On April 29th, the mothership ran this interview with Captain Britain and MI: 13 writer Paul Cornell. Within a few hours of posting, it was edited to remove offensive content and the message board thread comments pertaining to the edited area were removed.
This screencapture of the offensive content has been passed around the blogosphere:
A number of people are understandably upset by the second question and the circumstances under which it disappeared. Rather than do an editorial this week, I contacted Matt Brady for a short question and answer session about the subject.
Due to a severe scheduling and location conflict, this took considerably longer than we meant for it to. I apologize for the delay.
LISA: What exactly happened with the Paul Cornell interview and the last couple of questions that were removed from the site?
MB: Glad to fill you in, Lisa. A question was asked that was poorly phrased and perhaps not thought out as well as it could have been beforehand, and the exchange was then regrettably missed in the editing process. We apologize to anyone who was offended.
There is really no excuse — it was a bad judgment call on Ben’s part and we certainly should have caught it before it was posted. We obviously always try to be thorough when proof reading an interview, but this one unfortunately slipped through the cracks.
That said, as soon as it was pointed out to me, the passage was removed.
LISA: It seemed odd that Ben would ask that question. Did he indicate why he asked it?
MB: Given Ben’s geographical location relative to Mr. Cornell’s, the interview, like many seen today on various entertainment sites such as Newsarama, was conducted via e-mail. A list of questions was sent for Mr. Cornell to answer. As is the case with conducting an interview like that, there can be a disjointed feel to the flow, that is, the question following an answer isn’t always picking up on what was said previously. That was the case here - which was then, at the end, amended by the interviewer with a poor attempt at humor.
LISA: When and how did you find out that the question was posted? How long did it take to pull it down?
MB: I usually review the threads that go up on any given day shortly after they’re posted. When I saw the complaints about that final question, I took it down immediately, and, as is customary, removed the posts mentioning it, as the question in the interview itself had been removed. We do that occasionally to avoid the “Hey, what are you talking about, there was no ____ mentioned in that interview” comments that can lead to a back and forth, and derail the whole thread from that point onwards. We should have explained the misunderstanding right away to prevent any confusion.
LISA: What’s the policy for retractions on Newsarama? Was there a reason you didn’t note you’d removed that part?
MB: Normally, if spelling/grammatical errors are found within a narrow window after the article was posted, they’ll be corrected without note, as other online news outlets can be seen to do virtually every day. When the change involves correcting a factual error or clarifying something that was said by the subject, those are noted at the end. To date, large changes of that nature are few and far between.
In this case, I felt the window was small enough - from the time the interview was posted to readers pointing out the question - that it could be edited without many people noting (obviously, I underestimated Newsarama’s readership, and it had already been seen by many readers). I removed it (in retrospect, removed more than was necessary, clearly), and the posts referring to it, and moved on.
Pulling it without comment was a mistake on my part for which I take full responsibility. I deeply apologize to those who were truly hurt by the question asked in the interview, and I apologize for not posting a message explaining what had happened. Clearly, the situation could have been handled much better than it was.
LISA: Most people read an interview as though the interviewer sat down with a person and they wrote down what was said. This doesn’t always work for reading e-mail interviews. Things can get awkward when a question is left in after the subject has already answered it fully, or a controversial statement gets dropped without a followup question behind it. Here you ended up with the worst case possible for email interviews: a question asking if a character has violent extremist leanings after Cornell explains that a character is an “everyday British Muslim.” Is the convenience offered by email interviews worth losing the flexibility of real-time person-to-person interaction?
MB: To some extent, I’d agree with that. Placing the process in context here, you had, on one hand, Ben asking questions about a project that was, at the time, still coming up, so there were still some cards being played close to the vest in terms of story and character. A list of questions was generated based on what was known, and a few “fishing expedition” questions were added in just to see if there were some blind alleys that could be walked down (to completely mix metaphors) and yield interesting results. Looking at the questions themselves, I can see how someone could come up with a list such as that… a) what is Faiza’s life like given the world today? b) did she join the team with an ulterior motive? Given that little was known about the project or the character in question – it’s a valid line of questioning.
