Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Comment by Barrin92 | Hacker News Reader

Parent Full thread

Yeah there's a lot of stuff in those four pieces, this is from the third one

"I described covering it and said there was one awkward moment — I asked a “dance captain” if I could interview one of her girls. She said they were mostly too shy, but there was a bold one she would introduce me too. I started the interview, and immediately 20 topless girls cluster around wanting to talk too. My photographer sees me in the middle of this throng — I’m in deep Zululand, miles from a paved road, but I’m wearing a coat and tie like a good Timesman — and he starts to shoot a picture. The picture catches me yelling: “Don’t take a picture! My wife will kill me!” Apparently, some students took offense at that."

mind you he was talking to an audience of almost exclusively teenage girls here when telling that story. I don't think he ever used the n-word maliciously but from the sound of the entire thing he might also not fully be aware of how he comes across when he talks.

Yes, that seems to be one example of particularly bad judgment, sharing this type of story with teenagers. Especially when, to a teenager, you often seem a million years old, and frozen in time in that way. Kids often can't realize that adults were once young and caught out too, especially ones with the gravitas of a NYT veteran reporter.

I'm sure to him it seems like a story of a young-ish man embarrassed and in over his head, but to a teen (especially one primed to think about colonialism and imperialism) it probably comes off as a story of an old white man with authority receiving vaguely sexual favors from young girls.

What’s bad judgement?

“Vaguely sexual favors”? How? I don’t see that in the least.

Imagine the scene the way a teenager likely would: there's a powerful old man, surrounded by half-naked young girls. His assistant is photographing them. Is it hard to make one more step of imagining these two men may be deriving some sexual satisfaction from seeing the bodies of these girls who feel forced to be naked around them?

Again, to be clear: I am not in any way claiming that the scene was anything like that. The reporter was likely younger when it happened, inexperienced. The photographer was likely mischievous rather than leering. The reporter likely felt embarrassed and overwhelmed.

But, what are the chances a group of self-righteous, woke young teenage girls (he already knew they were like this, by his own account) would see the scene like that, imagining this powerful, authoritative old man they are seeing was once something else?

The core problem isn't that the teenagers see it that way but that saying "My wife would kill me" indicates that he was seeing it that way himself at the time rather than just seeing the people he was interviewing as people he was interviewing.

His account shows that even after the teenagers complained he still didn't bother to find out why someone would find that offensive. I find it hard to believe that a long time NY Times reporter would never have received training on this, it is really basic stuff.

“My wife would kill me” is a joke. It’s play on the fact that his wife knowing his job involved being around topless teenagers would upset her. Note, it wouldn’t actually upset her in the context it happened.

I fail to understand how someone can be offended by a situation that has nothing to do with them other than hearing the story.

I'm not convinced it is a joke, but certainly it could be. If so it is notably a sexist joke that sexualizes the people he is interviewing. It was not appropriate to make at the time nor to repeat. Of course the fact that he tells sexist jokes would be relevent to the people he is traveling with.

It’s a sexist joke? It’s suddenly sexist to tell a joke that highlights the differences in how cultures treat topless females?

And it’s not sexualizing anything. It’s a joke about what his “work” is.

God damn some people are wound tight. They just go looking to be offended. Maybe trying to seek moral high ground or something? It’s just odd.

No, it is simply a joke that plays on the difference in cultural significance of toplessness, and on his clahs of expectations at the time (he was expecting to interview one girl on a delicate subject, but found himself swarmed by 20 girls dressed in a way that is cause for embarrassment in his own culture).

His account does show that he payed little mind to how the teenagers he was there to teach were likely taking his stories. He is guilty of misjudging his audience, and of making them feel uncomfortable. He is not guilty of anything else, at least based on his own account (obviously, reality may be arbitrarily different from his own account).

I'm not convinced the cultural difference is necessarily all that large in practice. From the article he wrote, it isn't exactly a common thing there either but a special event. Obviously there is some difference in theory, but there seems to be some suggestion that they might be somewhat embarrassed as well due to it being unusual.

https://www.nytimes.com/1998/09/22/world/enyokeni-royal-resi...

It looks like he was 44 at the time of that article and 64 when he was in Peru.

