where or where to begin…
I just packed away my hazmet gear after what I can only hope is my last visit to the cesspool into which l'affair Hinsey has descended. It looks as though the numbers have topped out at 1800+. Mostly dreck towards the end (I think a lot of people were hoping to round things up to 2000). But floating among the chest-high muck were a couple of late-entry pearls of wisdom.
Since posting my initial reaction earlier this week, I've been going round-and-round trying to sort out what this whole mess means. As MarkH put it, "the truth is never in a single thing, but in the gestalt of things." Deconstructing the gestalt of the Hinsey blowback has revealed a lot of questions about soap opera, soap opera journalism, and how the two are inextricably linked. Among the questions: Can a soap opera journalist be an advocate for soaps; can a soap journalist be a fan; what kind(s) of journalism do soap fans really want; what kind(s) do they need; can soap's print media survive with the growth of the Internet; how do the Internet soap media become economically viable (this is a question all media have been struggling with). It's a list that will keep me writing for weeks, if not months.
And those are just a few of the issues embedded in l'affair Hinsey. But let's start with some of what she actually wrote. I have to confess, it's been a while since I read either SOW or SOD on a regular basis. I can't remember exactly when Mimi Torchin stopped writing her column; it's been a few years. A woman at work used to bring Weekly in and I'd have a look, a short look - ten-minutes, tops - there just wasn't anything of substance for which I was inclined plunk down $2.99. And, as a former contributor, it was just too sad and depressing to see how far the magazine had declined..
But, I've been working from home since February, so now it's whatever I catch while I'm waiting on line at the supermarket. The truth is, anything of importance I'll have already heard about on at least one of the dozen or so soap sites I visit each day. So, I would scan the first couple of paragraphs of Hinsey's, It's Only My Opinion; I can't remember a single time there was a reason to continue. But, looking over some of what been posted in the wake of Hinsey's firing, I now fully understand the outrage.
When Snark posted the story last week, he listed three Hinsey columns he found particularly egregious. Working back in time: Strikewatch, in which Hinsey displayed a pitiful lack of understanding regarding the issues underlying the Writers Guild strike, and the impact of those issues on soap writers (follow all the links to read the letter the WGA wrote to refute Hinsey).
Next, a discussion of whether or not a man can be raped by a woman. Here, Hinsey teamed up with longtime TV Guide soap columnist and occasional SOD contributor, Michael Logan, to insult fans who were upset when, "GH label(ed) Jax's encounter with Irina 'cheating'" Rather than generate a serious discussion about a sensitive issue, fans were dismissed with, "then write to them, not to me."
And then there was the rampant hypocrisy Hinsey displayed when she took SOAPnet to task: "What is happening at SOAPnet? Our beloved soap cable channel is filling up with lame reality shows, which risks alienating longtime soap fans. And once you lose them, you're done...There's no room for AW, but there's room for reality programming about wannabe soap stars and fashionistas?," without in any way acknowledging the fact that Weekly has done exactly the same thing.
What all three of these columns have in common is that each contains the kernel of a serious, thought-provoking editorial that examined the underlying issues. But instead, Hinsey trivialized the issues and demeaned soaps and soap fans. How the WGA strike would affect soap writers in the long and short term demanded an informed and reasoned consideration of the facts. Instead, Hinsey summed up the situation with the less-than-illuminating, "Talk about screwing the pooch."
In Logan's response to his initial piece, he raised a point well worth exploring, "And now the Jaxanistas hate me for pointing out that they never raise this sorta stink when women are victimized on soaps." Logan's absolutely right when he asked where is the outrage about the mindless misogyny and gratuitous violence against women in soaps. But there was no exploring, just a lot of simplistic, crude BS that pointed the finger at the fans, instead of discussing the issue.
And SOAPnet's moving reality shows in and classic soap out contains all of the difficult issues facing both soaps and the soap media. Is there a topic more in need thoughtful examination?
But as I made my final pass though the Jossip muck, I came across something Hinsey wrote that was not just crude and coarse, but cruel and offensive, as well. In one of the last posts, #1832, "Alex's Mom" wrote:
I think it's absolutely horrifying what she wrote about the impossibility of a man being raped, but does anyone recall the column where she referred to the social skills group that autistic character Lily was attending on AMC as "moron boot camp"? This may have been mentioned once already during the last 1800 posts, and if it has, I apologize. But as one of the fishwives and the mother of an autistic child, I was pretty wounded by that comment. I wrote the editor thanking them for interviewing Dr.Bernard Rimland in that issue and trying to help raise autism awareness but pointed out that what Ms. Hinsey wrote was sure to upset a few people. Of course, you all can guess what the outcome of all that was...nothing
I don't know if Hinsey thought she was trying to be funny; I do know she will not be missed...
© 2008 Lynn Liccardo
Limited Licensing: I, the copyright holder of this work, hereby publish it under the Creative Commons Attribution license, granting distribution of my copyrighted work without making changes, with mandatory attribution to Lynn Liccardo and for non-commercial purposes only. Lynn Liccardo
- Login Or register To Post Comments
- Send To A Friend
RSS- Bookmark With:
Mark Harding says:
I'm feeling worse by the minute about what was done to Hinsey
I am struggling so much with the meaning of this whole Hinsey affair.
