NY Times disrespected Mary Keitany today with its marathon headline. Was it also racist?

The name Mary Keitany means nothing to nearly all of the American population lol. If stating it would have made more people care to read the article they would have done it, but it wouldn't have so they didn't. They only care about money and so is the way of the world. As someone who makes money off of ad revenue you can't really disagree.

girl watcher wrote:

I agree with the Bama runner (I'm one too or WAS).

A lot of people are quick to make racism accusations. I'm so sick of that sh*t.

But the hallowed New York Times have lived up to their reputation. Recall this is the same outfit whose touted reporter Walter Duranty won a Pulitzer for acclaiming Stalin while he was starving millions to death. Just take anything from the NY Times (and Washington Post for that matter) with a grain of salt and let the church roll on.

I have noticed that a lot of news websites will often not name the celebrity or athlete in a headline as a "hook" to get you to click on a link. No excuses if this was a hard copy newspaper though.

The ladies all deserve respect.

This is not a "hook". And there are different "levels" of racism. No one is saying this is the same as if they wrote "Some random African won again; who cares?" I'm sure it was an accident, and I'm sure the person who did this is a good person.

But it's also more clear racism than most of what people call racist. They automatically discounted her as a person because she's African, and paired the headline with an emotionless photo because that's their natural reaction whenever an African wins a race

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe they are as sceptical about running as we have learned to be about cycling. They would not be unaware that slower women's champions than Keitany have tested positive, not to mention the spate of men's positives.

Another one of your thinly veiled suggestions that a great performance by a Kenyan is a doped performance. It's a refrain that's both tiresome and ugly. And I very much doubt that you actually believe that the headline may reflect the editors' skepticism about the legitimacy of Mary's performance.

]ppppppp wrote:

The name Mary Keitany means nothing to nearly all of the American population lol. If stating it would have made more people care to read the article they would have done it, but it wouldn't have so they didn't. They only care about money and so is the way of the world. As someone who makes money off of ad revenue you can't really disagree.

Could have easily made a better headline without assuming people knew who she was. That headline was assuming that people wouldn't CARE who she was.

And they know it was wrong; they changed the headline and the photo: "Mary Keitany Earns 4th Marathon Title, 3 Minutes Ahead of Pack".

I doubt Jon Gault would have had a problem with this one, but it's still boring. They could have done so much else:

"Mary Keitany Dominates Pack to Win Her Fourth NYC Marathon"

"Mary Keitany, Top Marathon Runner, Dominates in New York"

"(Mary) Keitany Leaves the Pack out of the Picture"

"The Pack out of the Picture; Keitany Wins Fourth NYC Marathon"

"The Pack out of the Picture; Keitany Wins NYC"

"Keitany! Marathon Superstar Wins Her Fourth NYC"

"Mary MF Keitany Sends Everyone Home Devastated"

(and all these random letter names are me. I don't post much, but this headline really gets to me...)

KudzuRunner wrote:

people have forgotten how "wit" used to manifest in the New Yawk papers.

You mean like the New York Post's headline "Headless Body in a Topless Bar"?

Or the New York Daily News headline when the president rejected a financial bailout of NYC? "Ford to City: Drop Dead."

Those were the days.

Last year's FP headline had "Gunman kills 26", they didn't name the Gunman, why name the Winner?

Could have made "Kenyan woman" like the ubiquitous "Florida man"...

never go with an unrecognised name wrote:

Could have made "Kenyan woman" like the ubiquitous "Florida man"...

The Kenyan reference invites threat of racist undertones, intended or not. Simply saying “Winner”leaves it neutral.

"Winner" makes it sound too competitive.

Why not "first participation trophy recipient"?

Her name is Mary Keitany, one of the most successful obvious but uncaught dopers since Paula Radcliffe.

Scorpion_runner wrote:

Is that another article, or did they fix it? The article that I see by the NYT has Mary Keitany's name in the headlines.

https://www.nytimes.com/2018/11/04/sports/nyc-marathon-womens-winners.html

This is actually the one I read on Sunday evening.

