
behind “Morning Joe” on MSNBC in total viewers for the first time; it
still beat the MSNBC show among 25- to 54-year-olds, though it was down
29 percent from a year earlier.
At the same time, Fox News, which had its biggest year in 2009,
continues to add viewers. Greta
Van Susteren’s show was up 25 percent from a year earlier. Bill
O’Reilly, whose show commands the biggest audience in prime time
with 3.65 million viewers, was up 28 percent, and Glenn Beck
was up 50 percent from a year earlier.
COURIC FACES PAY CUT; DEEP LAYOFFS HIT CBSNEWS Wed Feb 03 2010 09:11:21 ET
CBSNEWS anchorwoman and 60 MINUTES contributor Katie Couric faces a dramatic pay cut at the network, insiders tell the DRUDGE REPORT.
CBS boss Les Moonves is determined to save money and trim expenses -- from top to bottom -- at the former crown jewel of broadcasting.
Couric, the highest paid TV news personality in history, commands over $14 million a year, plus bumps for non-EVENING NEWS appearances.
But her salary is now in the direct line of fire, network insiders explain, and a populist backlash against Couric's cash is said to be forming inside the newsroom.
"She makes enough to pay 200 news reporters $75,000 a year!" demands a veteran producer. "It's complete insanity."
The angry source continues: "We report with great enthusiasm how much bankers are making, how it is out of step with reality during a recession. Well, look at Katie!"
MORE
Couric's $300,000 a week paycheck has become the obsession of disgruntled CBS staff, just as deep layoffs rock the fishbowl.
Dozens of employees -- including staff members in D.C., San Francisco, Miami, London, Los Angeles and Moscow -- are being let go, the NEW YORK OBSERVER reports.
NBC News Files Complaint with White House Over ABC's Access
By Chris Ariens on Jan 21, 2010 04:45 PM
TVNewser has learned that NBC News has filed a formal complaint with the White House press office over the distribution of presidential interviews, specifically that several of the most recent broadcast TV interviews have gone to ABC News -- including George Stephanopoulos's interview yesterday and Charlie Gibson's December 15.
NBC is reportedly claiming Stephanopoulos' friendship with White House Chief of Staff Rahm Emanuel has helped land the interviews. But insiders tell us those decisions are generally left to Press Secretary Robert Gibbs.
An NBC News spokesperson had no comment on the matter.
ABC News spokesperson Jeffrey Schneider tells TVNewser, "We are always aggressive in our booking efforts and we were glad to have an interview with the President on such a big news day."
The president hasn't only spoken to ABC, far from it. Since the Gibson interview in mid-December, Obama has been interviewed by Tom Joyner and April Ryan of Urban Radio Networks, Scott Wilson of The Washington Post, Adam Nagourney of The New York Times, PBS' Jim Lehrer, Roland Martin of CNN/TV One, Joe Klein of Time magazine as well as reporters from People and Essence.
Last year, NBC News got several days of access at the White House, including sit-down interviews with Pres. Obama for their "Inside the Obama White House" special -- a series NBC has participated in for the last 40 years.
> Update: An NBC News spokesperson now tells us, "NBC News did not file a formal or informal complaint about this interview."
It should be noted that complaints, in whatever form, are often made to the White House press office when one network feels another is getting too much access. That may have been the case here.
Steven Klein's shoot of Lara Stone for French Vogue. Photograph: Public Domain
French Vogue has never been one to tiptoe around controversy. Recently it has published photos of supposedly pregnant models puffing cigarettes and leather-clad glamazons kissing with blood pouring from their mouths.
Now, though, the magazine may have gone too far for even the most dedicated followers of fashion. Its October edition features pictures of Dutch model Lara Stone in which the naturally pale-skinned blonde's face and body are painted black. The photo shoot, styled by the magazine's long-time editor, Carine Roitfeld, provoked outrage today as its subject spread through internet forums and fashion websites. The US blog Jezebel criticised the decision of Roitfeld and photographer Steven Klein to alter the model's skin colour, accusing them of cultural insensitivity.
"What Klein and Roitfeld should know … is that painting white people black for the entertainment of other white people is offensive in ways that stand entirely apart from cultural context," it said. "France and Australia may not have the United States' particular history of minstrel shows … but something about the act of portraying a white woman as black ought to sound an alarm, somewhere."
Dominique Sopo, president of the French organisation SOS Racisme, said that even if the shoot was not racist in intention it was certainly "tactless".
"If the aim was artistic, and not to pass off the model as a black girl, the fact that it produces such reactions shows that the world of images – advertising, fashion, whatever – is now paying for its long tradition of not allowing black people to show their bodies in public."
French Vogue said the magazine was unaware of any controversy. Neither Roitfeld nor Stone's agents at the IMG model agency in New York or Paris were available for comment.
Last week an Australian variety show host was forced to apologise for a skit in which singers parodying the Jackson Five painted their faces black. American singer and actor Harry Connick Jr, who was a guest judge on Hey Hey It's Saturday, was visibly shocked by the skit.
THE CONTENT OF THIS WEBSITE DOES NOT NECESSARILY REPRESENT THE OPINION OF THE OWNER ... At least that's what my lawyer told me, but he was drinking pretty heavily at the time so...
COPYRIGHT HARDIN REPUBLIC, LLC 2009, 2010, 2011. All Rights Reserved.
First Posted: 04- 6-10 09:35 PM | Updated: 04- 7-10 09:24 AM