Get out the heating pad and grab an ice pack from the freezer. Seems Whoopi Goldberg's over-inflated, Oscar winning ego has flared up again. She was bitching up a storm over on the View this morning. Before we form opinions, though, let's do a bit of homework. Walters and Company obviously missed this step today. There are only three assignments and they are relatively simple.
First, read the article...don't just scan the article looking for your name...this is probably where Goldberg's problem with the article began...
Now, go get a calculator and subtract 1929 (the year the first Academy Awards were presented) from 2002 (the year Washington and Berry both received Oscars). You should arrive at 73. Now, commit 1929, 2002, and 73 to memory--or jot it down if you prefer.
Lastly, view Goldberg's "reaction" this morning on The View. When you are finished, we can discuss.
I am assuming the point of the article that Goldberg and the crew find fault with is this one:
" Real change seemed to have come to movies or at least the Academy, which had given statuettes to a total of seven black actors in the previous 73 years. After Mr. Washington and Ms. Berry, there would be Jamie Foxx and Forest Whitaker (both best actors); Morgan Freeman (best supporting actor); Jennifer Hudson and Mo'Nique (best supporting actresses)."
What exactly did the New York Times author of this particular story say that warrants an apology, and even more importantly, can he clear things up soon as we need to begin the healing so Lizzy Hasselbeck's family can resume their regular home delivery schedule?
Okay, here is where math skills come to play. When 1929 is subtracted from 2002 an answer of 73 pops up on caluclator. This article stated the changes happened after the 2002 show~and stated seven black actors where honored prior to the tides changing.
In fairness to Whoopi, Babs introduced this "controversy"...she said, "The article states only SIX black actors received Oscars in the Academy's 73 years." Now if Babs had done her homework instead of jumping to conclusions she's have know the Academy has been around eighty-two years.
In eighty-two years, thirteen black actors have received an Oscar. In the seventy-three years (here is where it gets tricky) prior to 2002, six black actors received an award. No one was slighted. No one forgotten "on purpose".
Here is where fact checking comes into play 1. McDaniel, 2. Poitier, 3. Gossett, Jr. 4. Washington ('89 and 02), 5. Goldberg, 6. Gooding Jr., and 7. Halle Berry. Yep, that adds up to me...just to be sure, I wore my flip flops when I counted. Seven black actors received a statuette prior to 2002. How is that sloppy reporting?
The next question I have is why does the New York Times need to apologize to anyone? How is reporting sloppy just because a washed up celebrity ego isn't stroked by her name in print? How about what Goldberg, Walters and crew did this morning? Just because the article didn't call Goldberg out by name does not mean it lacked credibility.
So the article was not all about Whoopi~shocking, I know. It surely comes as a blow to the Oscar winning actress~how inflated can one's ego be not to be named by name? I did not hear Cuba Gooding, Jr. crying a river this morning.
This type of "convenient reporting" is typical over at The View. It seems to happen each and everytime they enter the Sweeps Period. Think O'Donnell/Hasselbeck split screen, think Behar/Goldberg walk-off when they hosted O'Reilly, think Star Jones' Wedding, think Barbara Walters' heart surgery announcement, still got the thinking cap on, quick, think of last week when Hasselbeck had the spotlight whining about big, bad Bill Maher making a joke at her expense, remember that?
Sadly, for The View ratings, Maher didn't quite respond the way they had hoped. Think back to every over-the-top controversy at The View; it more than likely happened in February, May, or November.
These gals, like most celebrities, will stop at nothing to get their names in the headlines. There is no such thing as bad press as far as they are concerned, and sweeps month is a perfect opportunity to kill two birds with one stone.
Granted Ms. Walters and her pack of wolves had no control of when this article would be published, but they took advantage of it nonetheless. Who can blame them? They have voids to fill, usually around this time every February they are knee deep in the self-promotion of Bab's annual Oscar Special.
And now that that two-hour snooze fest no longer airs, our living rooms were filled with the nonsense spewed this morning. I wonder if Goldberg will appear tomorrow and apologize to Manohla Dargis and A.O. Scott, the authors of the article. They did nothing wrong except for not including Whoopi Goldberg, by name, in an article, which from their standpoint, was unintentional. She would have realized this had she read the article and used her calculator like we did.
Nothing about their reporting was sloppy. From what I read, they did not try to rewrite history. I am always shocked when the ladies (who make their money on a panel called The View), call someone to task because their "view" is less than friendly toward Goldberg, Walters, Hasselbeck, Behar, or Shepard. What hypocrites.
Goldberg headlined last weekend at the Horseshoe Casino, IN. Me thinks the Emmy, Grammy, Oscar, Tony winner needs her ego stroked. Taking an author to task for an article written is not where she should start.
Although I was super-impressed to find out during Goldberg's rant that Somalians know who she is, I read between the lines...Whoopi wants you to know who she is. Maybe some of us really don't care. Whoopi mentioned she was embarrassed by what the NYT authors wrote/forgot to write about her, once I did the math after reading the article, I was embarrassed for her.
Maybe Whoopi Goldberg should reconsider the comfort of her moderator chair on The View. Seems to me the problem with credibility doesn't lie in the article written in the New York Times, the issue of credibility appears to be at the table of The View.
Today's display staged controversy might have been headline-catching, but it left this viewer disappointed. Today was another example of the pot calling the kettle black; just another day at The View.