It'll blow over eventually, but his PR people, imo, need to realise that he's well known enough now without them putting him up for every interviewer that will have him - sometimes less is more and it means there's less chance of something like this happening!

He's famous.
He only needs to say one wrong word for the media and anyone else who wants to be outraged, to treat is as a hanging offence - sad that it's the way things are, but true.
If he doesn't care less what people think (and you're right of course, there's a lot worse that goes on), then fair enough, let him do interview after interview and not worry about the odd slip up.
But he clearly DOES care what people think, this isn't the first time he's upset people (though in fairness he's been misquoted often, too), and therefore he could cut back on some of the publicity stuff and have an easier life doing the work he loves to do?

Sadly I think they would have done that whether he'd apologised or not, and so not apologising would have been held up as proof of how "awful" he is.
I don't think he had any choice but to apologise.
The truth is though, that he won't win either way as there was already a backlash against him going on: those who have decided to hate him have one more stick to beat him with, and those who never expected him to be anything other than a human being and an actor will take the more sensible approach of "he's apologised, he's learned something, let's move on".

Here is an interesting meta I recently read which speaks very wisely about the problem of people being massively offended by such things and why such attitude is inherently flawed:

http://queenieofaces.tumblr.com/post/80232081633/justice-anger-and-the-demand-for-perfection-why


 

I'm reading through the online comments on the news article in Norway, and not one single comment is negative towards Ben. There is only one who tries to get across that the term "coloured" is not a good term to use, but the comment was just explaining facts. The rest of the comments were more or less just exasperated over this becoming an issue at all.

Smiley has gone out and given a supportive comment as well, so I hope this will be the last we hear about it.

You know when I first saw the interview it never occurred to me that anything like this would happen out of what BC said.   I have seen enough interviews by Tavis to know that if he did think it was inappropriate he would have made a point of saying so during the interview.  And he definitely did not. Tavis didn't even raise an eyebrow, let alone find anything remotely offensive in what BC said.

I feel much about it as Tavis stated:



He realised immediately during the conversation that although maybe a bit awkward in phrasing, Ben was genuine and passsionate in his feelings about equality of opportunity among all actors regardless of race.  That was what was important at the time of the interview and it remains so now. 

As for what has come after - that's just flotsam and jetsam IMO.  A couple of tabloids wanted more clicks so they made a big deal about one word and hyper-inflated the situation.  Ben seems truly horrified and embarassed and issued a heartfelt (almost agonisingly, so it seemed to me) apology because he is what seems to be an incredibly sensitive person who's last intent would be to offend the very people who he heartily supports.   

I don't think he had to apologise over what he said but I am glad he chose to (and it was fairly obvious to me that it was said from his heart not just a PR statement to smooth things over).  It shows to me that he cares about being kind to others and not a person who hurts others and sluffs it off (even if it was unintentional). 

What irks me about this whole thing is twofold. 

1) the emphasis now is more on that particular word rather than on the content of what Ben said as a whole.  Inequality is unfair and unjustified and should be addressed.

2) Ben may feel like censoring himself more and not addressing things such as this in the future.  That would be a total shame to me.  It is almost like the bullies win... making conversations about important topics less free flowing and more guarded by those who feel passionate about it.  It is a way of stifling his ideas, making him feel uncomfortable about being honest (picking on one misplaced word and drowning out the importance of his ideas) done by sensationalists tabloids later under the guise of being "offended".  

-Val

Ah-chie wrote:

What irks me about this whole thing is twofold. 

1) the emphasis now is more on that particular word rather than on the content of what Ben said as a whole.  Inequality is unfair and unjustified and should be addressed.

2) Ben may feel like censoring himself more and not addressing things such as this in the future.  That would be a total shame to me.  It is almost like the bullies win... making conversations about important topics less free flowing and more guarded by those who feel passionate about it.  It is a way of stifling his ideas, making him feel uncomfortable about being honest (picking on one misplaced word and drowning out the importance of his ideas) done by sensationalists tabloids later under the guise of being "offended".  

-Val

I agree whole-heartedly. This was a non-issue from the very start, an artificial scandal only constructed as a click-and-bait for its readers.

Ah-chie wrote:

You know when I first saw the interview it never occurred to me that anything like this would happen out of what BC said.   I have seen enough interviews by Tavis to know that if he did think it was inappropriate he would have made a point of saying so during the interview.  And he definitely did not. Tavis didn't even raise an eyebrow, let alone find anything remotely offensive in what BC said.

I feel much about it as Tavis stated:




2) Ben may feel like censoring himself more and not addressing things such as this in the future.  That would be a total shame to me.  It is almost like the bullies win... making conversations about important topics less free flowing and more guarded by those who feel passionate about it.  It is a way of stifling his ideas, making him feel uncomfortable about being honest (picking on one misplaced word and drowning out the importance of his ideas) done by sensationalists tabloids later under the guise of being "offended".  

