"Offensive and incorrect"

Feb 28

Web Only

"Offensive and incorrect"

Financial journalists take Bloomberg Businessweek to task for 'racist' cover.

Bloomberg Businessweek cover, March 2013.

The March 2013 cover story of Bloomberg Businessweek asks "what could possibly go wrong" in what it calls "The Great American Housing Rebound". It is the actual cover, however, that is grabbing attention. The artwork shows black and Hispanic caricatures in a house overflowing with cash.

Business and finance journalists are ridiculing the magazine cover, which they say draws on a racial narrative that blamed minority lenders for the 2009 US housing crisis.

View the story "\"Offensive and incorrect\"" on Storify"Offensive and incorrect"Financial journalists take Bloomberg Businessweek to task for 'racist' cover.Storified by The Stream· Thu, Feb 28 2013 11:53:59Bloomberg's creative director first tweeted out the cover on February 21:NEW COVER! Real Estate is back! back! back! What could go wrong? Illustration by Andres Guzman http://www.flickr.com/photos/bizweekdesign/8495415336/in/photostream/lightbox/Richard TurleyThe Great American Housing Reboundflickr.comNorth American journalists reacted in full force. Jamil Smith, a producer for MSNBC, shared his thoughts on the design.Unsure whether Bloomberg @businessweek was trying to be racist with this cover, but they sure as hell succeeded: http://goo.gl/yLFxDJamil SmithRT @mattyglesias: If you like your business news spiced up with racism, turn to the latest @businessweek cover: http://www.slate.com/blogs/moneybox/2013/02/28/racist_businessweek_cover_bloomberg_businessweek_misfires_badly.htmlMathew Ingram@amaeryllis @ABWashBureau How odd that our "post-racial" society keeps producing racist stuff like this.Andrea HarrisA new click-bait standard! RT @ABWashBureau I know journos need web hits, but you should draw line at being racist AND being totally wrong.Maria AspanWired's Steve Silberman writes:Honestly, it would be interesting to know if a single non-white editor had input into this @BW cover. http://slate.me/13qGuQzSteve SilbermanThe online magazine Colorlines.com provided the following caveat:The artist is Lima-born Andres Guzman, who may or may not be aware of the American legacy of imagery he’s summoning here.colorlines.comFinancial journalists and news aggregators were quick to join the discussion, pointing out the cover plays on an existing racial narrative to the subprime housing story.

From the anonymous but widely-followed financial account @amearyllis:

“I have an idea. Let’s blame this on minorities.” “You know what would be the best? Using historically offensive racist imagery.” - @BWamaeryllis™American Banker's Rob Blackwell:@amaeryllis @jaredbkeller As someone who covered the financial crisis, this cover is both offensive and incorrect. Please explain.Rob BlackwellIn fact, in the four-year period before the 2009 US housing crisis, blacks and hispanics were more likely to receive subprime - or high-interest, high-risk - loans than whites in their same credit score.

From Ryan Chittum at the Columbia Journalism Review:

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.cjr.orgJacob Gaffney at Housing Wire says the link between minority lenders and a housing rebound is tenuous at best:The claim that minorities are creating a housing bubble through flipping, no-look bids, and 300% returns is simply not reality. 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.housingwire.comJamelle Bouie, a writer and former guest of The Stream, posted this response on his personal blog:It's not just the black and Latino caricatures—the whole cover plays into the widely-debunked myth that unreliable minority borrowers were responsible for the financial crash.jamellebouie.netBloomberg Businessweek editor Josh Tyrangiel has apologised for the cover, saying:Our intention was not to incite or offend. If we had to do it over again we'd do it differently.politico.comWhat do you think? Did the Bloomberg Businessweek cover go too far?