It was the interview that left her sobbing down the phone.
Sunrise presenter Sam Armytage told Australian Women’s Weekly she considered quitting her job after an interview with mixed race twins left her accused of being racist.
The 39-year-old interviewed British twins whose physical appearances were vastly different despite their shared lineage.
"The Aylmer twins come from a mixed race family in the UK," Armytage said.
"Maria has taken after her half-Jamaican mum with dark skin, brown eyes and curly, dark hair but Lucy got her dad’s fair skin — good on her — along with straight red hair and blue eyes."
The phrase "good on her" was considered a racist remark as though Armytage had congratulated the twin on her white appearance.
The news presenter later explained the phrase was a self-deprecating remark at her own fair complexion.
Listen to Sam on no filter... Post continues.
Armytage told the publication her decision to stay was fueled by the notion she refused to let her critics win.
"I thought about quitting for a split second and then I thought, absolutely not — I'm not going to let the haters win, I’m not going to let the bastards win," she said.
Critics of the comments were said to have hounded the journalist on social media and even went so far as to send death threats.
Armytage made a full on-air apology to those offended by her remark.
Feature image via Instagram: @sam_armytage.
Top Comments
I very much doubt she would have been intentionally racist, because most of these light hearted morning shows the hosts are very aware of not crossing any line or causing offence whether or not they are closet racists or not because they know the backlash it will get. On the other hand Kyle, Andrew bolt etc are intentionally offensive because their chief demographic responds to that. Sam would have know her chief demographic would not respond well to if she said something racist, so I personally think it was just a slip of the tongue. It may have been a subconsciously racist remark but as a fellow pale person I tent to believe her, as much as there is no doubt in my mind that dark people are discriminated against and that as a white person I have a lot of privilege I'm also aware that there is a contradiction in society whereby I will be most likely favoured over a dark person in terms of employment, however people with a tan like complexion are considered more attractive than people with pale skin at this point in history, it is obvious that pale skin is not considered attractive because so many white people want a tan, so it wouldn't surprise me if she meant it as a self deprecating remark.
In any case however she meant it it was obviously just a slip of the tongue hardly a hanging offence the way people carry on. Let's save our hatred for the real racists, someone who won't give someone a job because they are dark etc. this is why people get fed up with political correctness, it is not that political correctness doesn't have a point, after all sometimes people do say and do things that are racist, sexist, homophobic or just hurtful, but sometimes people do these things out of sheer ignorance of how it may hurt someone and not intentionally, if this is the case rather that they be told nicely because often times people just don't realise that what they said was hurtful. If someone had just nicely and gently said to Sam, "hi Sam I'm not sure if you meant this but what you said just sound a bit insulting to Jamaicans." Then I'm sure Sam would have said, "oh gee I didn't realise that it could have been construed that way, it wasn't my intent, but sorry about that." Then the other person, "oh ok thanks for clearing that up and thanks for the apology."
I think this is the way we should be treating each other, giving people the benefit of the doubt before jumping to conclusions, let's think about the intent of someone, if they are well intentioned but sometimes get it wrong then gently reeducate them, on the other hand keep in mind people are not infallible and that even the people we love say and do things sometimes that may offend us, sometimes it's worth telling them other times it's not worth sweating the small stuff, because also everyone is offended by different things. For instance if someone's mother in law helps her cook, that women might get huffy and think her mother in law is taking over, another might be grateful as they think the mother in law is just being helpful. The point is we all get sensitive about different things. If someone is a repeat offender, eg constantly critical, or racist etc then it's worth saying something, but if someone does a one off thing then perhaps we should give them the benefit of the doubt or realise they are not infallible just like the rest of us. For all we know we might all be unintentionally offending people all the time, asking someone how their kid is going at school might be a sensitive topic if the kid is failing. If we have a go at everybody for everything they say and do because someone has unintentionally pricked our sensitive spot then what kind of world will we live in where people are walking around on egg shells too scared to speak in case they offend.
On the other hand people who are nasty and intentionally rude or racist etc should be called out for their behaviour, not good people who occasionally get it wrong.
Self-deprecating? Uh the fairer twin has red hair.