Bloomberg BusinessWeek is a lot edgier than its predecessor, at least where design is concerned. Sometimes it’s too edgy, like when it takes two minutes to read some headline intentionally designed to be barely legible.
You can particularly see this walk-up-to-the-line philosophy in its covers, which over the last year or so have pushed the line on what’s okay for a respected mass market magazine.
There was the airplanes-having-sex cover, which was amusing:
Then there was the Mormon business empire cover depicting John the Baptist telling Joseph Smith to pursue filthy lucre:
Lots of Mormons thought that crossed over into sacrilege. But it’s certainly defensible considering that, as BW’s good reporting showed, the church does indeed run itself like a tax-favored holding company. My problem with that cover was that “Hallelujah” is mostly an evangelical exclamation, not an LDS one, which seemed to signal the ever popular out-of-touch secular-media thing.
But this week’s BizWeek cover, for a story on the return of bubble behavior to the housing market, is clearly a mistake:
The cover stands out for its cast of black and Hispanic caricatures with exaggerated features reminiscent of early 20th century race cartoons. Also, because there are only people of color in it, grabbing greedily for cash. It’s hard to imagine how this one made it through the editorial process.
Compounding the first-glance problem with the image is the fact that race has been a key backdrop to the subprime crisis.
The narrative of the crash on the right has been the blame-minority-borrowers line, sometimes via dog whistle, often via bullhorn.
It’s a narrative that has, not coincidentally, dovetailed with “Obamaphone” baloney, the ACORN pseudo-scandal, and Southern politicians calling the first black president “food-stamp president,” and is meant to take the focus off the ultimate culprits: mortgage lenders with no scruples and the Wall Street banks who financed them.
In fact, though, the record is clear: minorities were disproportionately targeted by predatory lending, which has always gone hand in hand with subprime. Even when they qualified for prime loans that similar-circumstance whites got, they were pushed into higher-interest subprimes.
In other words, minority borrowers were disproportionately victimized in the bubble. But BusinessWeek here has them on the cover bathing in housing-ATM cash, implying that they’re going to create another bubble.
That’s not okay.
UPDATE: I have a bit more on this story here.




A screen capture or picture of the cover would be very helpful so readers could judge for themselves.
#1 Posted by Lance Williams, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:02 AM
I haven't read the BW article behind the cover, but I can't help but think there might be just a hint of irony in the caricature... Seems like that may have gotten lost in the drive for political correctness in Chittum's criticism.
#2 Posted by Nick, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:27 AM
See for yourself. It's disgusting. http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/28/racist_businessweek_cover_bloomberg_businessweek_misfires_badly.html
#3 Posted by Martin, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:34 AM
Pretty sure the woman in the lower left room is white.
#4 Posted by Jenni, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:49 AM
@Nick
I've read the article, and you're right that it addresses the exact issues covered here.
Unfortunately, you need more than a "hint" for it to be appropriate satire.
There are lots of ways to satirize the housing bubble we're approaching. Their choices here do little to suggest much more than it's the fault of the minorities. If they weren't shooting to fault minorities on the cover, they shouldn't have used fat-lipped and grossly exaggerated drawings of them that are more akin to pickaninny cartoons from 100 years ago.
The way this cover is illustrated, you might as well tell me that if a headline used the word ni**** sarcastically, it would be acceptable. Sure, it would be within someone's right to be stupid, but the response would be predictable.
And it's absolutely true that politicians use distractions to move the attention of voters away from real issues—regardless of party affiliation. It's an old political tactic. Commenting on it isn't some politically correct blinder, it's just plain politics.
#5 Posted by Wren, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:08 PM
Can we please get back to an environment where portraying white people negatively is the only acceptable social norm? Oh wait....
And for goodness sakes, can we please excuse any incompetence of a non-white president by calling any criticism racist? Monkey ears on every GWB caricature is perfect acceptable, but pointing out the atrocious management of the country's finances, uneven "justice" department and attacks on the Bill of Rights are clearly racist and have no merit in fact. Oh wait...
#6 Posted by Ambrodel, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:12 PM
I see 4 individual people. Anyone that puts these people into groups based on skin color are the racists.
#7 Posted by Eric A., CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:26 PM
The person standing up on the second BusinessWeek cover looks like Jesus, not John the Baptist.
