Maybe I’m a naive black woman, but I think Stanley and the editors were trying way too hard to be clever in their turn of phrase. Stanley’s writing isn’t clear enough so the nuance can show. In fact, at points in the article, her writing is so over wrought to make the “Angry Black Woman” phrase fit, that it is ridiculous. It’s way too simple to say that Stanley and her editors are just racists. Instead, I’m going with lazy, tone deaf, and uninformed about historic representations. The controversy speaks to a larger issue: No one that read it thought twice about the perceptions of the readers—black, white or otherwise? That’s why there’s a problem when there’s a lack of diversity in newsrooms.