-Val

 
Sadly, I think it's the "fans" that won't let go as much, if not more so, than the media.
I'm sure that the fact that he dared to get engaged is having a huge impact on how some people are responding to every misstep - real or otherwise - that he makes.
It's almost like stalker behaviour - the object of their fantasies won't return their obsessive love so the love turns to obsessive hate, and now they've got something real to attack him with.
Someone said somewhere the other day that it's best not draw the poison online to anyone's attention because he might find out about it and stop interacting with fans.
Well I think that, make no mistake, he knows exactly what's being said about him, which is why there's been a slight change in him in terms of how serious he appears lately.
I believe that the reaction to this, the refusal to accept his apology and let it go by these people, will be the last straw for him and he will be more careful in public appearances and interviews than he's ever been.
I'm afraid it's the downside of being idolised by people - when they tire of you, or you don't live up to their fantasies, they want to destroy you.
It's very sad, but I hope that he's able to achieve all the success he deserves for his acting and is able to cut back on all the publicising, which always seems to stress him a little anyway.

Last edited by Tinks (January 27, 2015 6:44 pm)

This is a comment  came out today on the whole matter from Amma Asante (whose film Belle BC mentioned briefly in the Tavis interview) -

http://edition.cnn.com/2015/01/27/intl_opinion/cumberbatch-asante/index.html?


And here it is reproduced in long form (for those who might have problems with the link) -

Editor's Note: Amma Asante is an award-winning British screenwriter and film director known for "Belle" and "A Way of Life." Follow her on Twitter. Watch her talk at a TEDx event. The views expressed in this commentary are solely those of the writer.

London (CNN)I found myself talking back to the radio this morning in a way that I've never quite done before. The station was LBC, one of the UK's leading radio stations, and the topic in question was British actor Benedict Cumberbatch's use of the term "colored" during his appearance on the "Tavis Smiley Show" on PBS in the United States.

The uproar that has ensued has left me slightly perplexed. Cumberbatch was discussing with Smiley the inequality of roles for black actors in the UK and the frustrating lack of opportunities for them -- a subject that is close to my heart. In doing so, he mistakenly used an outmoded term to describe his fellow colleagues in their struggle.

I am, and have been, offended by the term when it has been used towards me, and I don't ever want to be described by this word -- one that is rooted in an abhorrent period of history in many countries, and has connotations that were intended to offend. It of course later became the politically correct term du jour, before finally being absented from common parlance, for good.

But wait! My yelling at the radio this morning comes from a place where I find myself wondering: Why are we choosing to lose the nuances here? Are we more comfortable with obscuring the bigger picture behind an admittedly mistaken use of a word, than we are with receiving the actual message that the sender was trying to offer -- a very necessary message about injustice and inequality from someone who cared enough to voice it?

Isn't there a space to explore intent in a person's actions, even when it comes to use of language that can offend? Can our racial debates simply be reduced so easily to black and white, good or bad?

My slight connection with Cumberbatch is that we were once Facebook friends. We are loosely connected through industry friends and some of them are of color. So for my part, I see an actor who was on Smiley's important show who was trying to stand in unity with his fellow actors, about an issue that has mostly been highlighted by those of color within the entertainment industry. I am one of those industry members.

I have never understood issues of any kind of prejudice and inequality to be anything other than a problem for all of society. The idea that we can relegate certain groups to the margins, stifling any potential they may bring to the mainstream, seems a foolish lack of foresight in understanding that such prejudice harms society as a whole -- not only those relegated.

And, in my opinion, to change endemic injustices requires a holistic approach -- one that calls on all areas of society to come together to demand change. So when an actor like Cumberbatch takes on questions of inequality and is not simply pulled up and corrected, but has his whole background and character denigrated for using a word of outdated terminology, in spite of the greater message in his words, are we not responding with the very same prejudice that we have used to label him?

Are we not also terrifying the likes of anybody who may wish to stand in unity with those of us calling for change in the UK, from speaking out, for fear they may make a mistake under the pressure of an interview and the importance of the subject and find their message lost? I myself have struggled in interviews to ensure my message is not lost in the split-second use of an incorrect word.

The word has too much meaning and history for me as a black woman, but it is possible for others who are nervous and under the pressure of concerns to "get it right" to become confused and use the term "colored" in place of "people of color" when wishing to embrace black and other non-white ethnic groups.

It's not correct, but it's possible to make the mistake, with the best intentions of trying to encompass all persuasions who encounter racism but in the end, I feel we all lose out if we dwell beyond the naïve use of a word and an apology and become deaf to a message.

We make mistakes. But isn't it time we started to have more nuanced discussions on race -- where heart and intent are taken into account, allowing us to concentrate on the very real battles we face to eliminate the existence of racism from all elements of our world?

I join her in her hope that decent people like Ben won't be "terrified" to speak out in support of racial inequalities in the acting world and that he won't fall victim to those (no matter if they are tabloid journalist who thrive in an atmosphere of sensationalism or those so-called "fans" who only look for vile negatives about the man and his work) people who relish seeing "his whole background and character denigrated for using a word of outdated terminology, in spite of the greater message in his words".

And I echo the feelings of nakahara and actually loathe to call the people who are labelling him with denigration, for one misspoken word, any type of "fan".  To me their remarks are more about themselves than anything else.  They just are using Ben to gain attention for themselves and their own mean, hate-filled, warped agendas. 

I feel sorry for him that this is happening, he obviously was mortified by his "faux pas" - he doesn't deserve this kind of attention in the least.  Especially not since he seems to be one of the most gracious, considerate and fair-minded public persons around. 

-Val