When I look at those 1800+ posts, it feels like an initial group of angry people (perhaps appropriately) began bashing her. But, if you analogize it to something in real life, initially a few people began beating on (retaliating on) the bully. Soon, though, a circle of onlookers formed, and then they started getting their kicks in too. And soon, you have mass attack that may very well have ruined Hinsey's career.
Mass attack. Don't call me melodramatic when I say that phrases like "wilding", "gang rape" and "group think" come to mind.
I AM NOT DEFENDING HINSEY for her alleged crimes. I am also not saying there was not truth in that thread. Even Marlena Delacroix, in her blog today, clearly states she was harmed by Hinsey...or at least (more on this later) by the corporation for which she worked.
Let me also say I know NOTHING about any facts here. I am not an insider...just a viewer...so I am not disputing facts.
I simply believe that there has been a "piling on", in which I was complicit by visiting and revisiting (and revisiting) that Jossip thread. The gleeful Schadenfreude. I feel vaguely (maybe I am melodramatic) like Dachau neighbor in Nazi Germany. By merely countenancing it, I was a part of something wrong.
So, let me list a couple of the fleeting streams of consciousness that are troubling me.
1. There are stories that Carolyn battled publicists and rival publications for exclusive access and scoops. Does this make her unusual or different? I somehow STRONGLY believe that this level of journalistic bullying for exclusivity is part of the game...whether it be Dianne Sawyer battling Katie Couric for the latest "get", or People outbidding The Star for pictures of Brangelina's baby. This is what our media is.
So, when publicists and writers from other shows and even people from the shows now profess disdain for her aggressive tactics, is this unusual? Is she the only player of that game?
2. There are stories about payola. I cannot comment on these, or how she linked Blondie's to coverage promises. I guess this is an area where I wish there could be TRUE investigative journalism.
3. There are stories about abuse of employees. Now, here, again, I view this as allegation until there is evidence. I'm SURE it was true. Totally. But as we all know, things get mixed up.
- She is a brassy New Yorker. The stereotype of such a person is "loud", "in your face", etc. We love brassy New Yorkers in many contexts. How much of her 'abusive' nature was really attributable to this?
- She is alleged to be a heavy drinker. If this is true, how much of her behavior was due to an untreated disease? What allowances, if any, should we make for this? Did her behavior get worse as her disease progressed?
- She is alleged to have been abusive to employees, asing "peons" to do things below their station. Now, I have been a peon...and I have had people who report to me. And you know what...at some level we ALL hate our boss. No matter how much we love our boss...when it comes to performance evaluations or following instructions...all of us at some time have some flash of resentment at a boss. So, how much is the outrage at Hinsey usual and normal. Bonnie Fuller keeps getting mentioned. But even a less extreme editor...would they evoke these kinds of feelings?
4. There is Snark's important statement that she was a hypocrite. To wit, she complained that Soapnet was promoting non-soaps and dropping classic soaps...all the while her magazines were doing the same. Good point. I see several possibilities:
- She shows an appalling lack of self-awareness, and so the alleged mistreatment of employees (basically, failing to consider their humanity) may reflect that same lack of awareness as her contradictory messages in column-vs-cover/content
- She was sending a message about how she REALLY feels. Maybe what she wrote in her column was her true feeling, and the non-soap cover/content were concessions to bosses (Primedia or Source Interlink) or real market factors that she would ignore at her peril. Let's be clear...even now, SOD runs different covers for subscribers versus newstand, because covers determine sales. As much as we had those sensationalistic covers, they wouldn't be there if they didn't sell magazines.
We might wish it to be different, but I don't think we want these magazines to run at a loss.
Years ago, when Ms. Magazine was losing its identity due to advertisers, they decided to go into a completely self-supporting model (no ads). I haven't followed the fortunes of that publication, but I imagine it is as hard a go for Ms. as it is for PBS. Still, people WILL support Ms./PBS/NPR. But will they freely pay $10/issue for SOW/SOD to avoid advertiser-dictated content? I think not...
5. There really IS a category of leader like this...horrid to work for...inspires great things. Leona Helmsley, Donald Trump. I'll bet their employees hated/hate them just as much. But I worry that sometimes extreme greatness sometimes coexists with extreme horridness. Do we want to forego greatness because it comes with a lot of sh*t?
I don't know....I AM AWARE that there is a different path. You don't have to be Bobby Knight. You CAN be Billy Donovan. The truth, however, is that there are a lot of Bobbys out there.
6. I wish I had my last copy of "It's Only My Opinion" here. I read it and re-read it this week. It's really quite good. She writes with a distinctive loud voice...that in your face thing...but it is SO refreshing in a soap press THAT STILL HASN'T TOLD US ABOUT THE RISE AND FALL OF LYNN LATHAM WITH HONESTY (as one example). To hear a voice decrying GH's violence or the backburnering of veterans or the over-use of newbies or... is REFRESHING. If she DID cut exclusive deals with shows and had favorites...I still maintain she was also the most consistently critical (with love) voice.
