Harry Potter senza J.K. Rowling? Il New York Times finisce nella bufera
Una nuova campagna del NY Times ha scatenato una bufera mediatica dopo l'apparizione di uno spot pubblicitario su Harry Potter e J.K. Rowling
Una nuova campagna del New York Times ha scatenato una bufera mediatica dopo l'apparizione di uno spot pubblicitario apparso in metropolitana a Washington D.C., come testimoniato da alcuni messaggi su Twitter diventati virali.
Di tutta risposta, come dimostrano le risposte al tweet virale, il giornale è finito nella bufera (con molti lettori che hanno deciso di annullare il proprio abbonamento) con l'accusa di farsi portatore di valori sbagliati tra misoginia e di invito alla violazione del diritto d'autore.
L'ennesima polemica che circonda la scrittrice arriva dopo qualche settimana che Pottermore Publishing, la società che gestisce la pubblicazione digitale della saga di Harry Potter, ha comunicato che nel corso del 2021 il fatturato è aumentato del 23%, arrivando 40,4 milioni di sterline, mentre gli utili al lordo delle imposte sono aumentati addirittura del 150%, da 3,8 a 9,5 milioni di sterline.
https://twitter.com/Scholars_Stage/status/1494459409786761226?ref_src=twsrc%5Etfw%7Ctwcamp%5Etweetembed%7Ctwterm%5E1494459409786761226%7Ctwgr%5E%7Ctwcon%5Es1_&ref_url=https%3A%2F%2Fscreenrant.com%2Fharry-potter-new-york-times-campaign-jk-rowling%2F
Lo spot del New York Times, come potete vedere, è disponibile anche online:
https://youtu.be/K4II9cYrQvE
A seguire, invece, alcune delle reazioni:
the #NewYorkTimes is running woke ads' for Harry Potter without #JKRowling . Outrageous. Rowling has introduced millions of children to books and should be honoured not airbrushed out of history
— Andrew Pierce (@toryboypierce) February 19, 2022
As senseless as imagining Oliver Twist without Charles Dickens, Emma without Jane Austin, Huck Finn without Mark Twain, or Invisible Man without Ralph Ellison
— Rich Lowry (@RichLowry) February 19, 2022
J.K. Rowling created something that no one else did or could and has brought delight to countless millions—be grateful https://t.co/966sYYc0xt
The funny thing is, without his creator, Harry Potter would do the quintessential magic trick. He’d disappear. https://t.co/oKKZ2K8C6H via @MailOnline @jk_rowling
— Rachel Moran (@RachelRMoran) February 20, 2022
I don’t know why I care as I’ve long ago given up my subscription to the @nytimes but this is exactly right about its appalling commercialisation of hatred against @jk_rowling https://t.co/cydCQjEQPo
— Daniel Korski (@DanielKorski) February 20, 2022
The @nytimes ad trolling @jk_rowling for clicks sets a concerning precedent. Women with opinions risk being severed from their life’s work, should someone disagree with them. Continue down this path and the future of women’s voices will be as quiet and as muffled as our past.
— Charlotte Salomon (@SalomonSoup) February 19, 2022
All of this is outrages, I remember how livid I've became when I heard people accusing her for being an antisemtime, although she's done so much for the UK Jews. She's remarkable, I'm proud to call her my heroine and these people don't get to the tip of her toe.
— Shay Touriel Adler (@Shayadler2) February 19, 2022
Dear Lianna,
— Samantha Smith (@SamanthaTaghoy) February 19, 2022
You can’t “imagine” Harry Potter without JK Rowling.
Without JK, there would be no Harry Potter.
It’s as simple as that. pic.twitter.com/ICs98Dl6Bw
A supposedly liberal newspaper whipping up a Two Minutes Hate against a writer for commercial gain - how utterly repellent. pic.twitter.com/K2BVKu6tNA
— Tom Holland (@holland_tom) February 18, 2022
The #NewYorkTimes, founded in 1851, has received more Pulitzer Prizes than any other organisation. Is it now seeking a prize for #misogyny? #IStandWithJKRowling https://t.co/ML5LFNpE5r
— Peter J. Williams (@DrPJWilliams) February 19, 2022
https://twitter.com/mandystadt/status/1494796086925352963
I remember a time where removing a woman from the fruits of her labor and imagination would be seen as an act of unimaginable Orwellian misogyny.
— Sarah Haider 👾 (@SarahTheHaider) February 18, 2022
Today, it is an advertisement. https://t.co/aYtEeVpa67
This thread is astonishing. Is this real? How can the NYT advertise itself through the rhetorical vehicle of separating JK Rowling from her own artistic creation/ intellectual property? https://t.co/Q7IGzqVcRU
— Thomas Chatterton Williams (@thomaschattwill) February 18, 2022
Yesterday we had a woman’s verbal abuse dismissed as imaginary by a politician, today a newspaper wants people to imagine a woman never existed in the first place. And people wonder why women are “radicalised”. https://t.co/wJmV0VLdMP
— Gina Davidson (@wornoutmumhack) February 18, 2022
So I cancelled my @nytimes sub because it tried to cancel @jk_rowling. Even the offer of a year’s sub for $0.25 a week couldn’t persuade me to stay with a newspaper that is so contemptuous of women that it celebrates cancelling a female author in its ads. pic.twitter.com/w6HDcvShar
— Susan Dalgety (@DalgetySusan) February 18, 2022