The New York Times published an interview with an author, where the author showed appreciation for an anti-semitic book.
- Thread starter kylecoley182
- Start date
So Alice Walker is a disgusting anti semite. Mind boggling considering she worked with Spielberg on adapting The Color Purple to film.
Well that's mostly Alice Walker's fail. I guess the NYtimes fails too for not digging too hard but it seems like a fluff interview tbh.
Not quite as blatant as the title suggests but context regarding the contents of that book should be required.
So he stopped hiding the anti-semitism behind the lizard people stuff and is just blatant now, huh?
I would put Alice Walker in the title, not the NYT. They should have done more to edit it/provide context, but the bigger story is that the author of the Color Purple is a supporter of anti-semitism, because what the fuck how does that make sense?
Last edited:
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Alice_Walker#cite_note-RosenbergK-46Wikipedia said:
Yikes. I had no idea Alice Walker had these views nowadays. What the fuck happened?
That thread/article headline is worse than anything the NYT did. They asked a question, they got a horrible answer, and printed it. It's not on them to add editorial notes explaining what the book is, and it's certainly better than editing it out.
Like it's totally valid to make a big deal out of this, but direct it towards Alice Walker. The fact that the title doesn't even have her name in it but wants to talk about journalistic standards is mind blowing.
Like it's totally valid to make a big deal out of this, but direct it towards Alice Walker. The fact that the title doesn't even have her name in it but wants to talk about journalistic standards is mind blowing.
Yes. I'm struggling to see what this has to do with the NYT other than the fact that the article's editor should have seen this and written an appropriate editor's note. A slip up, nonetheless, but not malicious.
it absolutely is on the NYT to publish this without making the entire interview about why that book was being casually recommended without any context given to how monstrous it is.
Also, to let pass unmentioned that the first book referenced has been debunked as a fraud...
Failure of basic journalism 101 here.
No, really, it is on the NYT for publishing this without doing any basic due diligence.
OP, you should be completely embarrassed by the title of this thread.
NYT interviewed Alice Walker, a famous American author, and that's what she answered. This isn't really even newsworthy to begin with, but the right way to present this would be "The Color Purple Author, Alice Walker, reads book by noted anti-semitic conspiracy theorist David Icke." That's the story here not this ridiculous anti-New York Times tripe. And who knows why she's reading it or whether she endorses Icke's bizarre philosophies. The NYT might publish an interview with a historian who has Mein Kampf on her nightstand, that doesn't mean that the newspaper is promoting the Holocaust.
NYT interviewed Alice Walker, a famous American author, and that's what she answered. This isn't really even newsworthy to begin with, but the right way to present this would be "The Color Purple Author, Alice Walker, reads book by noted anti-semitic conspiracy theorist David Icke." That's the story here not this ridiculous anti-New York Times tripe. And who knows why she's reading it or whether she endorses Icke's bizarre philosophies. The NYT might publish an interview with a historian who has Mein Kampf on her nightstand, that doesn't mean that the newspaper is promoting the Holocaust.
OP
OP
You realize they sent her a list of questions and then published her responses. Wanting a follow up interview would be fine, but it's not like there was a chance to swerve after she gave an insane answer.
And no, it's not on the NYT. If they want to make an editorial note, that's fine, but they weren't recommending anything to anyone. They asked her what her books were, she gave an insane answer, and they published it. They didn't tell people to go and pick up their copy today.
Most importantly they didn't edit it out.
It's extremely misleading, but hating the NYT is really hot right now.
What is your angle here? That the NYT is anti-semitic, promoting anti-semitism?
ANd for fucks sake that's not even the most controversial thing that Walker says in this interview, where she commends the fictional character Rhett Butler for being 'exceptionally understanding of women.'
Would you phrase your thread title as "New York Times Publishes Defense of a Fictional Racist Murder" ?
OP
OP
The NYT has been a home for pro facist propaganda of all sorts for 50+ years.
Burning Trump on a few stories wasn't going to change that.
Burning Trump on a few stories wasn't going to change that.
You believe that everyone who does celebrity interviews should be required to know every self-published anti-Semitic screed just in case the subject of their interview casually mentions it among a list of other books so that they can devote the rest of the interview to following up with that one specific point? That seems like an impossible standard for anyone to hit. I can understand having an editorial note that identifies exactly what the book is, and maybe a follow-up interview focusing solely on that, but what you're asking for is unreasonable.