I cannot excuse her telling the soap writers not to strike. I cannot excuse her for saying Jax was not raped on GH. But just because she wrote awful, wrong things....must we negate that she was ALSO sometimes a force for good?
Why is it so impossible for many of us to believe that the two could co-exist?
7. The deeper recipient of my disdain is, and will be, SOD/SOW and their corporate owner. I believe it is THEIR malfeasance that lost us Mimi Torchin and Marlena Delacroix. I believe it is THEIR market research that got us American Idol on the SOW cover. I believe it is THEIR pandering to the lowest common denominator that explains why we have virtually no SERIOUS or DEEP interviews with writers/producers/directors. I believe that the culture of "publicity agreements" between shows and magazines has led to neutered, pandering content...rather than critical analysis.
Let's put this another way, and then I'll stop my rant. If this implosion happened at the New York Times, NYT would (sooner or later) run a self-reflective accounting of what happened, and an analysis of it. Our respect for NYT would grow because of the transparency.
I HAVE NO CONFIDENCE that SOD/SOW will _ever_ address this change. We are not supposed to notice. In so doing...SOD/SOW underestimates its audience...underestimates that Carolyn had fans and detractors ALL OF WHOM want to hear the story.
In truth, the ultimate casualty of this whole affair for me has been the fragile respect I still had for these magazines. I no longer trust that they will ever tell me the REAL truth about something unless advertisers and/or the shows want me to know that. With that...I think I'm done.
I think I have to cancel my subscriptions (with sadness, because as goofy as it sounds, SOD was a lifeline for me--first to my grandmother, and then to my 'home' when I lived overseas--for almost 30 years). Unless there is stem-to-stern change in management and editorial policies, nothing will have been gained.
We're left with the 1800+ spectacle of a woman -- bully or not, nasty or not, evil or not -- having been beaten to a pulp by a thronging mass of group think, out for virtual blood...delighting in taking down the mighty. I'm so proud of myself for having participated in that.
Patrick Erwin says:
To Mark
Mark - thanks for your post here.
I have to say, if people wanted to criticize her writing or even call her a bitch based on her opinions or their interactions with her, that was one thing. Suggesting anger management classes? Fine.
But I became very troubled after a while by the attacks about Carolyn's physical appearance. Because we already have plenty of places (especially on line) where differently-sized people can have the validity of their opinions and their lives debated and/or denounced.
Lynn Liccardo says:
glad to see you mark, you too, patrick...
no argument that things spiraled out of control. as patrick noted, "God knows, the Internet is an ugly place; anywhere you can be anonymous always is." and yes, there was certainly an aspect of “wilding.” but not entirely, because among all of the ugliness, there were some very insightful observations; the post i sited above about hinsey’s inexcusable comment re autism was among the last.
as for hinsey’s future career (or not), if even a small portion of what’s she’s been accused of is verified, then however things turn out for her, she’ll be reaping what she has sown. and, at least early in the thread, i think that why most of us kept going back. was because the anger seemed so righteous and authentic that we felt were witnessing some kind of karmic justice unfolding. as i said in the previous post, given what alan carter posted, along with a few back channel exchanges i’ve had with people who would know, the substance of the thread seems to be correct. so i didn’t feel, i knew.
as far as being “a part of something wrong,” i absolutely do not feel that way. i suppose i felt more like a crime reporter, or crime scene investigator; you can’t get to the facts without observing and examining the evidence, however disturbing the evidence may be. i'm in agreement with patrick: “I’m beginning to think we are at the tipping point, where the whole industry is about to implode.” i’ve actually been feeling that way for quite a while; and i knew almost immediately that this incident had the potential to be a watershed moment. i wasn’t alone; as sara bibel noted, “buried in the addictive train wreck is some serious commentary about soap opera journalism.”
as distasteful as this incident may have been, i do see much good coming out of it, not least of which is this and other discussions that have emerged in response. disagreement is not a bad thing; it’s how disagreement is expressed. to quote patrick one more time, “ Any good editorial should be thoughtful, thought-provoking, and filled with ideas that, even if you disagree, may shape your own outlook.” i hope that’s what’s happening here, and elsewhere, as well.
you mentioned the future of the soap press. here’s how “ginaldi” responded to patrick's hinsey piece:
.we are on the cusp of either a major turning point, or a point of no return, for American soap opera. The saving grace right now is the explosion, post-strike, of new voices on the internet, including your own. Here are people who care about soaps as an institution, who respect the traditions and want desperately to save the medium. If the Execs at both the nets and SourceInterlink were smart, they would be tapping this resource to save both the soaps and the soap press.
one more positive result of the hinsey incident is the acceleration of that process, she said hopefully….
Jennifer Gibbons says:
wow...
I had no idea she said such lame ass things-"moron boot camp?" Lovely. Lady, you're going to be lucky if you can get a job writing for the Penny Saver.