I saw a bit of sexism on display by media and Twitter users in noting the deaths of John and Alicia Nash, the couple whose lives were portrayed in the movie “A Beautiful Mind.”
The Nashes died in an accident Saturday while riding in a taxi on the New Jersey Turnpike.
Two people died in the crash. Admittedly, one of them was a Nobel Prize winner whose mind was immortalized by Hollywood as “beautiful.” But the other passenger killed in the crash, was also a powerful character in the same movie, her portrayal by Jennifer Connelly winning an Oscar. But Alicia got no mention in the headline, tweet or lead of the New York Times:
Breaking News: John Nash, Nobel-Winning Mathematician Portrayed in ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ Dies in Crash http://t.co/Hb5UQ9Wiyj
— The New York Times (@nytimes) May 24, 2015
As you can see from the screenshot above, Alicia Nash was in the photo the Times used and did get a mention in the second paragraph.
Clearly John Nash was the more famous half of the couple. He did have the “Beautiful Mind,” and his death was absolutely noteworthy. But isn’t an elderly couple dying together newsworthy in itself? Don’t lots of couples hope they will die together, rather than leaving one to mourn the other? Her death is an important part of this story.
And, oh, by the way, she was an outstanding and memorable character, too, in that movie. Wouldn’t her death, if she had died alone, have been worthy of a New York Times obituary (even with the gender imbalance of Times obits), headline and tweet? If she were the brilliant mathematician and Russell Crowe had won an Oscar for portraying her husband (he was nominated for an Oscar for “A Beautiful Mind”), I think we can be pretty sure they would have shared mentions in the headlines and tweets.
And if you want to defend leaving her out, don’t use Twitter’s character count or the tighter counts of headlines as an excuse. Alicia is six characters, wife is four. Add a comma or an ampersand to either of those words and you can add an important newsworthy person and element to your tweet or headline for less than 10 characters. I’d like to hear a defense if you have one, but not that one.
While I single out the Times because it’s the most prominent newspaper, it was not alone in its focus on a single death from the crash:
‘Beautiful Mind’ Mathematician John Nash, Jr. Dies In New Jersey Car Crash http://t.co/gLdb78z5AC — NPR News (@nprnews) May 24, 2015
Nobel Laureate John Nash, who inspired ‘A Beautiful Mind,’ has been killed in a taxi crash http://t.co/vSrv3NurkA — Bloomberg Business (@business) May 24, 2015
John Nash, mathematician portrayed in A Beautiful Mind, dies in taxi crash at 86 http://t.co/DPkpk6JOAX pic.twitter.com/Oua3Kj7Cl6
— The Guardian (@guardian) May 24, 2015
Note that the New York Post uses a photo of Russell Crowe, but not Alicia Nash.
John Nash, Nobel prize winner & inspiration for “A Beautiful Mind,” was killed in a cab crash http://t.co/XOcy7uQx5zpic.twitter.com/455lXg4maI — New York Post (@nypost) May 24, 2015
John F. Nash Jr. dies. He was 86. The Nobel laureate was subject of “A Beautiful Mind.” http://t.co/8N2Pmqj8z3 pic.twitter.com/0ODD9NpXzO
— Washington Post (@washingtonpost) May 24, 2015
These media tweets didn’t mention Alicia Nash, but the accompanying headlines did:
‘A Beautiful Mind’ mathematician killed in New Jersey taxi crash http://t.co/Yax13AoOZP
— TIME.com (@TIME) May 24, 2015
No charges expected in NJ Turnpike crash that killed John Nash, prosecutor’s spokesman says – @noahyc http://t.co/16w7xmVgRi
— Breaking News (@BreakingNews) May 24, 2015
This media tweet didn’t mention Alicia, but the cutline with the photograph did:
John Nash, ‘A Beautiful Mind’ mathematician, dead at 86 http://t.co/rnu7KMzOYB — Rolling Stone (@RollingStone) May 24, 2015
To be fair, some media outlets and journalists did mention Alicia Nash in their tweets about the crash, rarely by name:
“A Beautiful Mind” Mathematician John Nash And Wife Killed In Taxi Crash http://t.co/DbJwWhv8I4 pic.twitter.com/ZrNlH4Qnl3
— BuzzFeed News (@BuzzFeedNews) May 24, 2015
John Nash, mathematician who inspired “A Beautiful Mind,” dies in taxi wreck with his wife. http://t.co/W9udQZc6Ga pic.twitter.com/IKL51dOLhP — CNN Breaking News (@cnnbrk) May 24, 2015
Nobel Prize winner John Nash, the inspiration for a ‘A Beautiful Mind’, killed in car crash along with wife http://t.co/WhOoiDH9h3
— Yahoo News (@YahooNews) May 24, 2015
John Nash, wife, ‘A Beautiful Mind’ inspiration, die in New Jersey Crash http://t.co/9USwPYF5Pg — Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 24, 2015
Princeton mathematician John Nash and his wife, Alicia, are killed in a car accident http://t.co/VpkSypPwQH pic.twitter.com/fxaijvb8u5
— Quartz (@qz) May 24, 2015
Police: ‘Beautiful Mind’ mathematician John Nash, wife die in New Jersey turnpike crash, AP reports — Los Angeles Times (@latimes) May 24, 2015
John Nash, ‘A Beautiful Mind’ mathematician and wife reportedly killed in car crash. http://t.co/4vZMqYcORk pic.twitter.com/yZ4G7TuzyY
— Mashable (@mashable) May 24, 2015
Famed ‘A Beautiful Mind’ mathematician John Nash, wife killed in NJ taxi crash, police say http://t.co/wSYfwzKmmG — Greg Mitchell (@GregMitch) May 24, 2015
Update: Here’s a tweet, called to my attention in a comment, that gave Alicia her due:
#RIPAliciaNash Love the one you're with. http://t.co/aPe8UMHq0K pic.twitter.com/zVmjjYxeDV
— Mary Grace Kosta (@marygkosta) May 24, 2015
I’ll be inviting response from New York Times editors and will add it if they send anything. If you wrote one of the tweets above and would like to respond, I invite your feedback in the comments or on Twitter (I’ll add your tweet to the post if you mention me).
