Top story in the New York Times Arts section, Monday, January 22: "Anatomy of an Insult: ABC is Stung by an Actor's Anti-Gay Slurs." Byline: Edward Wyatt.
The lede: "Executives at ABC and its parent, Disney, are mulling the future of the actor Isaiah Washington, a star of the hit series 'Grey's Anatomy,' after Mr. Washington publicly used an anti-gay slur for the second time in roughly three months, a Disney executive said Friday."
The first incident: "Mr. Washington first got into trouble for using the same slur during an off-camera dispute on the set of the show in October. The remark was aimed at T.R. Knight, who portrays Dr. George O'Mally on the series and who had not previously talked about his sexuality… After that incident became public, Mr. Washington apologized, and Mr. Knight publicly acknowledged that he was gay."
Incident #2: "…after the Golden Globe victory for 'Grey's Anatomy,' the show's actors and creator gathered backstage to answer reporters' questions. One asked about the fight and the remark. Mr. Washington moved to the microphone and denied that he ever used the slur to describe Mr. Knight, at the same time repeating the word. Fellow cast members appeared shaken…"
That's the crux of the story. But you know what's missing from the article? The actual story itself. That's because the New York Times, like some prudish sixth grader, can't bring itself to utter a "dirty word," and therefore won't reprint the statements that are the entire point of the article in the first place.
I'm assuming the word in question is "faggot" (though it would be totally awesome if this all happened because one guy called another a "homo"). And it's a nasty word, no doubt. But what, exactly, is the point of reporting on an incident when you won't even report what the incident was? Like, it would be nice to hear the actual context in which the word was used. Did Mr. Washington tell Mr. Knight to "get your hands off me, you dirty faggot," or simply comment that "those jeans make you look a little faggy"? And what exactly went down at the Golden Globes: "I just want to say that T.R., while gay, is totally not a faggot"?
"'With one word, I've hurt everyone who has struggled for the respect so many of us take for granted,'" Mr. Washington mea culpa-ed later. Really? With one word? (To any gay men reading this: Please let me know if I have, in the course of this blog, hurt you five times, and if that hurt has anything to do with your struggle for the respect that so many of us take for granted.) This, of course, is typical celebrity self-aggrandizement-as-repentance, and Mr. Washington goes the full Mel Gibson yard, "welcom[ing] the chance to meet with leaders of the gay and lesbian community to apologize in person and to talk about what I can do to heal the wounds I've opened."
It's stupid, it's pathetic, it's not even worth commenting on – unless, of course, you're going to validate the guy's delusional estimation of his own power by tacitly endorsing his premise and demonstrating through example that the word itself (not the context, not the intent behind it) is imbued with mystical properties so destructive that mere men dare not repeat it, lest we all be damned to a series of intensive summit meetings with GLAAD to "heal the wounds we've opened."
I like you, New York Times – and not just because George Bush and Bill O'Reilly hate your guts. I like you because, for the most part, you're a newspaper written by grownups, for grownups. It's a niche market, granted, but then again, there's not a whole lot of competition either. So stick with that. And if that means you have to repeat the "f-word" once in a while, it's okay. We'll survive.
And by the way: "Grey's Anatomy"? Totally gay.
Posts
