Bloomberg's Racist Businessweek Cover

[JaneyVee]

-snip-

The cover stands out not only for its caricatures of blacks and Hispanics, Ryan Chittum asserted at CJR, but because “there are only people of color in it, grabbing greedily for cash.” Questioning how the art made it through the editorial process, Chittum went on to detail the issue he took with the approach, noting that the “narrative of the crash on the right has been the blame-minority-borrowers line, sometimes via dog whistle, often via bullhorn.”

The housing bubble did “disproportionately” victimize minorities, he argued, but the magazine “has them on the cover bathing in housing-ATM cash, implying that they’re going to create another bubble.” That, he said, is not okay.

Along similar lines, Slate’s Matthew Yglesias said Businessweek, a “genuinely great” publication, misfired with a “racist” cover, which conveys the message: “We can know things are really getting out of hand since even nonwhite people can get loans these days!” And for that, he said, they “ought to be ashamed.”

Adding to the list, the Huffington Post’s Jason Linkins dubbed the cover “racist chic” with “vile depictions” of blacks and Hispanics. As Chittum noted, Businessweek hasn’t avoided strange or provocative covers in the past… but this one, some are arguing, went too far.

Link: http://www.mediaite.com/online/is-this-bloomberg-businessweek-cover-racist/

[JustAnotherGen]

1. And this is how

I'm seen in America.

[Skinner]

2. Yikes.

That is awful.

[bluedigger]

3. The magazine's editor should resign immediately.

There is no damn excuse.

[OldDem2012]

4. Sick. nt.

[onehandle]

5. Makes me think of anti-Jewish cartoon propaganda of Nazi Germany.

Businessweek has always been a rag.

I often link to the many, many articles of theirs predicting failure for Apple after Steve Jobs returned.

[fugop]

6. Mindblowingly horrifying.

How this got past editors ... just ... wow.

[cyberswede]

7. The hell?

The caricatures remind me of the depictions of black people on children's games from a hundred years ago.

[Blue_Tires]

29. +1...

It's the facial expressions that really push it over the line...I say it's totally intentional on the part of the artist, since there IS a non-offensive way to ink this...

But the whole thing is a massive fail from top to bottom...Even that little subtle "What could possibly go wrong?" teaser at the bottom

[uponit7771]

36. +1

[Dawson Leery]

8. An update of Reagan's mythological "Cadillac welfare queen".

[robinlynne]

9. and no banker prosecutions...

[CBGLuthier]

10. Disgusting

The only thing more disgusting is how many DUer's kiss his ass for the fucking soda ban.

[freshwest]

11. 'Racist Chic?' WTF? I hate this crap!

[Cha]

12. Stupid. no thanks for nothing, Bloomberg Business Weak.

[Dr. Strange]

13. The editor apologized semifusely.

"Our cover illustration last week got strong reactions, which we regret," Josh Tyrangiel, the magazine's editor, wrote in a statement sent to POLITICO. "Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we'd do it differently."

[Brigid]

16. Dear editor:

You are surprised that this offended people? Really?

[Blue_Tires]

27. Several people would have had to approve a cover for a publication of that size

That art didn't raise questions or doubts from ANYONE?? And because it hasn't been asked yet, what in fuck's name WAS your "intention"?

Or are they following Newsweek's model of "Create a cover so controversial/tawdry/tasteless/insulting that we'll just ride a wave of publicity, good or bad..."

[Brigid]

14. Who designed this?

[Hayabusa]

15. Even the freaking DOG is offensive!

There is nothing worthwhile about this cartoon. Nothing.

[Rex]

17. The Plutocracy likes to dabble in social engineering.

I am not surprised by this cover. Racist? Oh hell ya it is! I would say X and Y should be ashamed, but I doubt there is any shame in the bodies that made that cover or the owners of the mag.

[magical thyme]

18. disgusting.

"racist chic?" really?

[jollyreaper2112]

19. It does look bad

Drawing Bush as a chimp was obvious since he looked like one and was an idiot. Anyone drawing Obama in an ape-like fashion would of course be called a racist. Personally, I'd be more offended at the inaccuracy of calling him stupid since he isn't, just like calling him a socialist since he isn't. But it would be obvious poor taste.

It's pretty straightforward to draw a white character as a buffoon since there's no stereotypes to play into there. It would even be fine to draw a redneck treating his house like an ATM and being an idiot. Can't think of any way of drawing someone brown in similar circumstances without it coming across racist.

