My post on this unfortunate Bloomberg BusinessWeek cover touched off a wave of fury on the intertubes this morning.
First, there’s a lot of nonsense going around about whether BW was intentionally racist, which is silly. The problem here is that the magazine just flat missed how the cover would be construed.
The cover artist was Andres Guzman, a native of Peru who says, in an email passed along by BusinessWeek that, “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.” (On a totally uninteresting side note: Here’s where I make sure to link to Matt Yglesias, who had the Guzman statement first, at least. Yglesias’ link-and-credit-stingy aggregation four hours after my post is pretty irritating, particularly since folks like the NYT and New York credit him with the story. Good thing I’m not paid by the click!).
It surely wasn’t Guzman’s intent to draw a racially insensitive picture, and his own racial background is mostly irrelevant. The real problem is, as I wrote, that the picture made it through a BW editorial structure that is well familiar with American racial history and imagery, and onto the cover of the magazine. Part of the point of having an institution is to keep things like this from happening. This passed through too many editorial gatekeepers who missed the problem with the cover. It’s the whole machine that’s responsible for what it spits out.
The actual story itself, which is very good, has nothing to say about minorities in particular. But as I noted in my previous post, a publication has to be aware of the concerted effort to misdirect blame for the subprime crisis from the banks who caused it to the lower-income blacks and Latinos who were disproportionately victimized in it. And it has to see how its image would play right into that—even if the caricatures hadn’t unintentionally resembled racist cartoons from a hundred years ago.
The National Association of Black Journalists says this today:
“The image that was published by Bloomberg BusinessWeek is just a microcosm of a bigger problem in the magazine industry—the lack of diversity,” said NABJ President Gregory Lee Jr. “The last presidential election demonstrated that our nation’s demographics are changing rapidly and it is essential that media companies should make the appropriate changes to welcome diversity in their newsrooms, specifically in managerial positions.”
The irony here, though, is that BW may have taken false comfort from the fact the artist himself was a racial minority, not realizing how it would look on its face to everyone else.
In other words, this is a big screw-up, but it wasn’t in bad faith. BusinessWeek is a very good magazine and Editor Josh Tyrangiel has reinvigorated it under Bloomberg’s patronage, as I’ve written. That’s not meant in any way to excuse what happened, just to put it in context.
Another unfortunate thing about this is that the cover controversy has overshadowed Susan Berfield’s report from Phoenix on the return of bubble behavior to some housing markets, fueled in part by bigtime investors.
Read it.


Is this journalism? It attacks banks for allegedly victimizing people who voluntarily took out subprime loans. Obviously that's one legitimate opinion, but there are other viewpoints, and there is more than one factor at play. Is there even any consideration that people who couldn't afford loans shouldn't have taken out loans they couldn't afford?
#1 Posted by Is This Journalism?, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 08:36 AM
Your pique at Yglesias would be supportable if Yglesias had borrowed from your commentary. As far as I can tell, he didn't. Yglesias is a business/economics writer. It's quite likely he saw the cover of BusinessWeek & had the same visceral reaction any sensible American -- if not the editors at BusinessWeek -- would have had.
Yglesias wasn't "link-and-credit-stingy," as you claim. If you have a beef, it's with the Times & New York magazine for not Googling for a "first critique"; it's not with Yglesias. I'm thinking you owe him an apology for falsely suggesting he stole your stuff when there's no evidence he did.
#2 Posted by Marie Burns, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 09:44 AM
I'll pass, Marie.
That BizWeek cover is seven days old, but Yglesias just happened to find it 4 hours after my post, which was already getting hundreds of tweets and such--and tweeted the same URL to the image I had in my post?
I have no problem with aggregating that and slapping "super-racist" and getting most of the traffic. That's the web game. It's just not cool to ignore where it came from.
#3 Posted by Ryan Chittum, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 03:17 PM
To Is this journalism:
And what bank do *you* work for?
#4 Posted by Jim, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 03:46 PM
What evidence would you offer that this isn't racist? The day when obliviousness to the inherent messages of our images acts as an explanation is long gone. To be this oblivious in the editorial process is a form of racism. When we acknowledge that as journalists we might finally cure the problem
#5 Posted by Lois, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 05:37 PM
Lets get one fact straight. The discussion or possibility of Business Week being purposefully racist with this cover is NOT NONSENSE or SILLY rantings of ultra sensitive people. It always annoys the hell out of me as a black woman to read dimissive remarks by whites belittling the very real possibility of a magazine or person being blatantly racist for the sake of being racist. But I suppose being a white person can afford such obliviousness, which is nothing new ... just irritating. Second, Guzman's ethnicity doesn't excuse this repulsive portrait of miniorities cover in cash. No one in that editorial room was that ignorant to not know the controversy of blacks and Hispanics looking craze while grasping for cash would cause people to talk. They knew exactly what they were doing. So lets stop playing the whole "oh those individuals during the editoral process just wasn't aware." I heard this BS enough and it is old, tired, and worn out. You're telling me these educated individuals are just too stupid not to know what would be deem highly offensive for their cover stories. Sighs. They wanted to be racist, offensive, controversial, and got it while smirking throughout the entire ordeal and still smirking as we speak.
#6 Posted by Renee, CJR on Fri 1 Mar 2013 at 10:08 PM
You have got to be kidding me. You are actually arguing that a Latino in the United States - in Denver Colorado since he was a kid - actually doesn't have a clue what racism is? Good grief. I need a drink.
Anyone who argues that the rule requiring banks to invest funds in the neighborhoods where they accept deposits must explain why that rule caused no problems for over two decades, then suddenly was a huge issue. Of course, that fact exposes the claim to be nonsense. The leadership of the banks changed to have Boomers leading GenX, and the GenX's are immoral and willing to do anything for a dollar, while the Boomers aren't generally good leaders. The Boomers will let anyone in an office do anything they want, they just want to get along. The GenX's want money, and they don't care who or what is destroyed along the way. That's what changed. And there were far more dollar amounts in "jumbo" mortgages than little ghetto mortgages. Get a life. This is just looking to shift blame.
#7 Posted by MadSat, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 11:48 AM
You have got to be kidding me. You are actually arguing that a Latino in the United States - in Denver Colorado since he was a kid - actually doesn't have a clue what racism is? Good grief. I need a drink.
Anyone who argues that the rule requiring banks to invest funds in the neighborhoods where they accept deposits must explain why that rule caused no problems for over two decades, then suddenly was a huge issue. Of course, that fact exposes the claim to be nonsense. The leadership of the banks changed to have Boomers leading GenX, and the GenX's are immoral and willing to do anything for a dollar, while the Boomers aren't generally good leaders. The Boomers will let anyone in an office do anything they want, they just want to get along. The GenX's want money, and they don't care who or what is destroyed along the way. That's what changed. And there were far more dollar amounts in "jumbo" mortgages than little ghetto mortgages. Get a life. This is just looking to shift blame.
#8 Posted by MadSat, CJR on Sat 2 Mar 2013 at 11:51 AM
I think the subprime mess had everything to do with race. Some entitled white guy in a boardroom at Countrywide -- and his counterparts at other banks that have made money off of redlining for the last century -- lit a cigar and put up his feet. "Here's what we do," he said. "We create no-doc, no-income, no-nothing loans and peddle them to brown people. Anybody with a pulse gets a loan. If they fall behind and foreclose, who cares? They're only brown people! And since real estate values will just keep going up, we'll be just fine." This was just another version of the same strategy the mortgage departments had pursued for years, charging brown people hundreds of basis points more than white people. Where's the mystery?
#9 Posted by Joanie, CJR on Thu 7 Mar 2013 at 03:13 PM