Witness to an attack: OZY Media and undoing the takedown
I was in 7th grade when I first read William Golding’s genius text, The Lord of the Flies. As a 7th grader I was ruthlessly optimistic and convinced of the inherent goodness in all people. (I am not much different today.) At age 12 I found it terrifying that our fates could lie so heavily on the stories people tell about us. I was mortified by the idea that people could be easily seduced by the power of spectacle. I found it frightening that good people could so easily relinquish their responsibility to challenge motives or speak up when others seem to revel in causing harm.
Decades after my introduction to Golding’s book I am still undone by the power of spectacle, by the rush to pile on, and by the way that race, class, and gender operate in all of this. As an academic who studies altruism I have been both fascinated and horrified by the recent targeting of Carlos Watson and OZY Media.
The backdrop: For those who are not aware, OZY, an upstart Black-owned media company and its CEO Carlos Watson, have been subject to an astonishing hazing that has fueled a digital mob frenzy primarily by White media. As an enterprise OZY profiled what it called “the new and the next ‘’ from a young Amanda Gorman to Trevor Noah and AOC. OZY eschewed snark and performative Twitter cruelty and focused on delivering substantive and valuable content. Its festivals in Central Park were transgenerational events where people from every background could dance to a performance by John Legend in one moment and grapple with big questions with Malcolm Gladwell or Hillary Clinton the next. From its work on the Future of Fertility to its televised series, Black Women OWN the Conversation, OZY brought diversity and depth to the stories it chose to tell. That was its gig: newsletters, podcasts, innovative festivals, TV shows. Their work earned them an Emmy Award.
Who tells your story: Ben Smith, former BuzzFeed editor now NYT columnist, wrote a series of articles that kickstarted a frenzied attack on OZY. OZY made mistakes. Carlos Watson publicly owned up to his and OZY’s mistakes in his interviews. But, this is not about mistakes. Without question, every journalistic outlet, every business, every individual has things for which they/we can be called to account. This is about who is targeted, who does the targeting, and about the harmful use of spectacle. It is about how we get lulled into taking our eyes off those who have power, how we can be so seduced into gleefully watching carnage that we never put a stop to what is happening, and we wait too late to turn our gaze on the person holding the gun. In a world where the power to cancel is wielded with despairing frequency, we need a change.
Ben Smith appears to have a conflicted relationship with OZY Media and with Carlos Watson. Smith and his colleagues at BuzzFeed had tried to buy OZY. Watson turned them down twice. In his reporting on OZY Smith did not publicly disclose his conflicts of interest (the fact that he owns BuzzFeed stock or that he and his colleagues at BuzzFeed had unsuccessfully tried to buy OZY). Slate magazine has raised questions about the ethics of Smith reporting on OZY given the potential financial benefits that may come to him (and other BuzzFeed stock owners) from eliminating OZY as a competitor in a brutal digital news environment. The fact that there is no focused conversation about these ethical issues is a problem. This is a moment when it is important to pause and to ask questions about who is telling the story and to grapple with what that might mean for the story that is being told. It is a moment when we can forego a scorched earth option for a chance at constructive dialogue.
From the Playbook- Attack Character: I have met Carlos Watson and I like him. I know his family. He is the son of teachers. He is a devoted brother to devoted sisters. He is a man who moved from very humble roots to become a Harvard and Stanford graduate. As the son of extremely hard-working people, he works extremely hard. He is a man of faith. A person who is reflective, warm, and generous. It is powerful then to see that same person cast as an uppity, entitled, disingenuous, con man who forgot his place and deserved to be taken down. It is powerful to see how his image is deployed. The fact that reports of the missteps of his colleague and friend, Samir Rao, are almost invariably accompanied by pictures of Carlos Watson means that Watson’s image is inextricably entangled with these missteps.
This is a powerful strategy, and it is not a new one. There is a familiar American story that begins with skewed motivations — jealousy, anger, disdain. These become fuel for accusations and innuendo aimed at destroying character. The target of the story is caricatured — made into a monster so believable that people do not bother to look at who is really there. In the presence of a juicy story and a newly made monster, people are easily convinced not to look around, not to question, not to search for nuance. There is no demand for pause or for constructive possibilities. There is glee in watching the take down.
‘Cancelling’ is not a new strategy. This form of ‘take down’ is part of the history of America’s response to Black success. Certainly, Black men and women and Black owned businesses are not above reproach. No one is and no one should be. However, again and again, successful Black men and women and the businesses and communities they have built have been targeted, surveilled, scrutinized, firebombed, and leveled. Cancelled. And, whatever is left behind is either taken, reclaimed, or quietly consigned to the ashes of history.
We are at an inflection point as a society where we are compelled to ask if we are willing to live with this as our story. Are we willing to give everyone the right to exercise this nuclear option as the first strategy to use when they disagree, when they do not want to hear what others have to say, or when they want things they cannot have? Are we willing to bear with this kind of take down as long as we can guarantee ourselves a few moments of entertainment? Are we willing to allow people to simply take others out with no effort at mutual accountability as long as we are not the targets of their harm?
OZY is working to make a comeback. I am glad for that. We need young, diverse media companies to help shape everyday conversations. We need diverse voices telling the stories that deserve telling. Diversifying subject matter and points of view opens dialogue and understanding. However, in an era of uncertainty and polarization when we are so powerfully drawn into theatre, we need new options for how we function. We need constructive conversation, reflection, and accountability on all sides.
