New York Times Public Editor Margaret Sullivan has published an inquiry into TV critic Alessandra Stanley's bizarre article in which she called Shonda Rhimes an "angry black woman" and characterized Oscar winner Viola Davis as "less classically beautiful" than others.

Shonda RhimesShonda Rhimes was the target of Alessandra Stanley's piece

"There are some big questions here - about diversity, about editing procedures and about how The Times deals with stories about women and race," Sullivan writes. "They are worth exploring in depth."

Stanley caused outrage from the very beginning of her recent piece, writing, "When Shonda Rhimes writes her autobiography, it should be called 'How to Get Away With Being an Angry Black Woman'".

Stanley says her "intentions were misunderstood" and blamed Twitter for focusing on "140 characters" of her entire work. She says her piece was intended to highlight Rhimes career ahead of the debut of her new show How To Get Away Murder, which also stars Viola Davis.

More: Dear New York Times, Shonda Rhimes is not an "angry black woman"

Sullivan said arts and culture editors at the newspaper were "well aware" of the negative response to the piece.

"There was never any intent to offend anyone and I deeply regret that it did," culture editor Danielle Mattoon said.

"Alessandra used a rhetorical device to begin her essay, and because the piece was so largely positive, we as editors weren't sensitive enough to the language being used."

Twitter reacted furiously to the piece, with one user saying, "At least three @nytimes editors saw Alessandra Stanley's "Angry Black Woman" piece and offered no objections. This is a PROBLEM."

"It is clear that Alessandra Stanley doesn't regret a thing, and remains insistent that it is us who have it wrong," said another.

""Never any intent to offend" is not the same as "We're really sorry. That was sh*tty. And tone-deaf," said another.

More: ABC expanding partnership with Shonda Rhimes