Author Topic: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub  (Read 6720 times)

0 Members and 1 Guest are viewing this topic.

Sabbyfrog2

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6754
  • I'm a Super Hero! Now where's my cape?
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #30 on: February 16, 2011, 12:13:48 PM »
I can't stand Whoopi. I find her to be a close minded self absorbed bully. Actually, I can't stand "The View" or the women on it in general so I don't watch it. Personal feelings aside...

I think the problem here is reading comprehension. The article and it's purpose were crystal clear.  They were writing about diversity in the Oscars in the last decade, and how the Oscars have changed in the last decade since Denzel and Halle won theirs. They compared this decade to previous decades and only mentioned a few actors by name to provide some examples. They were using those examples of a way of noting how few black actors were actually winning back then compared to now. No one was snubbed. Not mentioning Whoopi was not a snub. It just wasn't necessary to the purposes of the article.
Now, if the article were about Black Oscar winners in general, and how black actors have made history in the Oscars, then I can see cause for hurt feelings and would sympathize. But for this? Nope.

Whoopi's and those who defended her are being ignorant. Period. They need to apologize for their reaction in general and not just about calling the Times journalism shoddy. The Times has nothing to apologize for.

Ligeia

  • Member
  • **
  • Posts: 328
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #31 on: February 16, 2011, 12:37:36 PM »
If only 7 African Americans have won the Oscar in any acting category, ALL of them should have been named in the article which would have included Whoopi Goldberg for her work in "Ghost".

Even if the article only focused on a specific time period--the past nine years?  Only 7 won before 2002; the article is about those who have won since 2002.  It sounds like Goldberg wants her name mentioned in every article about black Oscar winners, no matter the article's theme.

I don't watch the View, but I came across this article on another site and was kind of mystified. I think the NYT article is perfectly clear: it focuses on the black actors who have won Oscars since Washington and Berry in 2002.  That was supposed to have been a watershed moment for black actors; the article examines whether the nominations/winners really have become more diverse in the intervening nine years.  It was not an article about all black Oscar winners, and thus there was no reason to specifically name Goldberg.

And this is where I see Whoopi's point.  HER oscar win is actually the watershed for black actors since hers was the first in over 5 decades.  

Hers was the first win for a black WOMAN in over 5 decades, not for a black actor (see Sidney Poitier in 1963, Louis Gossett, Jr, in 1982, and Denzel Washington in 1989).

That's what I was thinking: I specifically remember Gossett and Washington winning in the 80s (and I was pretty young!), so I didn't think Goldberg was the first black winner in decades.  The article also doesn't mention Cuba Gooding, Jr., who won after Goldberg and before 2002.  

The point about Berry and Washington is that they won the top acting awards in the same year, which hadn't happened before.  Berry was actually the first black Best Actress winner ever (Goldberg won for Supporting Actress).  And since Berry and Washington won, there have been five black winners. The article laments the fact that this year the Oscar nominations are less diverse than in any other year of the past decade.

Here's a link to the original article (I'm not sure it's linked upthread): http://www.nytimes.com/2011/02/13/movies/awardsseason/13movies.html?_r=1
« Last Edit: February 16, 2011, 12:47:52 PM by Harlos »

sparksals

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 17351
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #32 on: February 16, 2011, 12:51:40 PM »
I don't watch the View, but I came across this article on another site and was kind of mystified.  I think the NYT article is perfectly clear: it focuses on the black actors who have won Oscars since Washington and Berry in 2002.  That was supposed to have been a watershed moment for black actors; the article examines whether the nominations/winners really have become more diverse in the intervening nine years.  It was not an article about all black Oscar winners, and thus there was no reason to specifically name Goldberg.

I saw a clip of this View segment, and I found it really over the top.  She said something like, "People all over the world know I won an Oscar!  People in Somalia and China know!"  Really?  But in any case, the NYT article failing to specifically name Goldberg hardly negates her achievement or diminishes how many people around the world know about it.  I don't know; I thought her reaction was kind of embarrassing.  And I normally like Whoopi Goldberg. (Well, I think I do.  I haven't really seen her on the View.)