Again, I can see the progression – there was some fishing going on, but, yes, charged words were used, and I guarantee you no offense was meant by Ben’s question. He did not come from a bigoted point of view in asking it, but I can see, given the way it was asked and the tacked on joke afterwards, that it might have been interpreted in that manner, and again, I apologize for those who were offended by it.
LISA: Modern comic book creators don’t shy away from current events and political themes even in light superhero fare, and more and more fans seem to be touching on social issues as they relate to the stories told in the medium. After this week’s experience, are you going to be handling things differently when it comes to political matters? Are there any guidelines you’ll be giving to your contributors when it comes to sensitive topics?
MB: Heh – DC announced Decisions, and Marvel has never shied away from blending the real world into its stories. Heck, the marketing groundwork for Secret Invasion has been done for Marvel by several governments around the world who are urging all of their citizens to keep their eyes open for regular people acting strangely. You’ve got the two major publishers touching upon some form of political allegory in their works. Creators are bringing it out in various ways in independent books. I don’t think there’s a way not to be handling political matters in comics these days. Not every day in every project, but politics and the issues are omnipresent these days. It’s hard to avoid them.
So, to answer the question, when stories do start to cross back and forth with politics and the real world, we will continue to ask questions that are pertinent to the topic, and those questions will be asked in a straightforward manner.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:33 am
“Looking at the questions themselves, I can see how someone could come up with a list such as that… a) what is Faiza’s life like given the world today? b) did she join the team with an ulterior motive? Given that little was known about the project or the character in question – it’s a valid line of questioning.”
No, it really isn’t. Especially not the way the question was phrased. I honestly can’t imagine the controversy that would occur if a comic company introduced a Muslim character, especially one brought up or living in a Western culture, only for them to turn out to be vile and evil (just like the rest of their religion, kids!)
Seriously…jihad?
May 13th, 2008 at 10:41 am
Oh blimey! We’re all doomed!
May 13th, 2008 at 10:45 am
John,
I think that it’s valid to ask if ANY character joined any team with an ulterior motive. Perhaps that motive is to demonstrate to the people of Britain and the world that Muslims are good people, too. Ulterior suggests concealed, not sinister. How is questioning a character’s motivation NOT valid?
Did Ben ask it in a ham-fisted way? Yeah. Is the spirit of the question (what’s her motivation? does she have an agenda?) valid? Sure.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:51 am
Oh, if Ben was wondering if she was joining the team to promote the peaceful side of the Muslim religion, and happiness and puppies and all that good stuff, I’d be all for it.
But he didn’t, he specifically asked if she was gonna jihad the infidels. It’s text, so neither us nor Cornell can tell if he’s just making a bad joke or not. It’s either really bad judgement (which seriously calls for a statement expressing as much), or blatant racism. Pick one.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:54 am
Oh, if Ben was wondering if she was joining the team to promote the peaceful side of the Muslim religion, and happiness and puppies and all that good stuff, I’d be all for it.
But he didn’t, he specifically asked if she was gonna jihad the infidels. It’s text, so neither us nor Cornell can tell if he’s just making a bad joke or not. It’s either really bad judgement (which seriously calls for a statement expressing as much), or blatant racism. Pick one.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:57 am
Has Paul Cornell spoken about all this yet? What’s his take? His response in the interview seems, well, shocked..
May 13th, 2008 at 11:40 am
I guess what bothers me as much, if not more than, the original question was Newsarama’s handling of it. Edit out the offensive question — that’s one thing. But to delete all references and comments referring to it sure seemed like they were trying to hide this one under the rug.
Newsarama might not like the direction a message board thread is going, but deleting out the messages you’re afraid might “derail” the thread — especially when such messages are criticizing the interviewer or site — is WAY heavyhanded.
It’s like John Byrne is a mod here or something.