Without any following up on Walker's views on the book any anti-semitic claims seem presumptuous.
It deserves follow up but blindly claiming her an anti-semite seems jumping the gun here.
So, why would that change anything? If you're going to peddle clickbait garbage headlines, then it's on you, the thread creator, to take 5 seconds and analyze what you're posting and what the angle is.
The article from TabletMag is virtually entirely about Icke and Alice Walker, and if there is news here, it's that Alice Walker -- famed American author -- has some fucked up ideas. Not that The New York Times is promoting her anti-semitic ideas... in an interview with her.
Honestly, the fact that some of you guys are more upset at the publication for not telling to you to be upset than at the actual upsetting thing is, well, upsetting.
Not related to the article published. That blog above wants to make you think they are related, but use your media literacy and reasoning skills.
Better link
Alice Walker, Author Of “The Color Purple,” Is Under Fire For Recommending An Anti-Semitic Novel In A New York Times Interview
Alice Walker, Author Of “The Color Purple,” Is Under Fire For Recommending An Anti-Semitic Novel In A New York Times Interview https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ker-color-purple-anti-semitism-new-york-times
Alice Walker, Author Of “The Color Purple,” Is Under Fire For Recommending An Anti-Semitic Novel In A New York Times Interview
Alice Walker, Author Of “The Color Purple,” Is Under Fire For Recommending An Anti-Semitic Novel In A New York Times Interview https://www.buzzfeednews.com/articl...ker-color-purple-anti-semitism-new-york-times
Yeah I genuinely had no idea about Walker's interest in anti-semitic garbage. But it's an interview and she answers the question of what's on her night stand. She also mentions like maybe 30 other authors and books, and NYT doesn't provide any background or anything about those.
It's also very obviously an interview where they sent her the questions, she answered them, because there's no back and forth of any kind in interview.
Something completely worthy of discussion. I don't think we have to insult the OP because of it. This kind of thing happens all the time, and I don't think this case was especially egregious. I think the article itself is trash, though.
Regardless, the matter has been corrected by the Slayven.
If you read the article above, it's not. There's a long paper trail here unfortunately.
Buzzfeed used to be called out on clickbait and now there one of the better news websites as well.
I'm not saying they should have had this info at the tip of their fingers, but that part of the publish process should have been to look into the books recommended, to avoid publishing a recommendation for a memoir that's been outed as fake and a book that's a full on anti-Semitic conspiracy theory book. The interview shouldn't have gotten past an editor and fact checker.
Back in the 90s I did interviews for a fanzine, conducted by postal mail that had more follow up than this! I'd mail questions back and forth for months!
It is an incredible abdication of responsibility to pass along recommendations like these without any follow up questions or editorial note. It's damning as hell.
OP
OP
Yeah, this is only going to get a citation if you realize what the book is. Clearly the reporter and editor didn't, and I wouldn't have recognized it either.
Which in this case is a good thing, as it prevented them from whitewashing the interview and letting her expose herself.
What's completely worthy of discussion is that one of the most famous American authors also has a bizarre self-published book by anti-semitic Lizard Person conspiracy theorist. That is new to me I didn't know that Alice Walker had this side to her and that's interesting.
But the way this title was written it was that the New York Times was recommending an anti-semitic book or promoting anti-semitism. It's not. Even if OP copy and pastes that clickbait hot take, if OP is the one posting it, yes, the OP should be criticized for doing that. It's like people who share fake stories on Facebook and Twitter, and then people criticize them for it and they're like "Oh, I didn't write this story I was just sharing the news -- don't get mad at me!"
The matter of the thread title has been corrected and I'm glad for that, but OP's take on this is still stupid.
Do you have anything thoughtful to contribute? It's your own thread, you're not going to stand by the junk that you're posting?
"Stay classy," right?
It's an interview tho, maybe they should have added an editor's note saying that the book is anti semitic but I guess they didn't because of ignorance
Shall we see her own opinion then?
http://alicewalkersgarden.com/2017/11/it-is-our-frightful-duty-to-study-the-talmud/
Alice Walker said:
Yeah it's wild how things have changes with BuzzFeed, esp. BuzzFeed news.
There was a good interview on RecodeDecode On the Media with the person who was running BuzzFeed News, I'll try to find it.