|
Post by Hamatron on Apr 22, 2015 21:21:41 GMT -4
Anyone who participates in an ancestry discovery show is a private citizen -- it's not mandatory to be on the show -- but when they sign on, they are agreeing to take part in a program that will air publicly. It's against the spirit of the program -- and journalism ethics in general -- to let a celebrity guest dictate content. He's not the showrunner, editor, or director. Wasn't there something similar with Benedict Cumberbatch awhile ago, he got in some hot water? He got in trouble because his ancestors were slave traders? Am I making that up? But even if that's right, his career seems to be doing pretty well. Yeah, his situation was way more shady because when questioned about how his family made their money from slavery, he said that his mother told him not to use his real name professionally because she feared that he could face reparation claims from descendants. Around that time, he also got schooled for using the word "colored" when talking about black actors. But yeah, you can be a pretty shitty person and still get work in Hollywood. So Ben didn't have to worry about ancestry stopping his career. Batman, on the other hand...
|
|
|
Post by canuckcutie on Apr 22, 2015 21:39:39 GMT -4
I'm with Witchie - I think I'm almost most offended by his pathetic apology than his attempt at buying his family past.
He points out that he's a celebrity and he's used to getting his own way when it comes to edits - self entitled. It's not really a news program y'all, it's just entertainment! And well poor Ben felt so vulnerable on that TV talking voluntarily about his family! It's excuse after excuse. Basically he's used to getting his own way and he bullied the shows host, his good buddy "Skip", into caving. Gross.
|
|
kali
Sloane Ranger
Posts: 2,446
Jul 1, 2008 23:07:20 GMT -4
|
Post by kali on Apr 23, 2015 7:25:45 GMT -4
If he wasn't so clearly wrapped up in his image of a progressive, intellectual friend of the common man, I don't think people would've been so disgusted. I think things like this are a big reason why you see minorities scoff at the idea of white allies. Because when the chips are down, it's still all about the white man's ego and protecting his own image. This situation casts a very unflattering light on just how sincere Ben's politics actually are. How much does he actually care vs. how much does it just feed his ego to be seen as the good guy?
|
|
thneed
Landed Gentry
Posts: 816
Jun 19, 2006 0:42:40 GMT -4
|
Post by thneed on Apr 23, 2015 9:12:45 GMT -4
The more I think about it, the more I wonder why PBS even agreed to do it. It's not like anyone watches that show because they desperately want to see Ben Affleck's ancestors, so if he declined to participate as a result, who cares? Makes me wonder if this is something they do regularly. And if Ben is friends with Dr. Gates, why didn't he tell him to stop being a big baby. What surprises me is there's no evidence (that I've seen) of someone trying to talk him out of this.
I mean, I get why Ben did this. Because celebrities are giant narcissists who are used to having every insane whim catered to, and whose job it is to care only about their image. The Sony hack revealed tons of pettiness and self-obsession that stars would me mortified if they got out, and that's probably a tiny fraction of how much stuff like this actually happens. All in a day's work. And the consensus seems to be that, in addition to everything else, Ben was dumb to do this because it wouldn't have affected his career of public image anyway. But what if it would have?
If people would have thought less of him after this, seen him in a negative light, doesn't it make sense he'd try to mitigate that? Is that a question even worth asking? I still don't approve of it, but celebrities to that sort of thing every day. It's just usually not about the most shameful part of America's past.
|
|
|
Post by americanchai on Apr 23, 2015 9:30:02 GMT -4
This reminds me of Louise Erdrich's episode of Gates's other ancestry show Faces of America. Part of that was doing the DNA swab/analysis of ethnic genotypes and Erdrich (who is 1/4 Ojibwe but whose literary career is 100% based on this part of her heritage) refused to let him reveal hers on the show because she argued that it wasn't just her DNA but belonged to her whole family and they hadn't necessarily agreed to reveal it. It was a little odd and made people (on other websites) question what she was trying to hide.
