Yes, but why 15 years? Why is that the cutoff and not say, 10 years, which would make your stat 18/200 nominations or 8 years which would make it 12/160? Do you see why cherry picking isn’t really helpful?
No, I haven’t really seen any of the nominated movies.
it was just the first hit i got on google
plus it was already linked to IMDB
and, top grossing =x= best
i’ll take a look at your link however
ETA: lots of actors over 50 on that list
I wanted a list more centered around the last 15 years
The 300 represents the people nominated. The discussion, however, is about people who gave performances worthy of nomination whom the Academy did not choose to nominate. THOSE people never show up in your statistics at all. You’re ignoring them, the same as the Academy is (allegedly) ignoring them.
When a black actor (say, Idris Elba) gives a stunning performance as good or better than the ones that were nominated, but the Academy chooses to ignore Elba, is that evidence of bias? The argument being made is Yes, the Academy is biased because black actors are not nominated for performances that would get a white actor an Oscar nomination.
(Disclosure: I didn’t see any of the movies nominated, so I have no opinion about that at all.)
The equation you are giving is:
The argument is that the equation you should be using is:
or possibly:
In either case, the denominator should include “people who ought to be nominated but were not,” and right now you don’t count them at all.
There’s a lot of current stars on that list. But whatever.
I’m not trying to cherry pick anything. I think 15 years is the best estimate because before that I don’t think there is any debate were things racist/biased.
The thing that baffles me is, if this bias against blacks is real who is perpetrating it - Hollywood liberals? I never hear anyone from the usual Hollywood spokesmen and women sound like they would countenance such a thing. So where is the racist bias coming from?
1- I’m not ignoring anything. My list was a starting point for discussion.
2- Sam Rockwell is at least a good of an Actor as Idris Elba. Neither have any nominations. I think it is more a function of Elba being in less Movies and more TV shows, actually.
If there is a bias I think it would be an “unaware” bias. Still, not good, if it does exist.
If you had to guess, what percentage of Academy members do you think vote Republican?
besides bruce willis and clint eastwood?
not many
You asked why the denominator keeps being brought up. slash2k illustrated the reason perfectly. Your methodology doesn’t take into account the correct comparison population. It’s a poor analysis.
Why? Was there something about the election of George W Bush that heralded an end to systemic bias or something? Honestly, is 15 years a good indicator of anything? Additionally, the 2016 award nominations are already out which makes your stat incorrect since it would run from 2002-2016, meaning you lose 3 nominations and 2 wins.
First, liberals aren’t immune to being racist. Second, racial bias doesn’t have to be conscious or intentional. It usually isn’t these days. For example, a member of the KKK would almost assuredly have no close Black friends. Also, most White adults, most of whom are not avowed racists, also have no close Black friends. Both situations are likely due in part to racial biases on their part and systemic biases in society. Now when looking at a situation from the other side where you meet a White guy with no close Black friends, you cannot assume s/he is a racist just because a circumstance in their life reflects racial bias. For most White people I know w/o Black friends, it’s mostly just because of where they live, work, and marry. These things tend to be perpetuated because few people take the time to consciously rectify the situation or take stock of their own biases.
Why do you think that? The Academy is overwhelmingly white, male, and older (94% Caucasian, 77% male, median age of 62–cite). Because all members are members for life, many haven’t actually worked in the industry in decades, and even those that do represent all branches of the motion picture industry, not just actors.
And yes, you have repeated pointed to “29 / 300” as proof of lack of bias. That utterly ignores everybody who wasn’t nominated, and it is precisely the lack of nominations that is the crux of the argument about bias.
Maybe there is a weakness in the analysis.
But wouldn’t a ratio of 5 nominations and 1 win be a clearer sign of bias than 29 nominations and 9 wins???
Not that it has much to do with anything, but I would guess around 15-30% depending on the office and people running. I have to say though I am not basing my guess on much.
I dont know
it doesnt have the reputation of being a republican stronghold
it has the reputation as being the opposite
maybe you would do better to cite that movie studios will not take the financial risk to put minority actors/directors in lead roles???
Since the whole argument is about lack of nominations, lack of recognition in the first place, not really. By the time you’ve winnowed the field of potential nominees, the bias (if it exists) has already occurred.
but there were 29 nominations
wouldn’t 5 nominations be a much clearer sign of bias
I have no statistics on how many movies have minority actors in high-visibility roles or minority directors. Do you?
And Hollywood actors have the reputation of being quite liberal. The suits who run the major studios have a long-standing reputation of being as conservative as their brethren in any other big business. I have no idea what the political breakdown is among producers or cinamatographers.
If there were 5 black actors nominated amongst 300 nominees, and everything else was equal, yes, this would be possible evidence of greater bias.
However, “well, we’re only somewhat biased, instead of grossly biased” isn’t a winning argument here. If there is any sort of racial bias, the Academy is biased and needs to improve.