But let’s close with a little recognition for Alicia Nash, who died with her husband, John, in a crash Saturday:
Update: Tom McKay tweeted at me that he mentioned Alicia Nash in his headline.
I thought pretty much the same thing as I was reading through the various posts, tweets and stories. But how about a rather simple fact that might have saved their lives: They weren’t wearing seat belts. Journalists shouldn’t overlook that as people honor the couple and work to lighten the grief burden of their families and friends. #DJNFBiz15 @NABJ #SuttonClass
LikeLike
Good point, Will. I didn’t note that here because I saw it was mentioned in stories.
LikeLike
I noticed the sexism too. That’s why I decided to send out my tweet about Alicia Nash only. See my twitter @marygkosta. They shared a long life together and I think they found some peace in the end, don’t you? Thanks for your blog.
LikeLike
Thanks, Mary! I added your tweet to the post.
LikeLike
Thank you. I certainly think Alicia Nash in her own right achieved a lot academically (being one of a small group of women at MIT when she met John Nash) and who knows what she might have achieved in science had she not married and become the life support for two gifted but ill men. She was truly a woman who loved and I hope she and her family found peace in their later years. I’m glad you wrote this blog. Let’s not write Alicia Nash out of history.
LikeLike
This is so absurd. He won the Nobel Prize. A book and movie were made about his life. They were actually on their way home from him winning the Abel Prize in Norway. He was widely regarded as one of the great mathematicians of the 20th century.
She was married to him. And a great actress played her in a movie. Nothing wrong with leading a relatively normal life (and I’m sure doing it quite well and to private distinction), but she, in a public sense, accomplished absolutely nothing at all worthy of even a mention in a obituary section of a serious newspaper…aside from supporting him through the years.
When interviewed about why she married him, she said: “He was very, very good looking, very intelligent,” Mrs. Nash told Ms. Nasar. “It was a little bit of a hero worship thing.”
The fact she isn’t mentioned in headlines and tweets about the accident and deaths is because… in a news sense (and we are talking about actual news here), his death was the only news-worthy one.
LikeLike
Bullshit. Of course his death is more newsworthy than hers, and any story about her would identify her as his wife. But a husband and wife dying together is a distinctive feature of this news event. And the death of a person made famous in a movie is always newsworthy. The horribly cumbersome New York Times lead was more than 50 words long and didn’t mention either the death of the other famous person. How is that defensible?
LikeLike
She got the exact appropriate amount of mention that her public life accorded her: His wife, who stuck by him through his problems. That’s it.
Of a 800-1000 word obit, she deserved (and got) the appropriate 50-75 words.
The ONLY reason her life was remotely newsworthy was that she was married to him and that a talented actress won an Oscar playing her in a movie. That latter noteworthiness is 100% on the actress, given it is pretty much impossible to argue that somehow the deceased woman had any part in… the acting part.
Horrible tragedy, but perfectly handled by pretty much every single obit I read yesterday. Kudos to good and accurate reporting and headline writing.
LikeLike
Michael, one of the Von Trapp daughters got a New York Times obit when she died last year: http://www.nytimes.com/2014/02/24/arts/maria-von-trapp-sound-of-music-daughter-dies-at-99.html?_r=0
Movies are important in our culture and give the people in them greater fame than people whose equally remarkable lives never make it to the screen. The same movie you are dismissing as meaningless to her news value made Nash’s death more notable than the deaths of other Nobel Prize winners.
I’m not going to keep going back and forth with you. I get that you insist you are right and I can see that your arguments aren’t the least bit persuasive. So I’ll close here with a suggestion: If you’re married, ask your wife if she would deserve mention in the headline and lead, however notable either of you are, if you died together in a car crash.