I'm actually happy if Affleck's situation brings more popularity to this program because I love these kinds of shows and I think Gates does a good job (not perfect, but good) of bringing historical context to people's family history. I think the subject needs to be willing to be open about what is found but maybe they should discuss with their families before they agree to do the show, you know? You might find Charlemagne but you also might find a small-town community's version of Genghis Khan.
|
|
|
Post by chonies on Apr 23, 2015 9:55:52 GMT -4
This reminds me of Louise Erdrich's episode of Gates's other ancestry show Faces of America. Part of that was doing the DNA swab/analysis of ethnic genotypes and Erdrich (who is 1/4 Ojibwe but whose literary career is 100% based on this part of her heritage) refused to let him reveal hers on the show because she argued that it wasn't just her DNA but belonged to her whole family and they hadn't necessarily agreed to reveal it. It was a little odd and made people (on other websites) question what she was trying to hide. I'm actually happy if Affleck's situation brings more popularity to this program because I love these kinds of shows and I think Gates does a good job (not perfect, but good) of bringing historical context to people's family history. I think the subject needs to be willing to be open about what is found but maybe they should discuss with their families before they agree to do the show, you know? You might find Charlemagne but you also might find a small-town community's version of Genghis Khan. I actually thought that Erdrich's response was very dignified because the discussion about native DNA and blood quantum is loaded and very sensitive in Indian politics and culture. It has a different layer of meaning, and I don't blame her at all. Another thing that's relevant specifically to Erdrich is that her former husband, the writer Michael Dorris, was revealed to have not have had any Indian ancestry despite a similarly-themed career, although it was possible that he hadn't realized that. I forget the details, but I think it had something to do with an extramarital conception two generations back, or something. On the other hand, Ben Jealous's DNA was something like 85% white and because of the nature of his specific family and cultural background, he was able to use the conversation as a discussion point. The more I think about it, the more irritated I am at Affleck. Gates's public career has been about showing how complicated and layered slavery and ethnicity is in the Americas, and Ben didn't think the rules of this specific show applied to him--this is the problem with genealogy. A lot of people think they're going to uncover royalty or some heroic immigration story, or a tie to a specific event, but that's not always the case, and I think worse of Ben for asking for this to be cut out. I don't know what I would have done as the host. I mean, I'm not ripshit pissed about this (and I was already not into Ben), but to me it feels like Ben was running an experiment and he didn't like the results, so he fudged some data. Like making a movie based on fact where the real narrative is inconveniently less than completely heroic or noble. As far as why would anyone participate in meeting either the people who owned one's ancestors or the descendants of those who did or who were enslaved, everyone surely has their own reasons and emotional structures in place. Of course there's no apologizing, but there is an honesty in opening the door to this sort of encounter. And I certainly don't blame anyone who doesn't want to, either. ETA: According to the DM, Affleck's three slave-owning ancestors were unrelated, and lived in Georgia, New Jersey and Connecticut. Somehow this irritates me even more, but now I'm mostly annoyed that Ben is taking up headspace I could otherwise fill.
|
|
|
Post by Witchie on Apr 23, 2015 12:56:01 GMT -4
Ben's at it again. Just STFU. You are making it worse. FBThis shit here is why I feel justified in my dislike. He's so damn busy trying to dodge responsibility for his actions. Just admit you messed up and move on. Stop trying to clean up your damn image at someone else's expense!
|
|
|
Post by canuckcutie on Apr 23, 2015 13:01:31 GMT -4
But in the leaked emails which Skip had no idea we the public would ever read, Affleck is described as wanting the info left out. There was no indication from Skip that the info was in a preliminary form and was so brief that PBS would exclude it - it was this guy wants it left out so what should I do?
Affleck keeps digging that hole deeper.
|
|
Deleted
Posts: 0
May 18, 2024 14:15:07 GMT -4
|
Post by Deleted on Apr 23, 2015 13:28:09 GMT -4
Now we can see what the show was like before it was edited, and there seems to have been no reason for Ben to have wanted it cut. He reacted to the news appropriately and there was nothing to be embarrassed about....at the time. So by insisting that his slaveowner ancestor be edited out, he forced PBS to change the entire narrative of the episode, which is pretty selfish and unprofessional. I'd really like to know what or who made him go through with insisting on the edit.
|
|
|
Post by sugarhigh on Apr 23, 2015 13:35:17 GMT -4
Yes, and now due to the fact that Gawker got the picture-locked copy of the script, it's bullshit that the info was taken out in a preliminary cut. He should just stop and lie low until his next movie needs to be promoted.
|
|