#8 Posted by Hullo?, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:32 PM
...And to follow up on @Hullo?'s take -- having Jesus give the "commandments" makes more sense than crediting John the Baptist. Interesting that you'd pick apart the usage of "Hallelujah" as an "out-of-touch secular-media thing," when mistaking Jesus as John the Baptist is an even bigger example of an "out-of-touch secular-media thing," isn't it? Glass houses, folks...
#9 Posted by dlp, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:56 PM
Hullo and dlp, you're wrong: http://www.loc.gov/pictures/resource/pga.03080/
#10 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 12:59 PM
the word "racist" has been bandied about so much it's hard to know what anyone means by it anymore. it is not, however, difficult to see that -- even if one-quarter of the panel is white --the implication is that three-quarters of inappropriate loans allowed minorities to live on ill-gotten housing gains, and that's nonsense. how's about a cover depicting the greedy loan officers and bank managers and finance charlatans who perpetuated this debacle? the cover is insensitive, disingenuous and worst of all, playing to narrow-minded bigotry. i find it offensive for those reasons. but then, we're living through a social period where narrowmindedness has become the norm.
#11 Posted by Ellen Sweets, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 01:05 PM
Wow you guys are freakin crazy...
@Jenni - if the lips on the woman on the bottom look like a caricature of white people you need to make an appointment at the eye doctor.
@Ambrodel - this is racist. period. do not expand it to GWB's ears and your opinion of Obama and some imagined attack on the BOR, look, process, realize.
@Eric A. - really? the skin was colored by the magazine. It passed editors. it is what it is. I hope you don't use the same cognitive processes while driving.
@ Lance Williams - no opinion now that you have seen the cover?
@Nick - Irony, as you hoped it could be applied, is the wrong word by definition. See: Satire, maybe Also, no words excuse the blatant nature of the cover.
BTW all - Upper Middle Class, Married, Pale-A$$ white dude here looking at you peeps like I am in a different world.
#12 Posted by Michael, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 01:13 PM
yup yup, all predatory lending, nothing whatsoever to do with government distortions and mandates to give anyone and everyone a house no matter if they can feed their dog or not.
#13 Posted by dan, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 01:49 PM
what Michael said.
white woman, with 20 -20 vision, writing here.
#14 Posted by lauran, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 02:00 PM
Last I checked this country still had the doctrine of free speech in place......but, oh yes, we continue to make blanket exceptions when some hyper sensitive, read-something-into-everything, types are offended. Sheesh people. If you don't like what you see DON'T LOOK AT IT!
#15 Posted by Wendy Grimm, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 02:18 PM
Always remember: political incorrectness is nothing more than what the left finds offensive.
End of story.
I live in St. Louis - and as I write this, the play 'The Book Of Mormon' is playing at our premiere venue for such performances, the FOX Theatre, for two weeks. From beginning to end, the play stereotypes Mormons, it impugns them (and by extension, all organized Judeo-Christian religious confessions). It features much vulgarity - and on and on......
.....and not a peep from anybody for these characterizations. To the contrary, the play has been lauded - and swept the Tony Awards two years ago.
In light of the tremendous double-standards, I guess it's hard for me to be 'offended' by an innocuous cover on a Business magazine.....
#16 Posted by John Cannon, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 02:27 PM
give me a f...king break here. so if white or asians were on the cover, it wouldn't be rasict???? Get over yourselves and get a life.
#17 Posted by you people are ridiculous, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 02:44 PM
"so if white or asians were on the cover, it wouldn't be rasict?"
no it wouldn't, because there isn't a false narrative being traded among racists that irresponsible whites are to blame for the housing crash. however, there is a false narrative that irresponsible black and latino homebuyers are to blame. this is a lie, it is racist, and it is seemingly referenced by this cover
it's called 'context'. look it up
#18 Posted by colorblind? or just blind?, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 03:31 PM
What's funny (sad actually) is the comment "It’s hard to imagine how this one made it through the editorial process".
When there is no one in the room, where for example the decision is being made on what cover to put up, you are going to get... this. However it might also be less about prejudice or bad judgement and more about revenue (from all the attention it will inevitably cause).
I was listening to a radio station when the host made a comment about something happening in Mexico, a short while later she got back on the air to correct her earlier statement, adding that one of the Sales Directors (of Mexican heritage) had popped in to tell her that her opinion on the issue did not reflect reality.