May 13th, 2008 at 12:55 pm
What’s dumber: that they asked a question that was rendered entirely unecessary based on Cornell’s previous answer, or that they screwed up and left that whole thing in there in the first place!
Treasure this post, for soon it will be redacted! Tell the people!
May 13th, 2008 at 1:11 pm
“I guess what bothers me as much, if not more than, the original question was Newsarama’s handling of it. Edit out the offensive question — that’s one thing. But to delete all references and comments referring to it sure seemed like they were trying to hide this one under the rug.”
Newsarama should still have a front page retraction-apology…not hide it in the Blog@feature (no offense…I do read the blog just as much as the front page, but I don’t know if everyone else does).
May 13th, 2008 at 1:20 pm
The reaction seems disproportionately angry, to me. The way I read it he was ham-handedly asking if this was going to turn into something negative. That’s why he reacted to Cornell’s reaction like that, it was like “Oh, crap, I f’d that up, didn’t I?”.
Only questionable thing here was leaving it in the posted interview.
And the strangely volatile way some people reacted to it as if he was saying something about their religion when he was saying something about the portrayal of their religion.
The reactions do not in any way do anything to dissuade outsiders who think Islam is an angry religion. Even the slightest perceived slight seems to be treated as supreme blasphemy.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:38 pm
This isn’t an apology. This is, to paraphrase, “I’m sorry you took the comment wrong.”
Look, flat out, the question asked was in remarkably poor taste and *incredibly* offensive to Muslims like myself. Asking if a character has ulterior motives is one thing. Asking if she’s planning a jihad, simply because she’s a Muslim, is racist, bigoted, and ignorant.
Just because some terrorist are Muslims doesn’t mean all terrorists are Muslims. Or should we start assuming all Christians are terrorists because of the IRA, the Klu Klux Klan, and the Timothy McVeigh?
There *really* should have been a formal retraction and apology. It amazes me how time and time again the superhero industry proves its immaturity.
Matt Brady and Benjamin Ong Pang Kean? You’re assholes.
May 13th, 2008 at 1:57 pm
“Newsarama should still have a front page retraction-apology…not hide it in the Blog@feature”
There is also an apology at the end of the original interview.
May 13th, 2008 at 2:04 pm
“It amazes me how time and time again the superhero industry proves its immaturity.
Matt Brady and Benjamin Ong Pang Kean? You’re assholes.”
If that was intentional, that’s pretty funny.
This whole thing sounds like a tasteless attempt at humor combined with bad judgment, followed by the usual bloodthirsty reaction. An apology and explanation has been issued. Hopefully we won’t see that kind of idiocy from Ben in the future. Lesson should be learned. This thing’s pretty much over.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:00 pm
I’m surprised that Rich showed up here and didn’t say, “blimey, if I had just contacted Matt Brady, maybe this explanation would have run in my column yesterday!”
C’mon, Rich…think about it…if you had bothered to shoot an e-mail like you would have for an allegedly non-paying publisher, you’d have had this AND done the right thing. Does the whole bit about your column appearing on a competing site work its way into the thought process?
On the issue, as bad as this whole thing was, the biggest problem was why the interviewer would think that was something to leave in (which is a problem of smarts, not sensitivity).
As a Muslim (and, no, that doesn’t mean I can speak for all), I don’t think the question (composed before any answers) was bigotry. As much as I love comics, they often take simplistic angles. Thus, it is fair to ask whether the character was going to be used as someone with an ulterior motive…or even to see if she was going to be someone the group was somewhat suspicious of at some point.
Kean made a stupid mistake to leave in a question that led a creator to want to cuss him out. Matt made an honest mistake thinking he caught it quick enough that he avoided any real offense. And now it’s been addressed…
May 13th, 2008 at 3:04 pm
As a writer/editor in another industry, I’m familiar with the awkwardness that results from email Q&As, but that, friends, is what the editor is there to catch and fix. Better yet, the writer would catch and edit the piece before submitting it. So there are two points at which this could and should have been caught–and wasn’t. Shabby work all around.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:05 pm
As a writer/editor in another industry, I’m familiar with the awkwardness that results from email Q&As, but that, friends, is what the editor is there to catch and fix. Better yet, the writer would catch and edit the piece before submitting it. So there are two points at which this could and should have been caught–and wasn’t. Shabby workmanship.
