By Justus Flair
Doreen Carvajal published an article in The New York Times describing the cancellation of artist Brett Bailey’s “Exhibit B” at the Barbican Theatre in London. Protestors claimed the exhibition, which features black actors caged and chained in imitation of human zoos from the 1800s, was racist, offensive and unnecessary.
Carvajal utilized hyperlinks to allow readers to see images of the work to understand the racial elements, find information on human zoos and their place in history, and read statements released by the protesters, the theatre and the artist. She contributed an abundance of information to help readers comprehend the background of the story and, thus, the ensuing controversy.
In discussing the protesters, Carvajal explained their stance well, neither defending nor condemning it. Both sides of the disagreement – those involved with the exhibit and those protesting – were given coverage and allowed to combat the other’s points in the piece. Carvajal gave very factual information to allow readers to form their own opinion. However, she had very poor sources, giving readers nothing they could not have already found online. She relied solely on statements released by Barbican Theatre and published on their website, a Facebook post from Bailey, and the online petition stating the claims of the protesters. There were no unique or individualized quotes from the sources, which made the article seem hastily put together and ill-informed. It was clear Carvajal had not had the opportunity to speak directly with those involved or ask them any questions. There were no quotes from any of the protesters, which made it difficult to comprehend why they felt a protest was necessary and what they wanted from the theater and artist besides the cancellation of the performance. Overall the article would have benefitted from more thorough reporting.
smorgasblogg 