When there is no one in the room to provide... some color... you get this.
#19 Posted by What's Funny, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 03:56 PM
Still can't touch the BW cover after Bhopal: "Union Carbide fights for its life."
#20 Posted by Joanie, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 04:10 PM
This cover sickened me. I suppose they got the reaction they were looking for.
#21 Posted by Janet Marie Dillingham, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 04:28 PM
Oh puh-leeze. THIS is what some on the Left are griping about?
To "What's Funny's" comment about "no one being in the room" -- that's just silly as it's a magazine with an Editor in Chief, editorial staff and probably even a cover editor. But it cracks me up that "Funny" takes it one step further and pushes the idea that the cover was created to SPECIFICALLY offend people, to generate word of mouth and thus sales. To which I say if anyone actually believes that, you're clearly spending too much time Googling laughable conspiracy theories. But, hey, good luck ssolving that whole Roswell UFO thing!
The woman in the lower corner IS clearly meant to be white, to spread things around. And it's a cartoon, where any GOOD cartoonist always strives to exaggerate particular features. Seriously, reading some of the comments here -- such as how this 'sickened you" -- makes me crack up because you're clearly TOO touchy-feely politically correct.
Seriously, it's just a cartoon and it's just a cover.
Move along...nothing to see here (well, except laughable fake outrage).
#22 Posted by Thomas, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 05:38 PM
However, Mayor Bloomberg agreed with the Tea Party version of the cause for the bubble and its implosion. An amazngly self-serving delusion on the part of a halfay intelligent man. Or perhaps he just didnt want to make enemies among his kind.
#23 Posted by MICHAEL ROLOFF, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 06:52 PM
What a weird crowd. Really the only unanswered questions about this creepy cover are who on earth okayed it and why are they still employed. The "is it racist" ship has sailed, even if you can't (or won't) recognize it.
#24 Posted by Ally, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 09:24 PM
Blacklash - the use of racist claims to achieve media coverage!
#25 Posted by Darrell, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 09:29 PM
I read somewhere that the artist is peruvian. My guess is art is different in peru.
#26 Posted by I Love Irony, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:04 PM
@Michael (#12) Have you never seen white women today? Collagen lips are still in.
#27 Posted by White Girl in the Bottom Pic, CJR on Thu 28 Feb 2013 at 11:08 PM
And we only had to get to comment #15 to have our first "I don't understand the First Amendment" moment.
Is any government authority stopping Bloomberg from publishing racist covers or punishing them for doing so? No? Then shut up about the First Amendment. It doesn't protect anyone from criticism, ridicule and even private boycotts when they publish crap.
#28 Posted by Adrian Luca, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 12:02 AM
Personally, I see caricatures of a probable Asiatic (UL), probable Hispanic (UR), probable Caucasoid (LL), and a probable Black (LR).
Given that they are caricatures, it is a bit difficult to tell with certainty, but it does make sense that these 4 groups would be the 4 'mainstream' groups represented by the media in the housing market.
What I found of more interest was the apparent depiction of 3 females and 1 male.
#29 Posted by Jack, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 05:38 AM
Boo-freakin'-hoo. As usual, self-loathing, guilt-ridden whites and hypersensitive non-whites moaning and crying about the big bad racist boogeyman that they think lurkes everywhere. Get a life.
#30 Posted by Alan, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 06:49 AM
I am flabbergasted that no one is up in arms about the dog?! Is that even a breed or are they trying to depict some sort of mutt? Why isn't PETA commenting here fighting for the accurate portrayal of animals?!
#31 Posted by Exhausted at Stupidity, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 09:42 AM
That would be a mixed-race family, Mom & Dad downstairs, bro and sis upstairs. Should be nice and inclusive, right?
The editors are just flustered about the correct number of minorities to show in pictures. One token minority, like in a Hollister ad, is too few. But how much is too many? Let's make it mostly minority, and throw in a pale, but ethnically ambiguous woman, so we don't look like we're trying too hard. Predictably, overthinking the matter offended a bunch of people.
See, I can make up scenarios like the rest of you, but I don't get hung up looking for things to offend me. You see what you want to see. Bottom line, life is too short to be crying over this kind of thing. Take care of your own house.