May 13th, 2008 at 3:08 pm
(Sorry about the double-post. Speaking of shabby…)
May 13th, 2008 at 4:09 pm
KCRange,
It’s an attempt at being humorous through irony. Brady and Kean don’t understand decency or how to act like adults, so hopefully they understand labels like “assholes.” I’m glad someone got it!
I’m just sick and tired of people insulting my religion and then blowing it off by saying something like, paraphrasing again, “It’s a valid question. Sorry if you misunderstood it.”
All Muslims aren’t terrorists and the vast majority of us are disgusted, offended, etc at the actions of terrorists. I’m just tired of being humiliated by terrorists taking my religion in vain *and* people like Kean mocking my religion. It’s a two headed battle and I’m angry.
I’m a rather devout Muslim, I take my religion seriously. All I’m asking for is the same respect every other religion gets. If someone had made a similar comment about Judaism or Christianity, there would be an anger orgasm and a proper apology.
It’s like Cheryl Lynn said, it’s not just the comment, it’s that we’re not even worth a proper apology.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:23 pm
You know, I think I’ve learned something valuable over the past few years of visiting this site. Certain contributors look to find humor in everything, whether it be through snarky comments, little skits, or over the top questioning. Sometimes it works, most of the time it does not. The comics journalism world seems to believe they can get away with being funny because, hey, it’s comics! We can be laid back without a stick up our ass like the guys at the NY Times. Right?
I say if you took a little bit more from column B than column A, the entire site would be feel a bit more respectable. As for deleting every single reference to the mistake, that was a mistake in and of itself. After all, trying to sweep something under the rug does nothing but breathe greater controversy. One would hope both parties have learned a lesson after this and will be more respectful, serious, and on point in the future. One would hope.
May 13th, 2008 at 4:43 pm
So Kenny, you’re fighting an unfortunate, mistaken stereotype of your relgion by angrily ranting about a stupid question in an interview rather than doing anything else to change perception and spread peace and information?
Good work!
As for the deletion, isn’t the removal of the offending comment and all references to the comment a GOOD thing? Wouldn’t just leaving them there be a problem? How about that’s less “sweeping it under the rug” and more being responsible by preventing anyone new from being offended? Or is it just easier to point a finger and shriek like Donald Sutherland in “Invasion of the Body Snatchers”?
May 13th, 2008 at 6:00 pm
It would be so damn funny if Faiza does have an agenda being on the team, like being a Skrull deep sleeper agent or something. I will laugh and laugh….
May 13th, 2008 at 6:17 pm
Yeah, how dare Kenny expect that arguably the largest comic book site on the internet exhibit a little taste when interviewing talent…
Yeesh.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:38 pm
I think the question was in poor taste. I also think that this seems to be another in a list of examples where the oversight on Newsarama has really slipped.
I’ve had constant problems where story and image links to not work correctly and have to be corrected after already being posted. This was noted in the recent article on the Hulk custom-drawn covers when the image links did not work for almost 24 hours after the story was posted.
And if you click on the ad-link for Oni Press’ “Wasteland” on the front page, it takes you to the wrong publisher’s website. I have emailed three times about this and it’s still not fixed.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:42 pm
I think Newsarama should have made an apology about the comment. To be honest now that we have the actual context it appears as though the two questions were originally phrased as one and Mr Cornell separated them out - creating the impression that the offensive comment was a follow-up, one that completely ignored the original response. I suspect it wouldn’t have generated as much controversy if it had been printed as part of the first question and not highlighted in this way.
May 13th, 2008 at 6:43 pm
It gets fixed if it relates to a DC story. Brady cares about DC, not Oni.
