That’s really interesting! Thanks for sharing your inside scoop!

I just spoke to the web site manager at News 4, Jesse Sarles. He explained — as I understood it — that the section marked “weird news” was originally called “water cooler” and was designed to be about stuff that people would talk about (hence the name “water cooler”).

Anyhow, the deal is they changed it some time back to “Weird News” as a way of getting more eyeballs. But the section is still where a lot of miscellaneous stories end up. Those stories, by the way, are sent out from the CBS office in New York.

So, it would seem that the story got filed in there because that’s where stories that would get a lot of people talking would go. Whether they qualify as “weird” is another point entirely. A quick look shows that there’s a lot of stuff that wouldn’t necessarily be called “Weird.”

Mr. Sarles was quite nice about it, by the way, and didn’t indicate that concerns about racism — either on the part of people reacting to the doll or on Costco’s part — were that relevant to placing the story in “Weird News.” It was more that it was a story people would talk about.

I asked him — twice — about whether they thought it weird that Costco would let this through or thought concerns about the racism of the doll weird. He said (if I understood him correctly) that neither was part of the equation in that sense.

He also mentioned that he might change the title of the section. though he promised nothing. In addition, this issue came up before on a couple of other stories.

Jesse Sarles gets email, by the way, but if you have concerns please, please, be polite.

But if I am concerned that Barack Obama is an evil socialist Antichrist who will destroy America, and you dismiss me, does that imply that you just don’t care about morality and goodness (how shocking!)? Of course not. My concern doesn’t become more legitimate just because it is “about” something important.

When Lisa made her original post, before she realized that each doll came in each “race,” she was quite clear that she believed the manufacturer did something wrong:

Not thinking in that way consciously doesn’t mean that racism didn’t play a role in the manufacturing of a black Lil’ Monkey doll. In fact, their defense actually makes things worse. Their refusal to think about racism, in favor of a defensive reaction, is as racist as the doll itself. We can’t fight racism unless we’re prepared to admit that we hold unconscious biases.

I don’t see much ambiguity there. But when it turned out that there was a white monkey doll, she no longer claimed it was racist but was content to say that “made for an interesting discussion.” So Lisa is no longer willing to argue that the doll is actually racist.

And yet if the concern that the doll is racist is not treated with the utmost respect, well, then that’s racist. After all, other associations between black people and primates are obviously racist, and it’s not like sociologists have any critical thinking skills. We can’t expect them to be able to draw distinctions.

And also, it seems that in most, if not all, of the “weird news” stories, the punchline, the weird or amusing aspect, is in the headline. You can see that in the quoted headlines in the comments and just looking through the list on the website. That, in addition to the explanation about the different races the doll came in right under the headline, leads me to question the assertion that the existence of the doll itself is what makes the story weird rather than what’s in the headline – that costco pulled it or that it was controversial. Maybe I’m just being pessimistic.

With that cleared up, I think it would be important for you to understand that she is actually a sociologist and a professor by profession and raising questions about how society reacts to/perceives racism is her job and I imagine quite interesting to her. This particular post is more about the placement of the story, so if you really want to know whether or not she personally thinks it’s intrinsically racist, regardless of the variety of colors in which the doll was produced, then perhaps you can ask her? I’m sure she can make an argument to defend her position if that’s what you really want. There are also several posts on this blog about racism, you can look through some of the others as well if you’re interested, they discuss similar questions.

Obviously lisa is afraid to actually argue that; that’s why she says it “raises an even more interesting question” and makes “for an interesting discussion” and is pleased that “readers are quick to ask difficult questions” but never actually provides a good argument that black dolls with monkeys are intrinsically and inevitably racist.

Despite her reluctance to actually come out and say that the monkey is intrinsically racist, dismissing this possibility is apparently just a way to “deny the humanity of people of color” and indicates “a stunning lack of empathy.”

What did Martin Luther King say? “I don’t really know if our society is injust or not — I don’t have the courage to come out and say so — but I think it’s really interesting to ask that question, and if you dismiss me, then that proves that our society is unjust in a truly shocking manner.” I think I got that right. No wonder he was such an important historical figure.

So, you could make a line of dolls holding a monkey in the three races some biologists acknowledge (Caucasian, negroid, mongoloid) or the 100-some races KKK members think there are (upper-Spanish, dark-Spanish, Moorish, I don’t know, they have nuances involving defining your race including everyone you’ve ever met or everywhere you’ve ever been and then, of course, the “one true white”) or anything in between, but if you have a black doll with a monkey, it’s still racist, not inclusive? No matter what?

I’m asking this because I actually want to know. The original story (black doll w/ monkey, white doll w/ panda) pissed me off. Three colors of dolls, with both animals, just confuses me. Seems inclusive, rather than racist. (Though treating Hispanic as a race still pisses me off, but that’s not what this is focused on.)

I’m now raising a black kid – and I do hope “I have a black step-son” isn’t something met w/ as much skepticism as “I have a black friend” – and while I’m suddenly seeing racist undertones everywhere – seeing a display w/ all 6 of these dolls wouldn’t have caused me to bat an eye.

Part 2 of comment: (relevant to this story)

my first response to the category of this as “weird news” was anger – I’m used to the “weird news” section being about, crop circles, or the world’s largest pig, or a criminal getting locked in the store he’s trying to rob. However, it does seem this particular news outlet uses “weird” instead of “misc” or some other more appropriate category. As was pointed out, most stories in their “weird news” section are VERY serious and not AT ALL TRIVIAL:

* Crooks Clean Out Apple Store In 31 Seconds
* Taxi Cab Explodes Near NYC’s Times Square
* Cops: Agitated Stranger Slaps Crying Tot At Store
* Doctors Stumped By Tenn. Teen’s Tears Of Blood
* Garbage Truck Crushes Rooftop To Simulate Snow
* S. Florida Man Sues Doctor After Losing Penis
* ‘Hill Flying’ A Dangerous Trend In San Francisco
* Police: N.J. Teacher Made $1,400 Selling Grades

I doubt many people are laughing about those, they vary from serious crimes, dangerous crimes or situations, to serious medical issues. (there were 3 of the 12 stories listed that seemed more trivial)

my point is, this story is NOT being stuck in the “trivial” news section. It is NOT being trivialized.

(Though anyone who thinks we are post-racial is a complete idiot. I’ve never heard anyone seriously suggest that.)

Ick.

As opposed to the ‘weird news’ section which people of all kinds read, often thinking and talking about the stories there with friends and co-workers.

Do you want the issue read and discussed by lots of people, or do you want it filed under the ‘right’ section according to an instinctive and unjustified reading of weird=trivial??