Slog - The Stranger's Blog

Line Out

The Music Blog

« For women who write | Lest We Forget »

Monday, May 15, 2006

Re: Covergate

Posted by on May 15 at 14:26 PM

I’m not trying to throw fuel on the overwrought debate over whether or not the Weekly hesitated about putting minorities on the cover because of a belief that it depresses circulation, but I feel compelled to respond to allegations that I was lying about meetings I attended at which Weekly editors debated that very issue. One specific discussion concerned this cover, for a feature about black residents leaving the Central District. I’m not “lying about” the discussions or “making shit up”; in fact, such debates are actually very common.

From a New York Times story (November 18, 2002), headlined “On Covers of Many Magazines, A Full Racial Palette Is Still Rare”:

There are signs that the freeze-out may beginning to thaw, as the continuing explosion of hip-hop has pushed many black artists into prominence, and as teenagers’ magazines that are less anxious about race are bringing more diversity. But in many broad-circulation magazines, the unspoken but routinely observed practice of not using nonwhite cover subjects — for fear they will depress newsstand sales — remains largely in effect.

A survey of 471 covers from 31 magazines published in 2002 — an array of men’s and women’s magazines, entertainment publications and teenagers’ magazines — conducted two weeks ago by The New York Times found that about one in five depicted minority members.

Publishing is a conservative industry, one that has been known to define risk as using a cover model with dark hair instead of blond.

Daniel Peres, editor of Details, a men’s magazine owned by Fairchild Publications, said there was pressure to stick with outdated conventions because newsstands now display so many more titles competing for the consumer’s attention.

“Everyone is terrified of a misstep,” he said. “While most people in the business would prefer it go unspoken because they are horrified at being perceived as racist, it is a well-known legend that blacks, especially black males, do not help generate newsstand sales.

Christina Kelly, now editor in chief of YM, a teenagers’ magazine owned by Gruner & Jahr USA, recalls a struggle with the circulation people when she worked as an editor in 1993 at the now-closed Sassy magazine.

“We wanted to put Mecca from the band Digable Planets on the cover because she was huge at the time and gorgeous,” she recalled. “The circulation guys hated the idea, but we just went ahead and did it. The magazine was bagged with a separate beauty booklet, which was usually placed in the back, but this time, it was bagged in front. It just happened to have a picture of a blond, blue-eyed woman on it.”


CommentsRSS icon

For the record, Erica, I believe you. We don't agree on many things, but I'm certain you're honest in speaking your mind.

Erica,

was there ever an instance where the decision was to not put 'people of color' on the cover?

In the example you site, they went with the cover, so it just proves in this instance they were not discriminatory.

Erica,

Thank you for your courage in calling out the Seattle Weekly in their blatant racism. It made me so sad to see you getting called names for standing up for justice. You've suffered enough in just pointing out The Weekly's racism, so I wanted to step forward and point out that besides being racist, The Seattle Weekly is also antisemitic. Their pro-Rachel Corrie coverage is an insult to may of my people.

Thanks to the courage of Erica and her collegues we now know what kind of people read Seattle Weekly, racists and antisemites. The Stranger has been brave in weathering this storm, but if people don't speak out...first they came for the...and I didn't speak up, and in the end they came for me and there was no one left to speak up.


Goes to show that smug psuedo-liberal seattle isn't any better than much of the rest of the country.

Jake, yes. The editor of the Seattle Weekly came to Slog and said it himself point blank.

Chuck Taylor said here:

“We’ve had people of color on our cover twice in the past month.”

In other words, Chuck feels his paper has met their Colored quota and thus he felt he had to pass over the Blue Scholars for a white indie rock band. He gave some line about the Scholars being oversaturated, but c'mon. Why hadn't I heard of them before this whole mess?

Granted, I don't follow current trends in music. But the act won his paper's contest and they refused to put them on the cover... because they were Colored.

I am disgusted that people are continuing to try and sweep that fact under the rug like it doesn't matter. Do you people see race relations the same way Chuck Taylor does?

A bigoted attitude towards blacks is that they're lazy & stupid. A bigoted attitude towards east-asians is that they're unemotional & good at math. A bigoted attitude towards Jews is that they're miserly & greedy. A bigoted attitude towards whites is that they're all bigots.

Most of the 'progressive/left' continue to hold that bigoted attitude towards whites, while gleefully ignoring the fact that bigotry & prejudice is common to all humans. Africans, both northern & sub-saharan, Chinese, Japanese, Indian, Russian, West European, Latin American, Israeli & Islamic, everywhere you go you'll find racists, bigots, prejudice.

People _love_ to accuse others of being racist, because it's the one no-no that everyone can agree on. Who's going to defend racism? No one, and so the accuser is very safe & secure in their own smarmy hatred. So when I read about accusations of racism, my first thought is of the shallowness of the accuser. The most egregious example are folks like Shoshana, who have so totally identified w/ their own race/religion, that to insult her is an act of racism, and to mention the many crimes of the government of Israel is to be anti-semitic. (btw, aren't Arabs a semitic people as well?)

The sorry fact is that being oppressed does not make you a saint. Over & over again in history, when a politically/socially dis-enfranchised group have achieved a certain level of enfranchisement, they begin to act in the same way as their oppressors.

