An Open Letter to the Editor of the Sacramento News & Review

To the editor:

I suppose I should thank you for publishing the hate-speech-in-the-form-of-an-essay that is Jaime O'Neill's "Fat bastards."

I used to be embarrassed at having grown up in Mississippi due to that state's history of racial prejudice, discrimination, and narrow-mindedness about diversity. And when I was a journalist working in Mississippi's state capitol in the late 1970s and early '80s, it was embarassing to see historical examples of biased reporting by some Southern newspapers during (and before) the civil rights movement.

But now, thanks to you and the Sacramento News & Review, I am reminded that ignorance, prejudice, poor judgment and sloppy journalism are not exclusive to the historical Deep South -- they are thriving in California! As well, as, sadly, elsewhere. I have just added "Fat Bastards" to my "Fat Hatred" folder, which contains examples from across the world as well as the country.

What were you thinking by approving such a vicious and flat-out wrong attack on a group of people? (That "300,000 a year" in "obesity-related deaths" figure has been disproven, by the way, in a better-designed and more nationally representative study that actually showed "overweight" people on average live LONGER than "ideal weight" people! Of course after that study -- by Katherine Flegal, Ph.D. and others -- was published in the Journal of the American Medical Association in 2005, those whose income depends on "obesity" being considered a "killer disease" have denied its accuracy.) The words and images Mr. O'Neill uses to describe fat people are similar to those the unenlightened have historically used to describe other stigmatized groups: Dumb. Lazy. Slovenly. Ugly. Would you run an essay in which stereotypes about African Americans, Jews, Hispanics, or Muslims were so unquestioningly -- even gleefully -- presented?

I suggest you (and Mr. O'Neill, if he's capable of appreciating less biased journalism) read Gina Kolata's new book Rethinking Thin: The New Science of Weight Loss -- and the Myths and Realities of Dieting. Kolata is the science reporter for the New York Times. You may have heard of them. Follow that up with J. Eric Oliver, Ph.D.'s Fat Politics: The Real Story Behind America's Obesity Epidemic and Glenn Gaesser, Ph.D.'s Big Fat Lies: The Truth About Your Weight and Your Health, and you'll have a good grounding in the facts about "obesity" and the so-called epidemic. (You may find Fat Politics particularly interesting for Dr. Oliver's account of how a Centers for Disease Control physician initiated the false perception of obesity as a killer epidemic, and how that perception spread.) Follow this reading up with The Invisible Woman: Confronting Weight Prejudice in America by W. Charisse Goodman and Taking Up Space: How Eating Well and Exercising Regularly Changed My Life by Pattie Thomas, Ph.D. for in-depth analysis of the stigmatization of fat people and the ways it mirrors discriminatory treatment of other peoples.

As for those who read Mr. O'Neill's diatribe and would now rather poke themselves in the eye with a sharp stick than read the Sacramento News & Review again -- if you're reading this now (I'm posting this letter on my blogs, www.healthateverysize.info and www.onthewhole.info, as well as sending it to the Editor), well, good call. But put the stick down and do yourself a favor. Go to Youtube.com and play the bouncy size- and life-positive music video of Mika's "Big Girl (You Are Beautiful)"  until you get the nasty taste of fat hatred out of your mind. (Repeat if necessary.)

Mississippi has made a lot of progress in the racial arena, and has many good things going for it. I'm now glad to claim it as my home state. I'm sure Sacramento has some positive features, too.....but I wouldn't know if from reading Mr. O'Neill's essay in the News & Review.

Peggy Elam, Ph.D.

Clinical & Consulting Psychologist

Founder & President, Pearlsong Press

Nashville, TN

 

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

"A fat woman happy with her body
is a dangerous thing in this culture."
Taking Up Space by Pattie Thomas, Ph.D
has been called "a road map through
the mine field of the 'war on obesity.'"

~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~

Comments

[Sparkle Pants]

I'm glad you wrote this. I moved from Sacramento a year and a half ago - it's a wonderful, if not boiling hot, place to live - and have missed picking up the N&R every week because it was full of real news about real issues that the Sacramento Bee wouldn't publish. But I am ashamed that they would run a piece like that. It's very disappointing.

[Peggy Elam, Ph.D.]

Thanks, Sparkle Pants.

[Rachel]

Bravo! What an awesome letter! I hope they get flooded with similar letters.

[Peggy Elam, Ph.D.]

I hope so, too!

[Rose]

I wrote the following. And yes, please, write away, they need to be absolutely flooded with letters denouncing his hateful rant in the form of an "editorial" so it might make them think twice about it!

Dear Mr. O'Neill:
Your above-referenced article is one of the most offensive things I've ever seen printed in an editorial column of a "respectable" newspaper. If you substituted the word "fat" for "African American," "Hispanic," "Jewish," or "Handicapped" I suspect the piece would never have seen the light of day. That an editorial writer can let loose his utter contempt for those who don't look "right" to him and get such a piece published is proof-positive that the "War on Obesity" is in fact an all out war on the obese.

