Oh, the power of social media.
Tuesday afternoon, we reported that pop sensation Rihanna took to her Twitter to slam Dutch fashion publication Jackie, for printing a blatantly racist piece on the artist's style. Rihanna, with more than 10 million followers and an international fan base, wrote in an extended message to Jackie's editor in chief Eva Hoeke,
"To encourage segregation, to mislead the future leaders to act in the past! You put two words together, with the intent of abasement, that made no sense…"N—A B-TCH"?!….Well with all respect, on behalf of my race, here are my two words for you…F— YOU!!!" (Read the rest, here)
Immediately after, Hoeke responded by posting an apology note on Jackie's facebook page. However, her statement only aggravated the issue. "We are of course very fed up over this and especially very shocked," a seemingly disdainful Hoeke stated. "While the author meant no harm — the title of the article was intended as a joke — it was a bad joke, to say the least," she continued.
By calling the title of the initial article "a joke," Hoeke irritated not only her readers, but the publishers of Jackie as well. In fact, they were so peeved that she was called to step down later that evening. Parlour magazine translated the press release and statement issued by the former editor:
"I realize that my first reaction through Twitter, in which I indicated that it was a joke, has been an incomplete description of what me, and also the author of the article, meant. The term "n—b-tch" came from America and we solely used it to describe a style of dress. Because of the enormous pressure through social media I was tempted to promise amendment regarding the language in future issues of Jackie. Apart from that I also offered an rectification. I have now come to the conclusion that rectification is not the right solution."
"I regret that I have taken a stand too quickly regarding an article in Jackie — which moreover had no racial motive at its basis. Through the course of events, me and the publisher have concluded that because my credibility is now affected, it is better for all parties if I quit my function as editor-in-chief effective immediately. After putting my heart and soul into for Jackie for eight years, I realize that these errors — although not intended maliciously — are enough reason for leaving."
Do you believe she made the right choice by steppin down following this incident? Was her initial apology enough? Your thoughts on the situation?