So it seems the claim that the Oscars are snubbing black people is false

[CarnalK]

@Bone

That’s the denominator for total nominations - not for total population of actors in qualifying roles that did not get nominated.

If the population of eligible actors is 45% non-white and the number of non-white people nominated is 10% then that could be something to explore. If the population of eligible actors is 1% non-white and the number of non-white people nominated is 10%, that’s less newsworthy. This assumes that all actors have the same acting ability as well.

A quick google shows black actors are about the same percent of actors as the general population, about 13%.

[billfish678]

@brickbacon

. It is that there have been zero nominations in many years (two years running) COUPLED with the fact that there were specific performances this year, for example, that could have been nominated (eg. Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan) were not recognized…

I think calling two years running “many years” is a bit of misleading hyperbole.

[Damuri_Ajashi]

@Robert163

What more stats do you need???

29 nominations
9 wins

Well, the:

29 nominations
9 wins

would indicate to me that there is no bias

3 nominations
1 win

would indicate bias

Bias is really hard to determine when you have one or two winners a year. To really see bias you need enough data points that you get a law of large numbers sort of effect. Whatever bias exists in Hollywood, it is background radiation. I don’t think Hollywood is where you see expressions of racism or bigotry. If there is bias, then the academy probably doesn’t even know they are biased, they just have a natural preference for blonde chicks and guys that look like Tom Hanks.

[Robert163]

@brickbacon

Why do you agree to that? Again, you stat is the equivalent of saying in the past 25 years, a quarter of our presidents have been Black therefore no bias exists against Black people running for the office.

How do you know? Where are the stats?

You missed the point. The percentage of Black people in the US has little to do with the percentage of actors who are Black. That’s why your stat is misleading. Your denominator is missing.

However, you are also missing the point that the zero nominations is only part of the critique. Few are saying zero nominations in and of itself must be bias. It is that there have been zero nominations in many years (two years running) COUPLED with the fact that there were specific performances this year, for example, that could have been nominated (eg. Idris Elba, Michael B Jordan) were not recognized. Additionally, you have odd circumstances like Stallone being nominated, but not his costar, who many argue was better, or the director (both of whom are Black).

Again, even if your conclusion is correct, your reasoning is specious.

1- Well, I’m not a statistician and don’t claim to be one. But even with my limited understanding it still seems like 29 wins and 9 nominations proves that the Academy has no problem nominating or awarding to African Americans.

2- The Netflix movie was not eligible for nomination.

3- So all you are really left with is 1 example in 2 years, Jordan…

[CarnalK]

Was going to add:
Whites are over represented at about 72% of SAG, making up the difference from Hispanic actors who are massively underrepresented at 7%

[brickbacon]

@Robert163

yeah

it has to be released in both NYC and LA and run for like 2 weeks I think… which I don’t think the Netflix movie was.

I’d agree, he did an excellent job in that movie

I think it was. The wiki says it played in independent theaters due to the boycott against it by big chains. Additionally, 538 says Elba had 6-1 odds to win it all, so I presume he was eligible. I could be wrong, but I see no evidence of that being the case.

@billfish678

I think calling two years running “many years” is a bit of misleading hyperbole.

Two years is not many years. I was commenting on the fact that many if not most years have no Black actors nominated, and that that trend has happened two years in a row. I wasn’t saying two is many.

[Frylock]

@Robert163

What more stats do you need???

29 nominations
9 wins

Well, the:

29 nominations
9 wins

would indicate to me that there is no bias

3 nominations
1 win

would indicate bias

Can you show your math please?

[Robert163]

@brickbacon

I think it was. The wiki says it played in independent theaters due to the boycott against it by big chains. Additionally, 538 says Elba had 6-1 odds to win it all, so I presume he was eligible. I could be wrong, but I see no evidence of that being the case.

ok, well, perhaps/probably i was wrong. he definitely did a great job in that movie.

[Robert163]

@Frylock

Can you show your math please?

You can link to EyebrowsofDoom if you want (first post), I am repeating what he listed. I apologize if it seems I am making an excuse, I’m not a statistician and don’t claim to be one…

[slash2k]

@Robert163

1- Well, I’m not a statistician and don’t claim to be one. But even with my limited understanding it still seems like 29 wins and 9 nominations proves that the Academy has no problem nominating or awarding to African Americans.