Without any sense of irony at all, you cite Alfred Hitchcock's "The Birds." Mr. Hitchcock was one of the most brilliant, and most obese, directors of the 20th century. He didn't let his obesity stop him from fully expressing his artistic vision and sharing it with the world. Would you have preferred that he spent his life ashamed, hiding in his room, so that his fat body wouldn't have offended the delicate eyes of the slender?

Mr. O'Neill, stop concerning yourself so much with the size of other people's back-sides and worry more about the big, fat empty space in your chest where a human heart should be.

[Peggy Elam, Ph.D.]

Good point about Hitchcock! I remember the opening of his TV show, which featured a stylized version of his rotund profile....which he would then walk into.

[R.V. Scheide]

As a senior staff writer for the Sacramento News & Review, it's improper for me to comment on Jaime O'Neal's essay, "Fat Bastards." But I would like to point out that it is an ESSAY, and clearly marked as opinion. However inappropriate people find Mr. O'Neal's opinion, it's his right to hold it. To suggest people not read the News & Review because his opinion does not agree with yours smacks of censorship and only stifles debate on the topic. By all means, raise your voices. But don't try to shut other voices down.

[Peggy Elam, Ph.D.]

Mr. O'Neill's (you spelled his name wrong) essay was his opinion, of course. But in choosing to run it in the Sacramento News & Review, the editor(s) sanctioned it as acceptable for public dissemination and discourse.

Editors regularly make judgments as to what is suitable for publication. Would it be censorship for them to refuse to publish a racist diatribe by a member of the Ku Klux Klan? Perhaps. But I doubt such a decision would be considered improper by anyone outside of the KKK.

"Stifles debate on the topic"....please. I don't believe Mr. O'Neill and his ilk are really interested in a debate. Certainly not a debate respectful of other human beings.

[Meowser]

'Stifles debate'? Um, I thought for there to be a "debate" you had to allow someone to actually disagree with you.

Really, how could anyone publish a piece like this and expect all the fatties to just nod their heads and go, "Yes, he's absolutely right, I suck like an Electrolux, I'm the worst person ever and I'm taking my country down with me and my ginormous selfish appetite, where's my new diet"? Is that really what they expected the response to be?

And like you said, Peggy, it's truly craven to hide behind the "dissent=censorship" view and pretend you don't publish pieces according to an editorial policy that supports certain sociopolitical points of view. I suppose if James Dobson or one of his minions submitted an "LGBTs are out to recruit all our children" story to the News, they'd be happy to pay him for it and publish it, just because it's someone's "legitimate opinion"? Or better still, that they'd publish a size-acceptance piece, because we're all so entitled to not only our opinions, but money and a public soapbox to express them also? Give my ass a well-cushioned break.

[Kathy]

When you choose not to publish hate speech, that is NOT "censorship." O'Neill's article is nothing but hate speech.

There's a lot of good writing out in the world that doesn't get published. A lot of good, well thought-out opinions that could spark meaningful debates. It isn't possible to debate hate speech -- how can one debate false stereotypes, prejudices, discrimination and oppression? How does one debate senseless hatred and cruelty?These things are to be fought, not debated.

The whole concept of free speech is convoluted. There is no such thing in reality -- money controls what gets media attention. O'Neill can write his opinions and say his opinions all he wants -- that's his right of free speech. He does NOT have the right to have his hateful words and views published. Nobody does. If someone has hateful, dehumanizing views of other people -- then it is up to editors to stop them from being published. Editors make decisions every day about what gets published or not -- this isn't about free speech -- it is about basic human decency. If the editors of SNR can't figure that out -- then they should be out of a job.

As for trying to "shut other voices down"-- such as the Jaime O'Neills of the world -- I wish I could. The untold damage they do is evil and wrong. And my view is that if you can't do some good in the world, then what are you here for? And if you cause harm in the world, then you are less than worthless. I would not give a voice to anyone who would use it to take away the humanity and the dignity of other people.

[Kell]

I live in Sacramento, and have avoided responding to the News & Review because they routinely court sensationlist attention and responses. The tabloid is approximately one-fifth advertisements for "massages" and "escorts," and frequently features obscenities in articles and even on the cover. (The teaser item on the cover for O'Neill's hate piece was simply "Hey, FAT ASS!!!")

Simply, consider the source. The News and Review has sunk over the past ten years to the point where they do nothing but pander to the most degenerate of hate & cynicism fads.

I used to write for the Suttertown News back in the 80s; sometimes someone will make the mistake of claiming the News & Review is "like" Suttertown was. Be assured, I set them straight. Suttertown was a true alternative weekly, and on several occassions broke stories that wound up becoming national news. The News & Review panders to corporate interests exploiting a myth of counter culture equaling hatred (i.e. appealing to "mooks" and porn users). In truth, they're simply out for any buck they can get, and will say anything, no matter how inaccurate or socially irresponsible, to make the rag look fashionable. The lowests of the low, and, ultimately, not worth the time of legitimate intellectual.