Bib #1 wrote:

I really don’t have a problem with it. Keitany has < 1% (or thereabouts, you get the picture) name recognition among the general population, so if they had said Keitany instead of winner, no one would know what they were talking about, as opposed the the winner having outclassed everyone else

And it’s not just an American thing either. I rode a cab in Toronto once a few years ago with an Ethiopian driver who had no idea who kenenisa Bekele is

If you say 'Mary Keitany leaves...........', the IMPLICATION is that she is/was the winner. There'd be no two deductions from such a headline.

YMMV wrote:

Her name is Mary Keitany, one of the most successful obvious but uncaught dopers since Paula Radcliffe.

Naw. Mary is clean, seriously. NYC has strict anti-doping protocols , which is why a lot of top runners don't run it, or opt for other marathons. If NYC even thinks that you are doping, you will not get an invite. Mary came out of the gate in 2007 ripping up half marathons. As a school girl, she ran several miles to get to school, and had to run back home. She is an example of african kids, who used running as transportation.

We will probably never see Rupp or Hasay run New York, because of the doping implications that hoover over the NOP.

wfacnskl wrote:

But everyone knows the NYC marathon. It's like Gault said: no headline would say "Winner dominates the Masters; wins by 6 strokes" even if it was a total unknown.

Is this racist too?

Meant this:

https://www.nydailynews.com/resizer/JnjHhhhX7vLVtu03H93RPppazoI=/1400x0/arc-anglerfish-arc2-prod-tronc.s3.amazonaws.com/public/3T6J2VL7HRAE2VUKTUCCUT3BC4.jpg

Avocado's Number wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe they are as sceptical about running as we have learned to be about cycling. They would not be unaware that slower women's champions than Keitany have tested positive, not to mention the spate of men's positives.

Another one of your thinly veiled suggestions that a great performance by a Kenyan is a doped performance. It's a refrain that's both tiresome and ugly. And I very much doubt that you actually believe that the headline may reflect the editors' skepticism about the legitimacy of Mary's performance.

Interestingly, subsequent to the race I have yet to see any female elite American distance runners congratulating Keitany on their Twitter ramblings. - There is the usual sycophantic and syrupy outpourings of love and Wow at the performances of Shalane, Desi, Molly, Keiffer etc. - But nary a word for Keitany or Cheruiyot.

Of course most of them have previously thrown thinly veiled doping insinuations at the East Africans so Im not surprised in the least.

Avocado's Number wrote:

Armstronglivs wrote:

Maybe they are as sceptical about running as we have learned to be about cycling. They would not be unaware that slower women's champions than Keitany have tested positive, not to mention the spate of men's positives.

Another one of your thinly veiled suggestions that a great performance by a Kenyan is a doped performance. It's a refrain that's both tiresome and ugly. And I very much doubt that you actually believe that the headline may reflect the editors' skepticism about the legitimacy of Mary's performance.

It's not thinly veiled. It's exactly the point. And how do you know that it isn't a doped performance? If it was the Tour de France you'd say it probably was. What's the difference?

The other more obvious reason that most haven't picked up on is parochialism. American media give Americans what they think they want, which is stories about America. It's pretty much the same anywhere else. If you aren't an international household name you don't count for much in national or local media. The NYT editors would know that Keitany is not a name that would mean much to Americans. And, as I've said, some might have also lost interest lately in the genuineness or otherwise of Kenyan running achievements - for good reason.

Armstronglivs wrote:

The other more obvious reason that most haven't picked up on is parochialism. American media give Americans what they think they want, which is stories about America. It's pretty much the same anywhere else. If you aren't an international household name you don't count for much in national or local media. The NYT editors would know that Keitany is not a name that would mean much to Americans. And, as I've said, some might have also lost interest lately in the genuineness or otherwise of Kenyan running achievements - for good reason.

I'll qualify what I said: stories about Americans - not just America.