And this is where I see Whoopi's point.  HER oscar win is actually the watershed for black actors since hers was the first in over 5 decades. 

Hers was the first win for a black WOMAN in over 5 decades, not for a black actor (see Sidney Poitier in 1963, Louis Gossett, Jr, in 1982, and Denzel Washington in 1989).

Oh you're right... still watershed moment.  I see her point.

Wonderflonium

  • DO NOT BOUNCE
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9091
  • I have a PhD in horribleness.
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #33 on: February 16, 2011, 12:56:20 PM »
I don't watch the View, but I came across this article on another site and was kind of mystified.  I think the NYT article is perfectly clear: it focuses on the black actors who have won Oscars since Washington and Berry in 2002.  That was supposed to have been a watershed moment for black actors; the article examines whether the nominations/winners really have become more diverse in the intervening nine years.  It was not an article about all black Oscar winners, and thus there was no reason to specifically name Goldberg.

I saw a clip of this View segment, and I found it really over the top.  She said something like, "People all over the world know I won an Oscar!  People in Somalia and China know!"  Really?  But in any case, the NYT article failing to specifically name Goldberg hardly negates her achievement or diminishes how many people around the world know about it.  I don't know; I thought her reaction was kind of embarrassing.  And I normally like Whoopi Goldberg. (Well, I think I do.  I haven't really seen her on the View.)

And this is where I see Whoopi's point.  HER oscar win is actually the watershed for black actors since hers was the first in over 5 decades. 

Hers was the first win for a black WOMAN in over 5 decades, not for a black actor (see Sidney Poitier in 1963, Louis Gossett, Jr, in 1982, and Denzel Washington in 1989).

Oh you're right... still watershed moment.  I see her point.

I still don't. The point of the article was how many more had been nominated SINCE 2002. She wasn't the only previous winner not mentioned. She's being a SS.
The status is not quo!

PeasNCues

  • Mind your PeasNCues!
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7366
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #34 on: February 16, 2011, 12:59:40 PM »
I don't watch the View, but I came across this article on another site and was kind of mystified.  I think the NYT article is perfectly clear: it focuses on the black actors who have won Oscars since Washington and Berry in 2002.  That was supposed to have been a watershed moment for black actors; the article examines whether the nominations/winners really have become more diverse in the intervening nine years.  It was not an article about all black Oscar winners, and thus there was no reason to specifically name Goldberg.

I saw a clip of this View segment, and I found it really over the top.  She said something like, "People all over the world know I won an Oscar!  People in Somalia and China know!"  Really?  But in any case, the NYT article failing to specifically name Goldberg hardly negates her achievement or diminishes how many people around the world know about it.  I don't know; I thought her reaction was kind of embarrassing.  And I normally like Whoopi Goldberg. (Well, I think I do.  I haven't really seen her on the View.)

And this is where I see Whoopi's point.  HER oscar win is actually the watershed for black actors since hers was the first in over 5 decades. 

Hers was the first win for a black WOMAN in over 5 decades, not for a black actor (see Sidney Poitier in 1963, Louis Gossett, Jr, in 1982, and Denzel Washington in 1989).

Oh you're right... still watershed moment.  I see her point.

But it was in the wrong decade discussed in the article?
'I shall sit here quietly by the fire for a bit, and perhaps go out later for a sniff of air.  Mind your Ps and Qs, and don't forget that you are supposed to be escaping in secret, and are still on the high-road and not very far from the Shire!' -FOTR

http://inanitiesofanidlemind.blogspot.com/

Hanna

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7270
    • RumorsAboutMe
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #35 on: February 16, 2011, 01:18:33 PM »
It may have been a watershed moment, but it was not the one they were pinpointing in the article.

Actually, I would say the evidence points to it not really being much of a watershed moment at all.
It was a moment, but tremendous change was not the immediate result.