Proves nothing of the sort. It is evidence that the Academy is not utterly opposed to nominating or awarding to African-Americans, but it says nothing about whether African-Americans have equal opportunity, or whether performances of similar caliber are treated equally. A lack of such equality is a problem–it may not be as big a problem as an absolute ban, but it’s still a problem.

In fifteen years, there were roughly 300 nominations for acting awards, of which African-Americans garnered 29. That’s just under ten percent. African-Americans make up what percentage of SAG? and had what percentage of roles eligible for nomination?

[brickbacon]

@Robert163

1- Well, I’m not a statistician and don’t claim to be one. But even with my limited understanding it still seems like 29 wins and 9 nominations proves that the Academy has no problem nominating or awarding to African Americans.

And yet, you keep repeating this misleading stat as if it means anything either way. Again, as of tomorrow, 50% of the US presidents in the past 15 years have been Black. Does that tell you ANYTHING about political bias along racial lines?

@Robert163

2- The Netflix movie was not eligible for nomination.

Do you have a cite for that? This seems to argue it was eligible.

@Robert163

3- So all you are really left with is 1 example in 2 years, Jordan…

Well, no. People complained about Coogler not being nominated for Creed, Will Smith not being nominated for Concussion, no nominations for Straight Outta Compton, among others. That’s just for this year. I haven’t seen most of the movies so I cannot personally comment on their quality, but there were many people who others argue were snubbed.

[Robert163]

@slash2k

Proves nothing of the sort. It is evidence that the Academy is not utterly opposed to nominating or awarding to African-Americans, but it says nothing about whether African-Americans have equal opportunity, or whether performances of similar caliber are treated equally. A lack of such equality is a problem–it may not be as big a problem as an absolute ban, but it’s still a problem.

In fifteen years, there were roughly 300 nominations for acting awards, of which African-Americans garnered 29. That’s just under ten percent. African-Americans make up what percentage of SAG? and had what percentage of roles eligible for nomination?

That’s just under ten percent.

African Americans make up 13% of the population of the USA. So if they are nominated 10% of the time how is that a “bias”?

[CarnalK]

It looks like “Beast of no nation” was eligible, but they definitely flipped the bird at the movie establishment. I am sure that cost it many votes.\

eta: I mentioned a few posts back that the % of black actors in SAG is similar to the general population (or at least those getting jobs/showing up for casting calls). I got that from a 2007/2008 SAG report

[Robert163]

@brickbacon

And yet, you keep repeating this misleading stat as if it means anything either way. Again, as of tomorrow, 50% of the US presidents in the past 15 years have been Black. Does that tell you ANYTHING about political bias along racial lines?

I already admitted that previous to 15 years ago it was biased.

Do you have a cite for that? This seems to argue it was eligible.

Yes, I was wrong about that.

Well, no. People complained about Coogler not being nominated for Creed, Will Smith not being nominated for Concussion, no nominations for Straight Outta Compton, among others. That’s just for this year. I haven’t seen most of the movies so I cannot personally comment on their quality, but there were many people who others argue were snubbed.

Have you seen Straight Out Of Compton? I think you said no, right?

I’d say Will Smith and Idris Elba were snubbed except that they usually are regarded pretty well…

No nominations for Elba… not a good sign, he’s very talented. Lots of other awards/nominations but none form the Oscars. Only two for Will Smith, 2 nominations, no wins.

Nominations/wins:

Rockwell - 0
Ruffalo- 3
Hawk- 4
Gosling - 1
DiCaprio- 5
(Bardeem- 3, 1 win
Downey - 2
(Jude) Law- 2
Crowe- 3, 1 win
Gyllenhall - 1
(Colin) Farrell - 1, 1 win
Norton- 3
Hardy- 1
(Josh) Brolin- 1
Oscar Issac - 0
Fassbender - 2
J Phoenix- 2
Franco- 2
McConaughey- 1, 1 win
Gordon-Levitt - 0
Giamatti- 1
(Michael) Shannon- 1
(Bradley) Cooper- 3

Very few wins on there and lots of very talented actors. But, it does seem to skew in the favor of white actors. I’ll select black actors from that list for comparison… next post

Best Actors under 50

[slash2k]

@Robert163

African Americans make up 13% of the population of the USA. So if they are nominated 10% of the time how is that a “bias”?