Some of these things feel like a real reach to be offended at. Something like this, though, how did it make it through review? It seems like a pretty obvious bad call.

[noiretextatique]

20. it doesn't just "look bad"

it's a racist lie. investors (probably a lot of them are bankers) are the ones who are benefitting from the real estate crash, and of course, they are the very people who created the crash in the first place. depicting them as a bunch of greedy pigs feeding at the trough would be totally sppropriate.

[jollyreaper2112]

23. oh

They were going for that angle as well? Crap, my dad rants about that all the time. Stupid, irresponsible brown people, poor beleaguered banks crapped on by nasty liberals.

[noiretextatique]

26. i think so

and your dad is delusional, but i am sure you are aware of that. yep: blame the black and brown people while the bankers are buying up the very properties they sold to them in the first place, knowing they could not afford them. a disgusting scam that cost a lot of people their life savings. someone should go to jail.

[Number23]

34. Spot on, noire

depicting them as a bunch of greedy pigs feeding at the trough would be totally sppropriate.

Would have been a much more realistic picture.

I remember reading that conservatives were blaming minorities for the sub-prime lending vultures ("it's their own fault for falling for the lies of the lenders!!1&quot before the crisis even hit.

Minorities didn't create this fiasco so why they felt the need to go this route is just bizarre. And the "what could go wrong?" bit at the end is trifling as hell. And honestly, could they have drawn those people any uglier?

[Raine1967]

21. Not only should Editor and publisher be held responsible-- what about the Art director

or perhaps a creative director -- who sought out an illustrator to depict what they were looking for.

I'd like to know what the illustrator was told by said art director. This is really wretched all around. It's not just the cover -- it is a multi-departmental failure that allowed this to happen.

[Judi Lynn]

22. Horrendous. Bloomberg owes everyone an apology NOW. n/t

[MadrasT]

24. That is horrible.

This country is swirling down the toilet.

[KittyWampus]

25. Weird… I see 2 people on the cover who are definitely "black" (though one looks like a child).

The other two figures are women and I certainly didn't see either as hispanic or any other particular ethnic group.

Taking a third, fourth fifth look… I still don't see what labels the two women as Latinas. One is fairly thin and the other fairly heavy.

[TeeYiYi]

28. WTF... That illustration is offensive! Poorly executed and unbelievably foul. ..nt

TYY

[mountain grammy]

30. This is offensive in so many ways.

Aside from the obvious racism, (to me it's obvious) is the impression that regular people were the greedy ones piling up the cash. It's a lie, lie, lie!

[ChisolmTrailDem]

31. What else do we expect from an increasingly degenerate society? eom

[Jumpin Jack Fletch]

32. Next up

A depiction of the "hook-nosed bankers" who "preyed" on the poor! Who employs these haters?

[one_voice]

33. What the fuck is 'racist chic'?...

this is awful. Shameful!

This isn't provocative, is trash, it's racist, it's disgusting.

[RedCappedBandit]

35. Yeah, that's legitimately offensive

[davidpdx]

37. Here is the part I find interesting

Andres Guzman, a Peru-born, Minneapolis-based artist, was commissioned by Bloomberg Businessweek for the illustration. "I was asked to make an excited family with large quantities of money," Guzman wrote on his Tumblr page before the controversy erupted. "I slipped in my lovely cat, Boo, which was my favorite part. Too bad I wasn’t asked to draw large quantities of cats. Drawing dollars was a drag."

"I simply drew the family like that because those are the kind of families I know," Guzman explained in a follow-up statement provided to Yahoo! News by Bloomberg Businessweek. "I am Latino and grew up around plenty of mixed families."

[Blue_Tires]

38. A quick image search shows the cover is in-line with his style, but he's also capable of this...

Wow...they actually look human...and real...

Like I said, there are ways to illustrate the cover story; and what he did completely misses the mark..

[davidpdx]

39. He is a talented guy. I can't ever imagine being able to draw like that.

The depth in the pictures is amazing.

I think it was more Bloomberg's fault then the artist. It sounds like they were pretty vague with what the article was about.

http://www.ibtimes.com/bloomberg-businessweek-cover-racist-editor-apologizes-artists-tumblr-page-reveals-clues-1107887

In a statement, Andres Guzman, the illustrator who created the cover, said, “The assignment was an illustration about housing. I simply drew the family like that because those are the kind of families I know. I am Latino and grew up around plenty of mixed families.”

http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2013/02/28/magazine-cover-draws-claims-of-racism/?partner=socialflow&smid=tw-nytimesbusiness