If I were writing the article, I would have mentioned each of the 7 people specifically.  That's because I found myself curious about who they were and what they won while reading this one, and 7 isn't too much to cover.  But I don't think that makes them sloppy. 

At any rate, seems she got what she wanted; the attention is on her now as a result of her little temper tantrum.

Winterlight

  • On the internet, no one can tell you're a dog- arf.
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9802
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #36 on: February 16, 2011, 01:35:51 PM »
I can't stand Whoopi. I find her to be a close minded self absorbed bully. Actually, I can't stand "The View" or the women on it in general so I don't watch it. Personal feelings aside...

I think the problem here is reading comprehension. The article and it's purpose were crystal clear.  They were writing about diversity in the Oscars in the last decade, and how the Oscars have changed in the last decade since Denzel and Halle won theirs. They compared this decade to previous decades and only mentioned a few actors by name to provide some examples. They were using those examples of a way of noting how few black actors were actually winning back then compared to now. No one was snubbed. Not mentioning Whoopi was not a snub. It just wasn't necessary to the purposes of the article.
Now, if the article were about Black Oscar winners in general, and how black actors have made history in the Oscars, then I can see cause for hurt feelings and would sympathize. But for this? Nope.

Whoopi's and those who defended her are being ignorant. Period. They need to apologize for their reaction in general and not just about calling the Times journalism shoddy. The Times has nothing to apologize for.

I agree. She wasn't mentioned by name because she wasn't the focus, which was on the Oscars since 2002.

Admittedly, I wanted to know who the others were, but I will go look that up on my own.
If wisdom’s ways you wisely seek,
Five things observe with care,
To whom you speak,
Of whom you speak,
And how, and when, and where.
Caroline Lake Ingalls

jimithing

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 19737
  • Life Is Too Short to Wear a Bad Outfit!
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #37 on: February 16, 2011, 03:48:53 PM »
It may have been a watershed moment, but it was not the one they were pinpointing in the article.

Actually, I would say the evidence points to it not really being much of a watershed moment at all.
It was a moment, but tremendous change was not the immediate result.

If I were writing the article, I would have mentioned each of the 7 people specifically.  That's because I found myself curious about who they were and what they won while reading this one, and 7 isn't too much to cover.  But I don't think that makes them sloppy. 

At any rate, seems she got what she wanted; the attention is on her now as a result of her little temper tantrum.

I agree. The article was about a specific period of time. That was the focus of their article.

I'm glad Whoopi retracted part of her statement.

katycoo

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 3767
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #38 on: February 16, 2011, 06:07:24 PM »
I think an article about black Americans and Oscars would have been well served by naming all black winners.  After all, there have only been 13.

Hanna

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 7270
    • RumorsAboutMe
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #39 on: February 16, 2011, 09:53:36 PM »
I think an article about black Americans and Oscars would have been well served by naming all black winners.  After all, there have only been 13.
You know, I think it's a shame that this kerfuffle is taking the attention away from that point.

13! THIRTEEN! How can there only be 13 in all these years, all these categories? That's insane!
Absolutely positively nuts. 83 years!

baglady

  • Hero Member
  • ***
  • Posts: 4617
  • A big lass and a bonny lass and she loves her beer
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #40 on: February 17, 2011, 01:46:39 AM »
If the story had mentioned all the pre-2002 Black winners by name and left her off, she'd have a legitimate beef.

It didn't, so she doesn't. Sorry, Whoopi.
My photography is on Redbubble! Come see: http://www.redbubble.com/people/baglady

Sharnita

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 21426
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #41 on: February 17, 2011, 06:11:45 AM »
I think an article about black Americans and Oscars would have been well served by naming all black winners.  After all, there have only been 13.
You know, I think it's a shame that this kerfuffle is taking the attention away from that point.

13! THIRTEEN! How can there only be 13 in all these years, all these categories? That's insane!
Absolutely positively nuts. 83 years!

