Shonda Rhimes, the woman whose golden touch has produced an entire night of programming on ABC this year, is arguably one of the most powerful women working in TV. And the New York Times just made a big mistake by crossing her.
Rhimes took to Twitter Friday to air her issues with the writer of a profile piece after being characterized as an "angry black woman," a phrase that appeared, in a presumed failed attempt at being cheeky, in the first line of the story. ("When Shonda Rhimes writes her autobiography, it should be called 'How to Get Away With Being an Angry Black Woman.')
"Apparently we can be 'angry black women' together, because I didn't know I was one either! @petenowa #LearnSomethingNewEveryday," the Scandal and Grey's Anatomy creator wrote in a Tweet, while also tagging How to Get Away With Murder creator Peter Nowalk.
Apparently we can be "angry black women" together, because I didn't know I was one either! @petenowa #LearnSomethingNewEveryday— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) September 19, 2014
Rhimes is a producer on How to Get Away With Murder but not the creator of the show, a fact that was not included in the Times piece and an omission that Rhimes also took issue with.
New York Times television critic Alessandra Stanley, who penned the story, defended the article in a statement released by the outlet's communications department Friday. "The whole point of the piece -- once you read past the first 140 characters -- is to praise Shonda Rhimes for pushing back so successfully on a tiresome but insidious stereotype," Stanley said in the statement.
Final thing: (then I am gonna do some yoga): how come I am not "an angry black woman" the many times Meredith (or Addison!) rants? @nytimes— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) September 19, 2014
Praise-filled as the article attempts to be, however, the characterization of Rhimes as a "romance writer" was something that left Rhimes and those who watch and star in her shows scratching their heads.
Wait. I'm" angry" AND a ROMANCE WRITER?!! I'm going to need to put down the internet and go dance this one out. Because ish is getting real.— shonda rhimes (@shondarhimes) September 19, 2014
Wow. Did I just read a @nytimes piece that reduced my brilliant, creative, compassionate, thoughtful, badass boss to an “angry black woman?”— Joshua Malina (@JoshMalina) September 19, 2014
Dear @nytimeshttp://t.co/20dzCSLKsx AND http://t.co/VJQ7n0Ujdn You're welcome. Love, K-Dub— kerry washington (@kerrywashington) September 19, 2014
Rhimes aside, the piece had other issues, as the Internet was all too eager to point out.
SMH. "@texasinafrica: The @nytimes actually ran this. http://t.co/sX4u8z8rrC pic.twitter.com/E4x2zXugN3" #LessClasicallyBeautiful #Ridiculous— Dr. ChisaraAsomugha (@ChisaraAsomugha) September 19, 2014
Aside from its other failures, I laugh at the NYT article's assertion that Nicole Beharie's character on #SleepyHollow is a side-kick.— Michael R. Underwood (@MikeRUnderwood) September 19, 2014
In fact, never once does Alessandra Stanley mention Olivia Pope’s profession, she’s only mentioned as "mistress of a married president."— Em Zee (@MZGunter) September 19, 2014
The lesson here?
Shondaland is a place that should no doubt be lauded for showing diversity. But get the facts of Shondaland right, or be ready for a whole lot of Angry Everybody.