#32 Posted by Seriously, Get Over It, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 10:22 AM
I read the magazine today and didn't even notice the cover until i just saw this article. lol crazzzzzy. you people need to get a life
#33 Posted by riz, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 05:04 PM
I swear being white is like a disease of inevitable ignorance and stupidity. Anything pertaining to being offensive and racist towards others is simply no big deal, let it go, and yada, yada. Ah, the benefits of whiteness. It's no surprise most white people can't comprehend the racist nature of a picture showcasing miniorities during a housing crisis cause by rich white men. And then there are the comments about if whites were on the cover, then it wouldn't be racist. No, it wouldn't be racist because there aren't disgusting stereotypes, rantings, and craze theories about whites being the sole reason for the housing crisis in America. And then there are those whites with the "LOL" comments to the ones attempting to express an intellectual perspective of belittling those lefties of guilty whites and whiny blacks. Yeah, typical talking points found on news outlets where intellectual capability is limited and sarcasm and pure stupidity is the norm. And no one is overthinking issue simply for stating the obvious of it being racist. I see a picture, yeah it's racist and quite frankly I believe BW did it on purpose for the sake of being offensive. Enough said. No overthinking and whatever else BS you people say to basically dismiss the issue altogether to make it appear a black person is hung up over nothing and obsessing endlessly over the big bad racist white man. Hahahaha. Gotta remember y'all love to exaggerate crap to no end. I guess this helps you remove the seriousness of racism in the story. Sighs, pretty much read the comments and nothing surprises. White people being white people.
#34 Posted by Renee, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 10:45 PM
@Renee "I see a picture, yeah it's racist and quite frankly I believe BW did it on purpose for the sake of being offensive. Enough said."
My thoughts and same conclusion exactly. Bloomberg isn't stupid, and they aren't clueless. They may "regret" the response they got, but they expected it would offend with its "inaccuracy" to put it lightly. Unfortunately, misdirection paired with misinformation in the media is the norm these days. So sad, but true.
A piece of advice to anyone reading: If you want real answers, don't look at the powerless people struggling at the bottom, look at the top. Now, look at that cover again and ask yourself which of these two groups does it represent. Then, ask yourself who put that picture (and the "message" it's supposed to subliminally embed in your brain) out there. Coming to the right conclusion shouldn't be too hard if you do this.
#35 Posted by And they've done it again... , CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 02:31 PM
Your an idiot, I did not see colored people until YOU pointed it out. Looks like you are racist goodbye.
#36 Posted by jjpetes, CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 08:04 AM
#39
Uh, only racis ts refer to people as 'colored people'. Enough said here, I think.
#37 Posted by Massinissa, CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 12:08 PM
1, Southern politicians (Gingrich) didn't call "the first black president" the "food stamp president". They said that of President Obama. A very important difference!
2. The cash being depicted is not of predatory loans causing a bubble. It is the largesse of Federal Government gifting. This is the unhealthy part.
3. Why do I bother? Where is Mr. "Bull" Chittum employed?
#38 Posted by Robert Wilson, CJR on Sun 3 Mar 2013 at 02:01 PM
Robert Wilson, you're wrong. Where are you employed?
First, the federal government doesn't originate loans.
Second, the cash being depicted is predatory loans originated by completely unregulated private entities.. not banks. Private entities originated over 83% of total home loan dollars from 02-07. This is the unhealthy part.. because, since they were unregulated, there was exactly zero supervision of the soundness of those loans.
Bob, I recommend you read the compendium of Tanta's posts over at Naked Capitalism to learn more about the necessity of sound underwriting in the mortgage business. Then, please return and flame some more.
#39 Posted by Unsympathetic, CJR on Mon 4 Mar 2013 at 01:17 AM
Most white Americans have precious little historical knowledge of racism's impact on every aspect of America's culture. Any mention of racism is viewed as being overly sensitive or made petty as an effort at political correctness. Factual correctness requires that race be acknowledged as an element in all facets of American endeavor. It in fact rarely is in media, except when the focus is negativity. Unless race factored into the message, the illustrator would not waste time pigmenting the characters. It probably required a Peruvian artist detached from the reality of the long dismal history of race in America. Race is what determined whether one was human or some thing much less. But it seems that you had to be there or be closely related to one who was in order to get. Like losing a loved one, until it happens to you, you just don't get how deep it cuts.
#40 Posted by Themoor51, CJR on Wed 6 Mar 2013 at 08:30 AM