Personally, I see a white lady, a latino lady, a black lady and a black man. Not a black family. http://news.yahoo.com/blogs/lookout/bloomberg-business-week-housing-cover-racist-173444874.html Bloomberg Businessweek is taking a beating from critics who say the magazine's recent cover—featuring a cartoon illustration of what appears to be a black family rolling in cash from a housing rebound—is racist. "Our cover illustration got strong reactions, which we regret," Josh Tyrangiel, Bloomberg Businessweek's editor in chief, said in a statement to Yahoo News. "If we had to do it over again, we'd do it differently." The Feb. 25 cover depicts the cash-grabbing family members as stereotypical caricatures inside a two-story pink home above the headline "The Great American Housing Rebound." "Flips. No-look bids. 300 percent returns," the subhead reads. "What could possibly go wrong?" "The claim that minorities are creating a housing bubble through flipping, no-look bids, and 300% returns is simply not reality," Jacob Gaffney wrote on HousingWire.com. "Flipping is a form of fraud and not a typical transaction. No-look bids are not exclusive to Hispanic and African-American investors. No one is making a 300% return." "Businessweek Warns That Minorities May Be Buying Houses Again," Matthew Yglesias wrote on Slate.com. "It’s hard to imagine how this one made it through the editorial process," Ryan Chittum wrote on the Columbia Journalism Review. 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." Bloomberg Businessweek has become known for its provocative covers. Tyrangiel was named Advertising Age's 2012 Editor of the Year because of his willingness—along with creative director Richard Turley—to push the envelope. Last year, the magazine published a cover featuring two commercial jets having plane sex (under the headline "Let's Get It On") to illustrate the Continental-United merger. It also published a cover featuring Mitt Romney—then in the heat of the Republican primary—with the cover art from Bruce Springsteen's 1984 album "Born in the U.S.A." displayed in front of the former Massachussetts governor's backside, supporting the cover line: "SCORNED IN THE USA." "I'm glad that our covers have captured a lot of attention and that some people call them controversial, but that's really only because the stories themselves are controversial," Tyrangiel had told Ad Age. "Part of it is that we have a group of people here who are not afraid to handle really hot subjects."
I think the interesting part in this is . .. . Do you think the majority of people guilty of what it is alledging are minorities? If not . .. who do you think are the majority. Its subtle but the indication is clear . . . . intentional or not . . . if it is crime . .its a minority. subconsciously linking criminal/reckless behavior to minorities Not unlike the 'welfare queen' image . . .when most people on welfare are not black. Rocket River
The majority of people guilty are definitely not minorities. However if you group them as a whole, then maybe because then they outnumber caucasians, but I don't know the #'s to make a proper assertion. However, considering that the illustrator himself is not caucasian, I definitely don't think there is any intentional racism. I think the idea was to represent America as a whole, which includes all races. Now, I DO think this could have been better achieved if one of the two black people were Asian or of Middle Eastern descent.
I love this response. If there's anything negative at all to be depicted in any story that can be shown with pictures or a drawing of people, should we only use white people so we don't offend minorities? So when it comes to news and any type of miniority, should we hire actors? Where exactly can you draw the line with this rationale?
I'm black, two of the characters could be non-black (I think the white girl is possibly meant to be obese as well); and tangentially enough Mike Bloomberg doesn't strike me as racist: or even remotely bad at anything he's ever done. Also glad they bought Businessweek.
Haven't read the article, but it wouldn't surprise me if people are being dumb with housing again....not even five years later. Anyhow, pretty sure most of the "housing rebound" is being driven by wall street investors (white men) who have been buying up houses in bulk only to rent them back to the same poor suckers they helped to screw a couple years ago.
I think the problem is when all the negative images are of minorities. I'm not sure if you've read Roots or not, but in that book there are blacks that are depicted negatively and are the bad guys. However there are people of other races that are as well. I don't think any minorities have a problem with the negative depictions that occur in Roots.
If they were all blond or red-headed, no-one would have had a problem. The complaints here are a bridge too far. Attacking publications that most people don't read because of the appearance of the insinuation of racial insensitivity in cover art (that is produced subsequent to and completely independently of the content itself) is tiresome.
I agree with you about the cover being produced independently, which is why I don't think the art work is racist. I was addressing the general point that the poster made about anything that depicts a minority in a negative way is bad. I showed that that wasn't the case.