Anyway. Matt Brady in censoring Marvel news piece. Film at 11.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:02 pm
Speaking as a Muslim, I was pretty pissed with the question, and thought the handling of the fallout was a little clumsy. But I don’t think Benjamin or Brady are “assholes”; it’s an unfortunate situation that they clearly regret. I’m fine with Brady’s apology here, though it would be nice to here from Benjamin.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:09 pm
“hear”
May 13th, 2008 at 7:14 pm
Kenny: clean up your own house before you start screaming at Newsarama to clean up theirs. You know what I’m talking about.
May 13th, 2008 at 7:39 pm
Oh…this is great…rude, crude arguing about this as if it will create a better world. And Adam’s “clean up your own house” will, undoubtedly, help usher in a group hug…
May 13th, 2008 at 7:42 pm
A strongly worded e-mail or comment to a news site when offended is nowhere close the same as an act of violence, so stop implying that complaining about stereotypes of Muslims is somehow confirming them, because it’s not.
And the burden of representing every single member of the second largest religion in the world does not fall solely on Kenny’s shoulders, so back off that angle on the conversation.
May 13th, 2008 at 9:14 pm
who cares. wayyy wayyy my feelings are hurt. get over it nerds.
May 13th, 2008 at 10:07 pm
It gets fixed if it relates to a DC story. Brady cares about DC, not Oni.
Anyway. Matt Brady in censoring Marvel news piece. Film at 11.
————
Yep, the REAL conspiracy here is that Matt Brady is pro-DC. Silly people, talking about offensive questions and jokes like they really matter…
May 13th, 2008 at 10:39 pm
Oh man it’s like those Dutch cartoons all over again…
EXCEPT ON THE INTERNET
May 13th, 2008 at 10:42 pm
Oh wait I just noticed khuxford posted.
Hey remember when you were following me from thread to thread going on about me being banned from Newsarama and you cheering when that day happens?
HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHHAHAHAHA
May 13th, 2008 at 11:41 pm
Terram: Kevin Huxford was not banned from Newsarama. And he’s actually been here to contribute to the conversation. Can you say the same?
May 13th, 2008 at 11:55 pm
As a person who has made a (at least one) stupid, thoughtless comment on these boards, and then after being called on it both retracting it and apologizing for it, I have to say, taking responsibility for your own screw-ups can go a long way.
I missed this whole thing in its happening. I can see the side of it being just an err in judgment, and maybe a joke or honest question gone horribly wrong. I’m not asking for anyone’s head on a pike here.
But the person who made the comment could probably start the healing process a lot better for apologizing for himself, instead of it being handled third party as a side bar. If he just explained his actual intent, I think that would go a long way towards understanding.
Just an opinion.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:46 am
The reactions do not in any way do anything to dissuade outsiders who think Islam is an angry religion. Even the slightest perceived slight seems to be treated as supreme blasphemy.
Bullshit. I’m not a Muslim - hell, I don’t even like religion (any of them) - and even *I* found that shit offensive.
May 14th, 2008 at 1:08 am
I’m so glad I am not a person who gets easily offended. I had to re-read the interview 3 times, then the article, and finally all the responses in order to actually figure out what the hell was supposedly so offensive.
I couldn’t figure out for the life of me if the offensive material was still censored out or was somehow in there.
Must be all that South Park and Family Guy I’ve been watching…
May 14th, 2008 at 2:28 am
“There is also an apology at the end of the original interview.”
Well…obviously not the original article…and I don’t remember it being there after the editing…TRUST ME I was one of the first people to read the unedited article that morning…one other thing, this is different than “those Dutch cartoons”…this interview wasn’t meant as a political satire, obviously. And it doesn’t matter what religion was talked about, it’d be the same as having a Catholic on the team and asking “is she gonna drink blood, eat flesh, and worship zombies, while secretly planning to blow up abortion clinics?”…in the right context something like that could be funny, there was no “right context” in this case.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:11 am
People need to get over themselves already. I am sick to death of society having to bend over backwards to appease the one religious group whose “tolerance and acceptance” of others is shockingly dismal in comparison. Enough is enough. As I said before, clean your own damn house before you start critcizing others about theirs.