If you mean his "thought" process was likely embarassment -> make joke and nothing more, sure. But the reason it would be considered embarassing in the US is that women going topless is often considered sexual. And the joke he makes directly references that. He doesn't seem to be thinking much about the effect of his reaction on the people he is interviewing. Of course he is human and if sufficiently embarrased won't have a lot of thought prior to reaction (and it sounds like it could easily be the photographer intentionally provoking him knowing he won't react well), but he can still change how he reacts later and how or if he talks about the story later.

I guess there are two basic (but not entirely different) reasons the teenagers in Peru could react negatively (maybe more). My guess is that they do not have the same cultural assumption as the reporter that being topless would necessarily be a sexual or embarrassing thing and find that assumption sexist. It sounds like your guess is that they do have a similar cultural assumption and are imagining this old reporter in a vaguely sexual situation with young women.

Yes, it’s hard to make that step.

Are you saying the two men never should have taken pictures of topless teenagers despite the fact in the girl’s culture it would be entirely appropriate and non-sexual?

I’m still confused.

If you’re saying the reporter shouldn’t have told the story then I would disagree as well. We don’t gain anything by shielding people from things that offend them because they don’t understand them.

The reporter should not have told this joke to a bunch of kids who were already primed to see him as being insensitive, according to his own account. I'm not saying that him telling this joke story makes him fireable, but that it was poor judgment to tell this joke to this audience, because it was very likely to cause misunderstandings with a bunch of teenage girls.

There is such a thing as an appropriate VS an inappropriate joke/story for a particular audience and context. Just like you shouldn't start telling funny stories to a widow at a funeral, or programmer jokes to a philosopher audience, or sad gory stories at a birthday party. It's not about stifling free speech, it's about knowing what your audience is open to at this time.

Not to mention, you need to understand how your audience is likely to perceive you, whether they will trust your bona fides, and adjust your message accordingly if your interest is to reach the audience. Especially if you have a clear real life audience, not just shouting over the internet like I am now.

I dont understand, what was wrong here?

"My wife will kill me" indicates he was sexualizing the people he was reporting on. If his wife would actually take offense that is something he needs to work out with her and not let it affect his work.

Anyone who doesn't get this should seriously do some reading now, as this is basic stuff.

No it doesn't. I dont see how you could possibly think that.

If he had asked them to put on clothes, is that cultural denial? Is that sexualizing them since he acknowledged they were topless?

The notion that pointing out reality is somehow bad is such a dumb concept.

Yes, asking them to put on a shirt would have been even worse and still sexualizing. Feeling entitled to say whatever sexist stuff you want at any time is a liability for anyone and is even worse for a reporter.

So he can't comment on it being a bad look even though he had no agency in the creation of the situation since that acknowledges topless, he can't attempt to ask no photos be taken since he knows the reality of his situation and that asking for it is admitting he recognizes that these woman are topless, he can't change the sitaution since you're saying its sexualizing to literally comment on anything pertaining to the situation. So basically nothing will satisfy you.

So, what, he should have lied down the in the fetal position and feigned dead?

Oh wait, that might be misconstrued as something about babies and woman. I guess lie face down, eyes closed, hands over ears and hope it all goes away.

There is nothing wrong with a reporter being photographed inteviewing people, unless the people he was reporting on didn't approve (no evidence in the story that was the case - and the article he wrote mentions that it wasn't the case). If his wife actually throught there was something wrong, that was a conversation he needed to have with her.

"My wife will kill me" was a sexist comment, but not necessarily perceived as offensive at the time (although I certainly wouldn't trust his judgement if it was). By telling the story the way he did to the teenagers he is not just showing that he sexualised the people he was interviewing at the time but was revealing that he was likely sexualising the women he was travelling with as well.

> By telling the story the way he did to the teenagers he is not just showing that he sexualised the people he was interviewing at the time but was revealing that he was likely sexualising the women he was travelling with as well.

Wow, this is really going past the far end. It was a story of cultural clash and slightly bewildering situation for a relatively inexperienced reporter at the time, to go from there to essentially accusing him of pedophilia is many steps too far.

He was 44 at the time, 22 years after he started working at the Times. I don't mean to suggest that he is a pedophile (I could have phrased it better), just that he made a sexist comment that is based on seeing women as sexual in a way that men are not.

I don’t understand what’s wrong with the quoted passage. How can that be interpreted in any way that is even the least bit offensive?

Reply on news.ycombinator.com