Are there that many more Asian, Hispanic, Native American winners?  Hollywood originally did not cast many minorities of any kind in movies and whenever there was a role they had somebody white made-up.  Then they had some minortiy parts but not much effort went into writing the parts so they would never be Oscar material.  It is still a problem of course and I think there are other minority groups that are still pretty much left out in the cold as far as film roles at all.

Rosey

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 5226
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #42 on: February 17, 2011, 06:18:10 AM »
I think an article about black Americans and Oscars would have been well served by naming all black winners.  After all, there have only been 13.
You know, I think it's a shame that this kerfuffle is taking the attention away from that point.

13! THIRTEEN! How can there only be 13 in all these years, all these categories? That's insane!
Absolutely positively nuts. 83 years!

I agree.

I also agree that they should have named Whoopi Goldberg and Hattie McDaniel. Someone had to clear the way. Halle Berry and Denzel Washington received a great deal of attention for being the first black woman and men respective to win the "Best Actress/Actor" Oscar largely because so many people said they were clearing the way for others. Someone had to be first, and someone had to reopen those doors.

If not in this article, they could have always done another article in close time proximity.

Wonderflonium

  • DO NOT BOUNCE
  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 9091
  • I have a PhD in horribleness.
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #43 on: February 17, 2011, 07:35:47 AM »
Actually, they did mention Hattie McDaniel (and they pictured her, too). Denzel wasn't the first black man to win best actor; Sidney Poitier was (and he was mentioned). The important thing about 2002 was that it was the first time both the best actor and the best actress were black.
The status is not quo!

Sabbyfrog2

  • Super Hero!
  • ****
  • Posts: 6754
  • I'm a Super Hero! Now where's my cape?
Re: Whoopi Goldberg's 20-year Old Oscar Snub
« Reply #44 on: February 17, 2011, 08:34:19 AM »
 
I think an article about black Americans and Oscars would have been well served by naming all black winners.  After all, there have only been 13.
You know, I think it's a shame that this kerfuffle is taking the attention away from that point.

13! THIRTEEN! How can there only be 13 in all these years, all these categories? That's insane!
Absolutely positively nuts. 83 years!

I agree.

I also agree that they should have named Whoopi Goldberg and Hattie McDaniel. Someone had to clear the way. Halle Berry and Denzel Washington received a great deal of attention for being the first black woman and men respective to win the "Best Actress/Actor" Oscar largely because so many people said they were clearing the way for others. Someone had to be first, and someone had to reopen those doors.

If not in this article, they could have always done another article in close time proximity.

But that's not what the article was about. It seems that the point of the article itself has been lost in all the "watershed moment" and "only 13 black Oscar winner" debate. They shouldn't have to write anything in their articles that isn't relevant and Whoopi wasn't relevant to it. Neither were the other unmentioned Oscar winners. It wasn't an article about the number of black Oscar winners there have been in total. It was an article about how the Oscars have changed since Denzel and Halle won in 2002 and since that was the first time there were two black Oscar winners in leading roles. Whoopi wasn't in a leading role when she won 20 years ago, and she wasn't the first black actress to win an Oscar ever so her win wasn't really relevant to the purposes of the article. It may be relevant to Black Oscar winner history in general, but that wasn't the point of this article. To mention all of the black Oscar winners by name, then justify them being in the article by writing about them would have made it way longer then necassary and changed the intent. So no, I don't think they should have been mentioned.

I also don't think that the Times needed to follow it up with another article about the 13 black Oscar winners to make a point about how there have only been 13. Why? What's the purpose? To paint Hollywood as racists? To point out how unfair it is? What is an article like that going to change anwyay? If they are going to do that, why not just go on about now there haven't been any Asian winners. Or any Indian winners. Or Latin. Or mixed race. That's ludacrious.
The whole thing getting turned into a "black" issue. That wasn't the point. People aren't even aknowledging the intent of the original article that's being debated and instead are focusing on things that aren't relevant to the actual topic.


FWIW: I too find it sorta sad that there are only 13 Black Oscar winners in total but since it isn't what the point was, I don't see why it's being brought up at all.