Thursday, March 14, 2013

Bloomberg Businessweek Goes Too Far With "Racist" Cover

Critics are reading a lot into a zany picture.  There are actually four shades of skin color shown.  The idea is clearly to show that everybody is benefiting

Last week's issue of Bloomberg Businessweek drew wide attention for all the wrong reasons. For its story on the new housing rebound, the magazine's cover featured cartoonish depictions of minorities practically drowning in cash. Journalists, bloggers, and politicians all denounced the cover as racist. "They [the magazine] ought to be ashamed," wrote Matthew Yglesias at Slate.

The Bloomberg Businessweek cover was offensive because it played upon the worst stereotypes of Latinos and African-Americans. Not only was it incorrect in suggesting that minorities caused the housing crisis, it was not at all an appropriate illustration for the accompanying article. Unfortunately for Bloomberg Businessweek, this cover represented a tremendous lapse in editorial judgment.

The cover in question showed four bug-eyed, big-lipped people lolling about a pink shack that is literally bursting with dollar bills. While the ethnicity of these characters is ambiguous, one thing is clear: none of them are white. It is astonishing that no one at Bloomberg BusinessWeek realized that this imagery -- showing minorities as lazy, irresponsible, and greedy -- would be perceived as insulting to people of color.



Anonymous said...

So racist to depict anyone of any skin pigment level other than lily-white benefiting from the housing boom through responsible home-ownership. That might imply they don't need Obamaphones and Medicaid, and messes with the narrative.

Anonymous said...

showing minorities as lazy, irresponsible, and greedy

Well, if the shoe fits!

Anonymous said...

Yes, i can see how some would be offended, especially today when the truth is no longer acceptable. There are tens-of-Millions of people in the US who are living proof that the cartoon is accurate.

And of course, the so-called "poor" were not responsible for the housing bust. That was caused by insatiable greed and stupidity on the part of the elected lying crooks in congress.

But, those so-called "poor" people who had an income of $20K a year, if that, and went out and bought a house for $500K, are not at fault? Oh, i forgot. Professional victims are never at fault, are they.

Anonymous said...

Globalization makes everyone a victim and everyone at fault.

Anonymous said...

Considering that the majority of welfare recipients are black, (admittedly by a very small margin, but that number accounts for a much larger percentage of the black population than other races) this looks like a pretty accurate portrayal of black America reacting to monetary windfalls thanks to the increasing giveaway of welfare money.