LikeLike
What I’m particularly amused by is the modern-day version of discussing a topic, where one person summarily dismisses the argument of the other with the straw man line such as “I get that you insist you are right…”
I’ve heard your argument. And I think I understand it. You think Mrs. Nash deserves mention in the obituary in question. News flash… so do I. Follow-up news flash… she got a mention. She got the appropriate mention.
As a former news person (I believe), I’d have assumed you understood how news works, but I’m not sure after your comment “ask your wife if she would deserve mention in the headline.” That’s your version of an unbiased and rational way to make news decisions? Here’s another news flash… if you ask ANYONE if they deserve a big obit in the NYT when they die, they are likely to say yes. And shockingly, the actual professionals then need to make the decision of what is merited, given the space restrictions of what they have to work with.
Given the circumstances of these deaths, there was going to be 800 or so words dedicated to both of their deaths. If she had died by herself, perhaps the NYT would indeed have done a nice 300-400 word obit on her, based on her being played in a popular movie. But because she died with her husband, it is simply a matter of news space and frankly just logic, that she was going to get written up in the same obit with him.
Your ad hominem attacks come from a worthy place, I’m sure. I also am a very-pro feminist and at least in my case, flaming liberal who has worked for Democrats on Capitol Hill and managed a couple political campaigns. I’m with your general sentiment.
But that being said, you can’t point to a single public life accomplishment of the deceased. None. Well, aside from “she stood by her man.” Well, and “she was very capably portrayed by a talented actress.”
Both of those are nice, but given that there were going to be about 800 words written about their deaths, the reporter/editors had to make a decision on what to focus on. And not too shockingly… they actually focused on the one member of the marriage who actually DID have a series of very important public life accomplishments.
Why that is shocking to you is a mystery to me. Why you think that is sexist is just baffling. Appreciate the sentiment, but this sort of argument is much more accurately placed on stories like why Amal Ramzi Alamuddin wasn’t the lead portion of the George Clooney wedding story. THAT is certainly the place for appropriate reflection on latent sexism in news reporting.
This simply isn’t one of those times.
LikeLiked by 1 person
I usually delete inaccurate comments but I will let yours stand and correct it here. You are responding to what you imagine that I wrote, not what I actually wrote. You say, “You think Mrs. Nash deserves mention in the obituary …” No, I noted that she was mentioned in the lead and I noted that he was more famous. I said she deserved mention in the headline, tweet and lead. And she did. You’re arguing with your own mistake now, which you’re welcome to do, but I don’t see any further need to join you.
LikeLike
Correction: I noted that she was mentioned in the second paragraph.
LikeLike
I wrote several posts in the comments section of John Nash’s obituary yesterday morning. Here’s one: “I am shocked that the New York Times does not seem to think that Alicia Nash merits her own obituary. I was going to hit “subscribe” today because they are running a half off subscription series; however, because I cannot find her obituary on their site, I see no reason to support an institution that doesn’t recognize Alicia Nash’s critical role in her husband’s work and life. In her day, there wasn’t much opportunity for a woman in math and science. As the NYT reports in their obituary of her husband, she was “one of only 16 women in the class of 1955″ at MIT. Does the NYT believe that women such as Alicia Nash should be ignored? Through no fault of their own, but due to the patriarchal system in the USA, women such as she had extremely few routes to their own professional achievements. Were it not for Alicia Larde Nash, there’d be no celebrating of John Nash’s achievements and arguably no NYT obituary.”
LikeLike
Well said.
LikeLike
I too was upset due to the lack of publicity over Alicia Nash’s death along side of her husband – to have graduated from MIT in the 50s is a remarkable accomplishment in itself. Perhaps, some information on this remarkable woman is worthy of mention. First, Alicia was from a socially prominent family in El Salvador. Following her graduation from MIT, she worked as a Laboratory Physicist for Brookhaven Nuclear Development Corporation. In the 60s, she worked at RCA as an aerospace engineer. For a short time, she worked at Con Edison as a Systems Programmer and then at New Jersey Transit as a computer programmer. Alicia held membership in a number of women’s engineering societies, even servicing as President of the MIT Alumni Association. In 2005, Alicia was given the Luminary Award from the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation for her advocacy of Mental-illness. At the University of Texas at Austin, in 2012, Alicia was honored for her support of those with mental illness, delivering the keynote address. Given the above information, which the media neglected to mention (or even to research) – Alicia was accomplished in her own right earning a much better and informed obit.
LikeLike
Thanks for all that detail. Obviously I agree. I knew she was accomplished in her own right, and I’m sorry she didn’t get the sendoff she deserved.
LikeLike
[…] criticized the Times, along with other media, for failing to mention the death of Alicia Nash in news stories about the death of her husband. The couple died together in an auto […]
LikeLike