Last week I bitched to the New York Times Public Editor about a Roman Polanski profile that used what I felt was offensive and misleading language to depict both Polanski’s sex crime and his teenage victim.
Today I received an answer. I can’t run it here without permission, which I think I’d be unlikely to get, so suffice it to say that Clark Hoyt, the Public Editor, agreed completely–and in detail–with my assertion that Polanski’s crime was child rape and not “seduction” and that “seduction” was a very poor word choice. Hoyt disagreed with me that the depiction of the victim as “quarry” was dehumanizing, saying that it was meant to convey the fear of someone being victimized by a predator, i.e. Polanski. Make of that what you will.
He also agreed to forward my letter to the Culture Editor, who oversaw the writing and editing of the Polanski profile.
Overall, I was pleased with how quickly he responded, and how long and thoughtful the response was. It was clear that he took my concerns seriously, and made me glad I took the time to write the letter instead of just seething.
YAY!
It sounds like you actually made him THINK.
Thank you for updating us on this. It’s always nice to hear that our voices are being heard and our concerns are taken into consideration.
we’re proud of you, Becky!
You’re like 5 for 5 with your Bein’ A Bitch, aren’t you? Truly, a role model for our age!
The only thing more gratifying than writing a firmly worded letter is having your FWL acknowledged. Great job!
That’s great! For what it’s worth, I also thought “quarry” may have been meant to emphasize how Polanski viewed his victim. However, this was not at all clear from the particular sentence, just the way I might phrase things. Plus, considering the “seduction” bit, it’s really impossible to hold two competing explanations for the tone of the article.
Thanks, y’all! It’s good to know you bitches have my back!
@applebrownbettywhite: Yes, that was exactly the way Clark Hoyt explained the use of the word “quarry”. Which does make sense, and would have seemed okay to me had “quarry” not been in the same sentence as “seduced,” which implies consent, even enthusiasm. You’re right–the writer can’t have it both ways.
Any chance your letter could get published in the letters to the editor section? That’d be awesome.
I dunno. I didn’t tell them they COULDN’T run it. But the Times must be deluged by reader mail, so I doubt they will.
*applause*
That’s great, Becky!
This is soooo awesome, Becky! I always want to do this but rarely do. The exceptions were letters to my college newspaper because I knew someone would actually read my letter – it’s nice to know it happens at the Times too.