The Editor in Chief of Dutch Magazine “Jackie” has resigned amidst controversy surrounding an article the magazine printed last week refering to Rihanna and the “Ultimate N**ga B**ch.”
“N—A B—H. She has street cred, she has a ghetto a*s and she has a golden throat. Rihanna, the good girl gone bad, is the ultimate n—a b—h and displays that gladly, and for her that means: what’s on can come off. If that means she’ll be on stage half naked, then so be it. But Dutch winters aren’t like Jamaican ones, so pick a clothing style in which your daughter can resist minus ten. No to the big sunglasses and the pornheels, and yes to the tiger print, pink shizzle and everything that glitters. Now let’s hope she won’t beat anybody up at daycare,” Jackie Magazine wrote.
After reading the article Rihanna took to Twitter to let the magazine know she feels disrespected by the article.
“You put two words together, with the intent of abasement, that made no sense…”N—A B—H”?!….Well with all respect, on behalf of my race, here are my two words for you…F–K YOU!!!,” Rihanna posted in one of several Tweets.
The editor’s first response was that the article was a joke. However, she was forced to call it quit after mounting pressure from the media and Rihanna Army of fans.
“I realize that my first reaction on Twitter, where I indicated that it was a joke, was an incomplete description of what I, and also the author of the article referred. The term ‘n—a b—h’ h” has come over from America and we have only this to describe this particular style of clothes that we can try to interpret. Due to the enormous pressure from social media, I promised to do better regarding the language in future issues of Jackie and I have offered to rectify the situation.”
“I have now come to the conclusion that rectification is not the right solution. I regret that I have taken too quickly positions on an item in Jackie – which incidentally had no underlying racial motive. In the course of events I went with, the publisher came to the conclusion that, now that my credibility is affected, it’s better for all parties if I immediately lay down my duties as editor. After my eight years giving my heart and soul for Jackie, I realize that these errors – although not malicious intent – are a reason for leaving.”
Do you believe the editor should have done her research before printing the article?
