In early May, NBC officially canceled its airing of the 2022 Golden Globes Awards. It’s the final nail in the coffin of a very swift and dramatic fall from grace for the legendary Awards Show, often dubbed the “biggest party in Hollywood.”

So how exactly did we get here? And is there a flicker of hope that just like the mythical phoenix, the Globes will eventually rise from the ashes and return better? Hmm, it’s dubious right now. However, you know what they say, “Hollywood loves a comeback.”

Before we delve into the how of this scandal, let’s take a quick stroll down memory lane to the history of the Golden Globes. The Golden Globes is awarded by the Hollywood Foreign Press Association (HFPA), a 90 member nonprofit organization of journalists and photographers, founded in 1943. The first Golden Globes were awarded the following year, where the film The Song of Bernadette was the big winner for Best Actress and Best Film. In 1955, the Association added television categories.

Very early in its existence, the Globes were fraught with controversy. A brief split in the organization occurred in 1950, leading to the creation of rival organizations – The Hollywood Foreign Correspondents Association and Foreign Press Association of Hollywood. Eventually, the two sides reunited in 1955 to establish what is known today as The HFPA. But perhaps the controversy that has plagued the HFPA, is accusations of award winners being chosen based on various compensation to members by the movie studios, producers, publicists, etc.

The Awards was censured and kicked off the air twice by the FCC for these claims, and in 1958, then-President Henry Gris resigned after the clients of a single PR firm took home the majority of the awards. But perhaps no controversy remained a longer stain on the Globes than that of Pia Zadora’s 1982 Best New Star win for Butterfly, a film that was critically panned. The young actress was, at the time, married to a billionaire whom it was revealed had flown all members of the HFPA to one of his Las Vegas hotels where they were wined and dined. You do the math.

Despite the controversies, the Globes plugged along, eventually gaining widespread attention once NBC, in partnership with Dick Clark Productions, began airing the show live in 1993. The atmosphere of stars from television and film mixing at the cramped Beverly Hills Hilton hotel ballroom, complete with alcohol flowing, made for a fun night. The Globes quickly gained a reputation for being the fun counterpart to the staid and stuffy Oscars, where anything could happen.

So once again, how did we get to the point of NBC canceling its airing of the ceremony and Tom Cruise going as far as returning his three Golden Globes? It all started with a Los Angeles Times investigation piece, which amid other claims, confirmed the long-held belief that the members were susceptible to bribes in exchange for awards (you can read a comprehensive timeline of events here). However, confirmation of another long-held belief lit the match and fueled the current backlash. That is, the HFPA has no black members and some of its practices discriminated against black shows and movies.

A firestorm quickly erupted from this point. The HFPA attempted to curb the crisis. However, a series of missteps only exacerbated the issue.  Such as an email leak that revealed former eight-term President (and then-current member) of the Association, Phillip Berk, referring to the Black Lives Matter movement as a racist hate movement. The HFPA expelled Berk, but the bleeding was far too excessive by this point. The diversity consultant hired to make significant changes quit, as did the crisis communications firm hired.

By the time the HFPA released its outline of transformational reforms it plans to implement, it was too little too late. Many challenged the statement, noting that the changes suggested were insufficient, and based on the timeline, too slow in implementation. The final blow from NBC soon followed.

So where does the HFPA go from here? Honestly, I’m not sure. Hollywood indeed loves a comeback, not to mention they love patting themselves on the back. It is certainly possible that with time and distance and a show of genuine effort to diversify on the part of the organization, things may turn around. For now, HFPA and its members are being treated as pariahs with who no one wants to be associated.

And to be honest, I find it a little disingenuous and a bit of performative wokeness. Don’t get me wrong, the HFPA is indeed plenty problematic and needs to change many of its practices, including its pay for play model (or, in this case, pay for Globe) and certainly including black voices into its membership. Perhaps then some television shows and movies will not be dismissed without members watching or given it any consideration, simply because they deem them “too black” (see Bridgerton).

That said, per its history outlined above, the HFPA has ALWAYS been problematic. More importantly, it’s ALWAYS been an open secret that studios and other Hollywood heavyweights have bought nominations for their various films, television shows, and clients. We’ve all known this. Many just turned a blind eye to it. Probably because throughout most of the 2000s, the Globes have rewarded many critically acclaimed shows and films. And in the case of films, many have also gone on to eventual Oscar glory.

But it’s certainly not a shocking secret to anyone that with the right A-List name attached and expensive perks can buy nominations. Also not shocking is that there has never been a black member. It’s particularly side-eyeing reading criticisms and “outrage” from various Hollywood publicists and executives from streaming giants like Netflix, as it is common knowledge many of these people have schmoozed members of the HFPA for their projects and clients. Did they somehow miss the fact that there were no black members present during those times?

After all, let’s talk about Netflix, which received a whopping 42 nominations at this year’s Golden Globe ceremony for a variety of its movies and shows. Two of these nominations went to the critically panned Emily in Paris, for which the LA Times confirmed, 30 members of the HFPA received a luxury trip to Paris as part of a press trip for the show. I’m sure that did not factor into these nominations. Just I am sure the Netflix executives were unaware of this.

The point I’m making is yes, the HFPA is problematic and deserves criticism for their behavior. However, they are also merely a microcosm of the larger Hollywood ecosystem. And so to have some members of that same system playing the pearl-clutching, “I’m so outraged” narrative feels a bit forced and fake. Especially as there was not the same level of vitriol hurled at the Academy of Motion Picture, Arts & Sciences during the #OscarsSoWhite backlash. I certainly didn’t see any actor rushing to return their Oscar.

Yes, the Academy received criticism. In response, they made promises of change, outlined what those changes would be, and many quickly moved on, even though we can certainly argue that more still needs to be done. The bottom line is when it comes to Hollywood, it all starts and ends with a systemic structure that still prioritizes white talent (directors, actors, screenwriters, etc.) over all else. Not unlike society at large.

So while I’m all for calling out the HFPA and taking them to task (and I do hope real change occurs within the organization), I am not ready to applaud the ones who profited off that system and problematic nature for years. Until it no longer served their image to do so.