Whoopi Goldberg Apologizes for Misunderstanding the Newspaper
On Monday, Whoopi Goldberg got so mad at the New York Times' article about black Oscar winners that she bellowed about it on her bellowing hour, The View. Writers Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott didn't mention her Oscar win for Ghost, which prompted Goldberg to call their work "shoddy' and imply that the article should have been more about the bellow-filled career of Whoopi Goldberg. Problem is, the piece never meant to list every black Oscar winner; Louis Gossett Jr. and Cuba Gooding Jr. weren't mentioned either. Goldberg realized this today and apologized in a hilariously half-hearted way.
Said Whoopi on The View this morning:
I'm going to apologize to The New York Times for calling their reporting 'shoddy.' [...] I personally found the article really confusing, and I also was quite hurt that Cuba Gooding Jr., Louis Gossett Jr., and myself were not included in this expose about black Hollywood. But for saying it was shoddy reporting, I apologize, New York Times.
See, NYT, you were confusing! Own it already! You confusing thang! I imagine The View's producers edited out this extended version* of Goldberg's "apology."
"The newspaper was tricking me!" she declared, getting up to run around the table. "It wasn't being fair and square. It was sneaking around with its tricky ideas, trying to make me feel like a fool. Dancing around like a wordy jester, all higgledy-piggledy. Well, you big batch of words, you succeeded. You had your way with me. I am damn puzzled. Elisabeth, honey, don't cry. We'll get through this together. This ball of confusion."
*This apology is not real, but rather a figment of imagination. It upsets me when celebrities malign the media to cover their own mistakes. I can still hardly forgive Paula Abdul!
· Whoopi Goldberg Apologizes to the 'New York Times' [EW]
Subscribe to the new Movieline on YouTube
Comments
My, we do have an agenda, don't we?!!
I, too, found the article confusing. It first stated 7 black actors/actresses had won Oscars over the 73 years that preceded the double win for Berry/Washington. It then named seven actors who won "after" Berry/Washington.
What was the point? I think it got slashed in editing. The point, I'm presuming, was that "as many" Oscars had been presented to black Actors in less than two decades as had been presented in the previous seven decades.
Overall, though, it was poorly edited (if not poorly thought out/written) and its racial bias was pretty blatant. When black actors/actresses are outperforming their "other-race" counterparts -- and in equal numbers -- they'll win more Oscars. When 20 percent of the population isn't maintaining parity in roles/Oscar-worthy performances with the other 80 percent, can there really be a "surprise"?
Or, perhaps, the writer is looking for something else?