Jump to content

Menu

SlowRiver

Members
  • Content Count

    8
  • Joined

  • Last visited

Community Reputation

13 Good

About SlowRiver

  • Rank
    Hive Mind Larvae

Recent Profile Visitors

The recent visitors block is disabled and is not being shown to other users.

  1. The themed coverage issue is pernicious. A good example being The Guardian accepting money from a particular organisation to publish articles on agriculture. Even if they are identified as part of a series it amounts to lobby groups influencing content, and there is the effects also of what articles about agriculture they might reject because they don't fit what is required or because they don't need more articles on the same topic. Something that hasn't been mentioned is that media bias along political lines may not always be the best way to understand the problem. How journalists are tr
  2. Right. I suppose I think the first point is that I would say that it is dangerous to take at face value the idea that a whole group of people think that all of these depictions are racist or problematic, just because some person has identified them as such. There is a tendency to take the voices of section of people as representative of the views of "the x community" and yet very often, they aren't. There are often all kinds of different points of view. In the worst case scenarios this can involve suppressing certain viewpoints within those communities and that can unfortunately involve
  3. This is rather begging the question, don't you think?
  4. It's difficult to comment on the pop song without knowing the content. But thee seems to be a pretty clear difference between disallowing a book to be reprinted, and saying everyone needs to read it to their kids, and a difference again from being worried about kids exposed to explicit imagery on film or in a song. FWIW I think not allowing kids to read books because they have magic in them is dumb, and I also think there is no good reason to avoid the LIW books. But it's not useful to claim there is one rule for every instance. My comment was specific - there is in many
  5. When there is a larger pattern, in both universities and in publishing, and also particularly within children's publishing, of demanding books not be published, boycotting publishers, evicerating authors on Twitter, and deplatforming authors, I'm not sure how a statement like the one that's been made here can avoid being seen within that context. This is a huge issue in publishing generally, even if this was actually just totally unrelated, it would always be seen within the context of those things. I am quite aware of the different ways books (and people) can be suppressed, o
  6. Ah, TBH I don't really take the family's statement very seriously, I think it is disingenuous. I think they would not have reprinted those books anyway, for the same reasons many books aren't reprinted, and were looking for publicity in making the announcement this way. I also think it's very common now for people to be unable to put books that are older, even a little older, in the context of their time in the most basic kind of way. Picking out that particular illustration as racist suggests to me that is part of what is going on here, whether or not others are really problematic
  7. I'd have said the illustration isn't meant to be an Asian-American, it's meant to be an Asian person from Asia, which would have been a rather odd thing to see in a sleepy mid-western town at that time. While the illustration isn't entirely accurate in its details, people in Asian countries in the mid 20th century did not necessarily dress like Americans. I have plenty of passed down family photos from the 50s where 99% of the people in the photos are dressed in what might be considered "stereotypically" Asian clothes. At the time those books were written, queues would still have been in
×
×
  • Create New...