During the Civil Rights conflicts of the late 50s & early 60s, many of the southern blacks didn't want the help that was offered to them by (often young) middle-class whites from the north. To them, the struggle was Black vs. White, and how could these White people fight for the Blacks? To the northeners, the struggle was justice vs. tyranny, and _anyone_ can make a stand for Justice, no matter who you are. As soon as you forget that you're fighting for Justice, instead of fighting the Nazis, the Lebanese Christian Militia, or al-Qeada, then you're just another part of the problem.

We got Chuck Taylor to respond to our SLOG!

He must like us!

We are royalty in the righteousness department! We report, and decide!

Mirror: Who's the fairest one of all?

God I hope they come for Shoshana first. I won't say a word.

If the Seattle Weekly is as racist and antisemitic as Erica says that they are, and now Erica has offered proof, Blue Scholars have no choice but to return the award.

To accept an award from a racist antisemitic organization would be against everything Hip Hop stands for.

For the record, it's not Erica that's drawing those conclusions.

Correct. The original post about this was by Mudede.

Jake, the issue is the conversation comes up at all when suddenley faced with a person of color or eek a brunette - don't even start about those of a larger size.
Folks give pause and talk about circulation, numbers etc. wheras if it's say a blonde blue eyed model were the cover run the conversation may be "Should we run this cover with her mole or should we airbrush it out?" I think what the Weekly seems to be missing too is that Blue Scholars on the cover would not be because of their color or an article related to their color(vs, say an article about immigration), but simply because they were voted best band. I mean you don't give the cover to best band overall, but best rock band because... rock is suffering? And yeah, you wrote about Blue Scholars before, but hey so what, you write about 'em again.

I just checked all the messages, comments, opinions..
Born and raised in Europe, from a multi racial family, I have lived in the USA since 1980.
And this is what it is :
Money is being made off racism, it's a form of control. To control certain groups of people, it is also a conspiracy to keep certain people from living properous.
But.. you can rise and do and live well.
It takes a lot of determination, sweat, working thru crap, being persistent, keep a goal, get and stay educated at all times, be an original not a stereo type -whatever race you are - have LOVE for people in general, as the Scriptures tell you : Love is the greatest thing of all (Corinthians), stay prayed up, be prepared for anything, don't take NO s..., be right with God, treat others as you want o be treated, and fore most GIVE respect. Ignore some people if you can and don't let no one steal your peace. Be helpful and remember : tomorrow is NOT promised.
Ignore the small stuff, and most of the time it's ALL small stuff..
A great day to all of you !

Gomez - you are putting words into Chuck Taylor's mouth by misinterpreting and misrepresenting his statement. With one extra sentence of context:


"But to suggest that race somehow played a role is ridiculous. We've had people of color on our cover twice in the past month."

A better interpretation would be that his statement is given as evidence that color does not play a part in their decisions, rather than your stretch of an interpretation. Do you really beleive he meant his statement as alluding to a quota? Or do you, like Charles Mudede, have an axe to grind?

What Chuck Taylor and the SW did in the past is irrelevant to the fact that he actively chose not to put the winning act of his paper's music contest on the cover because they were an act of color. Such a decision is racial discrimination. It doesn't matter what kind of person he is or what he's done in the past. Here and now in the present, he used racial discrimination to justify an editorial decision.

You're ironically putting words in MY mouth, Boyd: I am not saying HE is racist so much as I am saying WHAT HE DID is an obvious act of racial discrimination. Whether or not the SW put people of color on previous colors, it does not justify using race as a motivating factor AT ANY TIME to refuse to put the winning act of his paper's music contest on the cover of his rag, and to use a runner-up instead because they're a white rock band.

Good behavior does not earn you a Get Out Of Being Ethical card. Just because I have never committed a crime in my lifetime doesn't mean it would now be perfectly okay for me to rob somebody, just because history shows that I am not a thief.

You just said "...because they were an act of color".

Do you have any supportable reason to say that? Or is it a hunch? It certainly looks like conjecture, pure and simple.

Have you been paying attention?

ELsewhere, you called my argument conjecture because you say I quoted Chuck Taylor out of context. AHEM. First of all, why would he volunteer the information “We’ve had people of color on our cover twice in the past month,” if, in his mind, there wasn't racial motivation to make such a decision? If the decision had nothing to do with race, then don't bring it up. Stick to the topic at hand. That he insisted on making that point, combined with Erica's information that, while writing for the SW, the editors discussed how putting people of color on the cover depresses circulation, tells me and anyone who isn't dense that the decision to NOT put the winning act of the paper's music contest on the cover, and instead put a runner-up that just HAPPENS to be a white indie rock band, isn't a coincidence.

And his 'Blue Scholars are oversaturated' defense doesn't fly either, because The Divorce has gotten a similarly large amount of coverage in their existence. I know relatively little about indie rock and even I know who The Divorce is.

This is not conjecture. He made a racially motivated editorial decision and now he and his minions, yourself included, are trying hard to cover their asses. They need to admit that they fucked up.

Charles and Erica had the courage to speak out about the racism and antisemitism at Seattle Weekly. The Stranger never choses covers based on race.

Comments Closed

In order to combat spam, we are no longer accepting comments on this post (or any post more than 45 days old).