Dear Editor,
Your “Culture Box” editorial and cartoon of February 16, in The Scene were the most inane, shortsighted and offensive journalistic work I’ve read and seen in a long time. It was one of the harshest and unjustifiable rebukes of the Grammys (musical organisation) and the singer Amy Winehouse.
I know of all the struggles of Ms Winehouse and her addiction, but this doesn’t stop me from being a big fan of her music. It also didn’t stop the Grammy organisation from recognising such a distinguished talent.
In regards to your editorial, a miniature attempt was made by your reviewer/critic to comment on Ms Winehouse’s music (which is the measuring stick used by the Grammys in determining who gets the award), instead he/she focused more often than not on the supposition that Winehouse is a “junkie.” Ms Winehouse has been in and out of rehab and this has caused the media and the public to speculate that she is “addicted to crack.” But we don’t know for sure (even the video that shows her lighting up a pipe, doesn’t tell us if crack or cocaine was in the pipe). In any case, so what if she is an addict or junkie.
History is replete with examples of highly flawed, but artistically talented, individuals. The entire crop of singers from the 60s to the 70s (the Beatles, Jimi Hendrix, Frank Sinatra, etc…) at some point in their careers dabbled in drugs or some other form of toxic stimulant; some were drug addicts, philanderers, and others were alcoholics. Many of today’s talented artists, writers, actors, scientists, athletes, etc succumb to some form of addiction. Does this make them any less talented and not deserving of awards and other accolades? I think not.
What if a “junkie” scientist were to find a cure for cancer or HIV, should he/she be shunned and his/her accomplishment denigrated or not accepted because of this terrible flaw in his her personal life? Also, some might argue that being homosexual is morally unacceptable, yet we have many successful gays dominating all professional fields. Should we not reward or acknowledge their accomplishments for fear that he/she is “not the kind of person you would want to make a role model.”
In the final analysis, we are all flawed human beings and our personal lives should not diminish whatever professional talent we may possess.
Yours faithfully,
Clinton Urling
The Scene editor’s note:
The Scene is unapologetically anti-drugs. For us zero tolerance means just that. We believe Amy Winehouse, or anyone else for that matter, makes a conscious choice when s/he lights up a crack pipe or ingests cocaine or other illicit drugs by other means. We believe Winehouse (and others) would try harder to overcome their addiction if there wasn’t the sort of tacit approval of it that winning awards brings.
The Grammy organisation is made up of humans who are not infallible and we reserve the right to criticise them and their choices, just as Mr Urling is entitled to his opinion.
For the record, there is absolutely no comparison between sexual orientation and drug addiction – none whatsoever.
