The Onion apologizes for calling 9-year old Quvenzhane Wallis a ****... (1 Viewer)

[GrandAdmiral]

I am typically a fan of reading the Onion, but the tweet they posted last night was completely uncalled for and tasteless, especially towards a child...

Satirical website The Onion has apologized following a tweet it sent out about 9-year-old Oscar nominee Quvenzhane Wallis.

During Sunday’s Academy Awards broadcast, the official Onion Twitter account posted a harsh message about the “Beasts of the Southern Wild Star” that has the Twitterverse up in arms.

“Everyone else seems afraid to say it, but that Quvenzhané Wallis is kind of a c*nt, right? #Oscars2013,” the tweet read.

But users immediately came to Wallis’ defense, slamming the satirical site for the “joke.”

And though The Onion deleted the tweet shortly after posting it, plenty of users managed to get screen shots of the offending message.

The Onion apologizes after it posts vulgar tweet about Quvenzhane Wallis | Fox News

 

[thefredman63]

OK, but was/is she?

 

[darkhornet]

They push the line many, many times. Apparently they weren't able to tell when they were going way passed the line.

 

[coldseat]

I've never heard of her, so I'm curious as to what would prompt anybody to post that about a 9-year old? Does she seem stuck up or something for her age? She looks like a sweet girl in the attached link.

Regardless, totally messed up to call anybody that, much less a nine year old girl. They should get raked over the coals for it.

 

[darkhornet]

I've never heard of her, so I'm curious as to what would prompt anybody to post that about a 9-year old? Does she seem stuck up or something for her age? She looks like a sweet girl in the attached link.

Regardless, totally messed up to call anybody that, much less a nine year old girl. They should get raked over the coals for it.

They weren't seriously ripping her. They were simply trying to get a laugh out of folks with a tweet in "shockingly" bad taste (a fairly common thing for The Onion). They just underestimated how far over the line they went.

 

[GeauxSaints53]

I've never heard of her, so I'm curious as to what would prompt anybody to post that about a 9-year old? Does she seem stuck up or something for her age? She looks like a sweet girl in the attached link.

Regardless, totally messed up to call anybody that, much less a nine year old girl. They should get raked over the coals for it.

...

No. That's the point of the intended joke. That was just the majority response, which is why it didn't go over how they expected it to.

 

[B-Train]

I've never heard of her, so I'm curious as to what would prompt anybody to post that about a 9-year old? Does she seem stuck up or something for her age? She looks like a sweet girl in the attached link.

 

[GW93]

I've never heard of her, so I'm curious as to what would prompt anybody to post that about a 9-year old? Does she seem stuck up or something for her age?

No, it's The Onion. They just as easily would have posted it about any nominee, they just apparently thought posting that about a 9-year-old girl would be the most "edgy." I guess they finally found the limit to which they could push such humor.

I wonder about the thought process involved in that, though. I doubt they would have ever used the N-word in such a context. What made them think the C-word was any better?

 

[coldseat]

...

Ha... Ha ha.

Yeah, it's not funny.

I enjoy satire, but that doesn't really qualify. It's just, moronic.

 

[SaintBrad]

Oh well. Im sure people will get over it. Its the onion. It was meant to be a joke, though it was tasteless, it wasn't I intended to be so. People will forgot all about it in a few days

 

[antipop]

 

[seandroog]

Obviously it's the onion, so we know the onion doesn't dislike the girl.

But... my wife can take a joke pretty well, but there is one word she will not utter. And that's the word. If I were to say it, I'd be spending the night in the doghouse.

 

[diat150]

im glad they gave me something to be faux outraged over today.

 

[insidejob]

I don't see why **** is so much worse than *****. If they'd called her a *****, no one would have been shocked or outraged.

 

[Galbreath34]

I can see why they'd apologize or why people would take it as harsh.

As for the comment about satire, it's not really satire it's absurd humor.

They do reversals and nonsense absurdism generally for the laughs. In reverse it would be like them publishing a piece on Hitler's misunderstood kindness to Jews. They would expect you to know it's absurd and meant as that kind of reversal. That, too, would draw outrage and apology, but it's really only people objecting because there's some sacred "too far" with pushing the humor/absurd. They shoot for those lines, but no one minds when they don't cross a big enough line.

Their piece that got picked up by Iran's news service as true was making fun of rural liberals having more values in common with Ahmenijad than Obama. Pretty insulting to the victims, but pretty funny too.