Charles M. Blow's "Precious" correction

I'm almost always disappointed in Charles M. Blow's "visual op-ed" column in the New York Times, which typically marries a simplistic premise to a lousy bar chart. But Saturday's column was even worse than usual.

Blow wrote a whole column based on the premise that Mo’Nique is likely to win an Oscar for her role as a "an abusive, crack-addicted mother" in "Precious," which Blow called "another step in the seeming campaign to resurrect the increasingly passé image of the crack-addled black mother":

Mo’Nique is a favorite to win an Oscar next Sunday for her powerful and disturbing portrayal of an abusive, crack-addicted mother in the movie “Precious.”

If she wins, I will silently grit my teeth — not because she’s undeserving, but because it represents another step in the seeming campaign to resurrect the increasingly passé image of the crack-addled black mother.

This critique was paired with a chart comparing crack addiction by race and gender.

There was only one problem -- Mo'Nique's character didn't use crack (did Blow see the movie?). In other words, Blow himself was the one resurrecting "the increasingly passé image of the crack-addled black mother." Here's the online version of the correction that ran in today's Times:

The column by Charles M. Blow on Saturday, about race and crack addiction, incorrectly described a character in the movie “Precious.” The abusive mother portrayed by Mo’Nique is not a crack addict.

With his premise destroyed, Blow simply changed his argument, now arguing that it's "heartening" to see that Mo'Nique's character wasn't a crack addict:

Mo’Nique is a favorite to win an Oscar next Sunday for her powerful and disturbing portrayal of an abusive mother in the movie “Precious.”

If she wins, I may grit my teeth at the depraved depiction, but at least her character is merely juxtaposed with the crack scourge and isn't in fact an addict. That's heartening since the crack-addicted black mother has recently made a curious comeback.

There was a time when this character was more relevant: in the 1980s and 1990s when the crack epidemic plunged whole communities into violence, fear and chaos. (To be fair, “Precious” is set in the 1980s.) But this character now feels like a refugee of time — and discordant with the facts on the ground.

Comments

[Rob]

In addition to being unfamiliar with the film, Blow's statistics are . . . what's the right term in the field of statistics? . . . bogus. We learn that black college undergraduates aren't smoking crack very much, which proves pretty much nothing. We are shown a chart of admissions to public treatment facilities, itself not a very meaningful statistic, but learn that it includes in its 1996 results data for the District of Columbia but does not include data for D.C. in its 2005 results. Call me crazy, but I'd imagine that the omission of D.C. results has a big impact on the number of admissions shown for black crack smokers. And even this silly and flawed chart shows admissions for black crack users at roughly twice the number of white crack users, despite the fact that blacks constitute only about 12% of the population. The chart does suggest that the age profile of crack addicts trends older than it did in 1996. Does this support Blow's thesis that the image of the crack-addled black mother is "increasingly passé"? Not really.

Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how did you enjoy the show?

[David]

Nitpicking Blow: He writes: A National Survey on Drug Use and Health, a report released last week, found that young black adults ages 18 to 25 years old were less likely to use illicit drugs than the national average. (For those doing the math, you’re right. Those are the children born during the crack epidemic.)

However, young black adults also had a low rate of admissions in 1994, as did young white adults in both surveys. So, the low rate of black cocaine admissions in 2005 is mostly due to age, rather than being born during the crack epidemic.

Incidentally, I understand that Blow objects to a negative portrayal of black women. However, to my taste, the mother being a monster was essential to the plot. It shows how difficult and impressive Precious's development was.

[daniel rotter]

"Incidentally, I understand that Blow objects to negative portrayal of black women. However, to my taste, the mother being a monster was essential to the plot."

What the heck does the second sentence here have to do with the first? A negative portrayal of a black woman being "essential to the plot" is still a negative portrayal of a black woman, David.

[David]

daniel, I'll try to clarify. Blow's complaint seemed to imply that he would have preferred modifying the story to make the mother less monstrous. My point was, IMHO they had a choice of a negatively portrayed mother or a mediocre movie.

I'm unsure what your preference is, daniel. Today Native Americans are generally portrayed positively in movies. Would you agree? And, are you suggesting that you'd prefer a similar practice to apply to black characters?