May 14th, 2008 at 6:45 am
Hold on a second… Newsarama *has* an editing process?
May 14th, 2008 at 8:41 am
I’m a British Muslim. I missed the interview, but having read Matt’s response, I’m happy the explaination.
The original questions were poorly worded and could easily have been mis-interpreted. But Ben’s human (unless he’s a Skrull…) and we all make mistakes. The real error they made when editing the story was being less than entirely transparent. I understand Matt’s reason’s why, but as he admits, in this particular case it made matters worse. Sometimes you don’t just have to do the right thing, you have to APPEAR to be doing the right thing.
Everyone needs to relax, its a comic book of men in tights ! (And women too, but that doesn’t sound so catchy.)
May 14th, 2008 at 8:49 am
“People need to get over themselves already. I am sick to death of society having to bend over backwards to appease the one religious group whose “tolerance and acceptance” of others is shockingly dismal in comparison. Enough is enough. As I said before, clean your own damn house before you start critcizing others about theirs.”
You’re an idiot…you’re talking about something else entirely.
May 14th, 2008 at 8:53 am
This interview wasn’t meant as political or religious satire, and isn’t about censorship of something of that nature…the whole “deal” around this is calling out a “news” site for letting a somewhat bigoted comment slip in their interview, and then allowing it to pass through the “editing process”.
May 14th, 2008 at 12:23 pm
Classic move ejulp… what you lack in any basic ability to form a coherent argument, you make up for with whiny, infantile name-calling. If that’s the case, there’s a shortbus with your name on it.
May 14th, 2008 at 2:28 pm
Come on let’s all hold hands, together now:
WE ARE THE WORLD,
WE ARE THE CHILDREN
May 14th, 2008 at 4:04 pm
“Classic move ejulp… what you lack in any basic ability to form a coherent argument, you make up for with whiny, infantile name-calling. If that’s the case, there’s a shortbus with your name on it.”
I felt bad and elaborated in my second post.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:22 pm
“Terram: Kevin Huxford was not banned from Newsarama. And he’s actually been here to contribute to the conversation. Can you say the same?”
This conversation is nothing but worthless PC-mongering (who gives a shit about what anything in the “blogosphere” thinks?), I’m glad I never contributed to it.
May 14th, 2008 at 4:57 pm
Well, I read Captain Britain and MI 13 today and it was terrific. Fa fa fa!
May 16th, 2008 at 11:06 am
1st of all ‘Jihad’ means struggle (or holy struggle). 2ndly it was the C.I.A. who changed the meaning to mean ‘holy war’ during that whole Afghan/Russia problem. So Adam, you messed up their homes with your muddy boots and now you’re trying to clean up by making their homes even muddier. It’s not about bending over backwards to please people of other religions. It’s about respecting a person’s beliefs.
May 16th, 2008 at 11:07 am
1st of all ‘Jihad’ means struggle (or holy struggle). 2ndly it was the C.I.A. who influenced the change which resulted in ‘Jihad’ meaning ‘holy war’ during that whole Afghan/Russia problem. So Adam, you messed up their homes with your muddy boots and now you’re trying to clean up by making their homes even muddier. It’s not about bending over backwards to please people of other religions. It’s about respecting a person’s beliefs.
May 17th, 2008 at 4:15 pm
[b]Well, I read Captain Britain and MI 13 today and it was terrific. Fa fa fa! [/b]
And that’s the important thing…best new book I’ve seen from Marvel in ages.
So, I imagine it’ll be canceled next week.
May 18th, 2008 at 9:35 pm
Read the comic! Faisa is a nice, sweet character — a doctor who has a bit of a hero-worship thing going. She was by far my favorite character in the comic.
May 29th, 2008 at 2:18 pm
I like the “Oh, blimey! We’re all doomed”
Famous last words LOL