Their percentage of the U.S. population is irrelevant; the relevant group is something more like “Oscar-worthy performances.” Now, how do you measure that?

If, e.g., blacks give 25% of Oscar-worthy performances but collect 10% of nominations, that’s gross bias. If they give 6% of such performances but collect 10% of nominations, that’s also biased, in the opposite direction. Which is closer to accurate?

Without a reasonably accurate number for the denominator, you’re whistling in the wind, and you don’t have it.

[Robert163]

TOP 50 ACTORS under the age 50
(I selected who I thought were the best, didn’t want to do all 50)

Nominations/wins

Rockwell - 0
Ruffalo- 3
Hawk- 4
Gosling - 1
DiCaprio- 5
(Bardeem- 3, 1 win
Downey - 2
(Jude) Law- 2
Crowe- 3, 1 win
Gyllenhall - 1
(Colin) Farrell - 1, 1 win
Norton- 3
Hardy- 1
(Josh) Brolin- 1
Oscar Issac - 0
Fassbender - 2
J Phoenix- 2
Franco- 2
McConaughey- 1, 1 win
Gordon-Levitt - 0
Giamatti- 1
(Michael) Shannon- 1
(Bradley) Cooper- 3

A total of 4 wins
3 actors I selected had 0 wins and 0 nominations
Black Actors from the list
(includes all black actors from the list)

Smith- 2
Foxx- 2
Ejiofor- 1
Elba- 0

0 wins
only 4 black actors made the list of top 50 under 50…
it seems there is a bit of racism/bias here… IDK… is there?

[Robert163]

@slash2k

Their percentage of the U.S. population is irrelevant; the relevant group is something more like “Oscar-worthy performances.” Now, how do you measure that?

If, e.g., blacks give 25% of Oscar-worthy performances but collect 10% of nominations, that’s gross bias. If they give 6% of such performances but collect 10% of nominations, that’s also biased, in the opposite direction. Which is closer to accurate?

still don’t understand

Without a reasonably accurate number for the denominator, you’re whistling in the wind, and you don’t have it.

don’t understand why people keep talking about the denominator
(29/300… or did you mean something else?)

[Peremensoe]

@Robert163

I already admitted that previous to 15 years ago it was biased.

Then by the same token, do you feel that it has become more biased again, in the past nine years? As I pointed out in the original thread, Eyebrows’ data set was chosen for best-possible spin on the point of black actors’ representation.

Best Actor:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 Morgan Freeman
2010 NONE
2011 NONE
2012 Denzel Washington
2013 Chiwetel Ejiofor
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Best Actress:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 Gabourey Sidibe
2010 NONE
2011 Viola Davis
2012 Quvenzhané Wallis
2013 NONE
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Supporting Actor:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 NONE
2010 NONE
2011 NONE
2012 NONE
2013 Barkhad Abdi
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Supporting Actress:
2007 Ruby Dee
2008 Viola Davis AND Taraji P. Henson
2009 Mo’Nique (winner)
2010 NONE
2011 Octavia Spencer (winner)
2012 NONE
2013 Lupita Nyong’o (winner)
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

[Robert163]

@Peremensoe

Then by the same token, do you feel that it has become more biased again, in the past nine years? As I pointed out in the original thread, Eyebrows’ data set was chosen for best-possible spin on the point of black actors’ representation.

Best Actor:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 Morgan Freeman
2010 NONE
2011 NONE
2012 Denzel Washington
2013 Chiwetel Ejiofor
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Best Actress:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 Gabourey Sidibe
2010 NONE
2011 Viola Davis
2012 Quvenzhané Wallis
2013 NONE
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Supporting Actor:
2007 NONE
2008 NONE
2009 NONE
2010 NONE
2011 NONE
2012 NONE
2013 Barkhad Abdi
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Supporting Actress:
2007 Ruby Dee
2008 Viola Davis AND Taraji P. Henson
2009 Mo’Nique (winner)
2010 NONE
2011 Octavia Spencer (winner)
2012 NONE
2013 Lupita Nyong’o (winner)
2014 NONE
2015 NONE

Yes, I agree, the vast number of years with NONE is not a good sign

[CarnalK]

There’s bias in that list but I have no idea how it was compiled. AFAIK it’s just whatever this “changoander” guy thought. Why not do a comparison on top grossing actors or something else more objective.