« Penn & Teller Reveal the Future of American Medicine | Main | SF Judge: Terrorists Can Sue Bush Officials »

Why bother, you seen one, you seen em all.

we get it whites are oppressed. stop being such pc whiners.

Funny that you would complain about photoshop changing reality, you do it on a daily basis.

btw, since when is a posed stock photo for the cover of a magazine "reality" in the first place?

Hey you fucked in the head liberal trolls!!

I'll bet it would be a different story if they shopped a black man out of the picture.

Pandering to blacks should have ended when Chairman 0 took control. (Sarc)

I see Brandon is again demonstrating liberal intelligence and tolerance.

Liberal "inclusiveness" excludes almost everyone; blacks who aren't black enough, blacks who speak with diction (without the help of a telepromter), Hispanics who consider themselves Americans, anyone who believes in a higher power (unless they call it Allah), Chinese & Japanese who don't qualify for "affirmative action" because they're too smart, anyone with an IQ over 70... The list of the excluded is quite long.

Oh Dave, its nothing remotely political. Its an entertainment magazine, and they can, and should, do whatever they want to a photo that goes on their cover.

If they want to alter the photo to "pander" to their audience (known to some as selling magazines aka good ol capitalism) then what do you have to say about it? Talked about f'ed in the head!

Oh anon, who is to chicken shit to post a name or a handle....Think Boy!

This is not about politics to me.

Understand... to liberal idiots like the cleverly-named "Anonymous," political correctness trumps reality. Every time.

The conversation of a salient point (such as: magazines can do as they please with their cover shots) doesn't require a name, it requires the other thing you suggest: thinking, boy! Try it on.

Got anything to contribute to what I said? If its not about politics, then what is it about? Please ... frame this important debate for us.

Who's being politically correct Evil one? That's you in this instance!

A web filter at a Cosi sandwich shop blocked access to American Renaissance. Here's the message: "Your page is blocked due to a security policy that prohibits access to category: Hate Speech." So I visited the site through megaproxy.com!

"Apparently there isn't enough real life miscegenation to suit ..."

Apparently there is too much racial diversity to suit some racist folks. They use the cover of a local little known magazine, to make their racist comments under the guise of "poor whites are being photoshopped out of existence!"

And Jimbo, nothing you've said remotely links to my post.
Your list is ... yours.

This idiot liberal troll still doesn't understand!
Think Anonymouse!! If you lived in the south you would understand what would happen if a magazine were to do that to a black man. It doesn't matter to the black community what magazine it is you libtard. The black leadership would have fit and start the race game. THINK BOY THINK!!!!!!

Evil right on target.

Yeah, still thinking, and I'd have the same thing to say to anyone who whined in the opposite direction: "Its a friggin magazine! They can do what they like! Quit crying about it!"

Your argument seems to be "They would complain, so I'm going to also" which doesn't sound like thinking to me. Sounds like schoolyard antics. And nothing I've said is remotely PC, so Otto is way off the mark.

As usual Dave (aka shooter, right?) your response is formed by the anti-white sentiments you sense all around you in your community. This is not the same. There is no race game here, except for what the publishers think will sell magazines.

As the owner of a graphic design firm, I can tell you that it can be very hard in some instances to find a racially diverse stock photo ... which is what many clients require.

So, if this magazine doctored the photo to their tastes, why are you griping? They didn't have the budget to shoot a new photo, so they got a design hack with a copy of photoshop to make it how they wanted.

Anon My name is Dave aka Watching.

Who said it was a race game? I was just pointing out what the black leadership here would do if one of our local magazines would do something like that with a black man. I think what was posted here was to show the double standards that are being used here. You can do this kind of stuff with the "majority" but try doing this with the "minority" and see what happens.

Take your psychology elsewhere. It doesn't work on me.

The point is, this was done (and very badly at that) ENTIRELY because the editors wanted to PANDER to a small minority, hoping they'd see this cover and think "Hey, a negro! This magazine is in touch with my community, I think I shall pick it up and consult it." Whereas, any few actual negroes likely to notice it in any context at all will most likely say "hey, lousy chop, bro" and ignore the magazine as before. It's the same white guilt that puts a disproportionate number of minorities in major roles in movies and on TV. They think we're not going to notice it, while the minorities will embrace them. Some of us are noticing them. And ya know what, you can call this a racist opinion if you want, but that term holds no power over me, so eat it.

Mr Evil 2,

Yes, that was very likely the line of thought the publishers followed. Very capitalistic of them, yes?

Talk about PC ... you want to edit their wrongheaded thought process? If people don't agree or buy the idea, or if it estranges their mainstream white audience, then they won't buy the magazine, and the market will tell them in reduced sales.
Sound familiar?

I don't accuse you of racism, but your outdated vocabulary might lead others to think so. "negro" belongs right next to "miscegenation" and are way more inflammatory than a magazine switching out heads.

Excuse me, but didn't the guy who was cut out also have some African-American heritage? He looks as black as our POTUS to me. Oh oh! That doesn't bode well for Obama, does it? Next thing you know they'll be shopping for a blacker replacement head for his photos.

Not that it really matters, but the family looks as white as can be to these eyes.

I think you're racially fixated. It doesn't matter!

Your right Anon it doesn't matter!!!

Still missing the point however.

I don't care what you think.

Hehe I use "negro" intentionally as a way to crash the gears on the discussion. That and I refuse to be PC. As far as their wrongheaded thought process, in fact that cover has exactly that effect on me, and though I may be wrong, I happen to think it'll have that effect on anyone that's open to the truth vs just absorbing whatever comes their way. It's just a matter of opening some minds to the truth.

How can I be missing the point if we agree that the race of the people on the cover of the magazine doesn't matter?!

What DOES matter here?

If you had to run a business, you would understand that these publishers have to keep in mind a wide audience, and keep the bottom line at the top of their minds. This is running a business and selling magazines, nothing else.

I do run a business. Read my previous posts again.

"as a way to crash the gears on the discussion"

Well, I'm not the pc police and with a very few exceptions don't care what words people use, as long as I can follow the thought process. I will say though, that I find it telling that you want to stir the pot and crash discussion instead of engaging.

I read you previous posts on this string Dave and don't see mention of your business, but OK. Unless you serve a select clientele, you should be able to appreciate that running a business (especially in this case a magazine with thousands of readers) requires a certain amount of pandering.

"The customer is always right" Ever heard that one? Its not 100% true, but it does go a long way in describing what a business has to do to stay in business.

didn't anyone notice that in the original the man is looking at the camera while in the altered photo the man is looking at the womens breasts??

there are black people in Toronto?

"I think you're racially fixated. It doesn't matter!
"Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 3:12 PM"

If it doesn't matter, then WHY DO IT?

I think I could safely say that you are too young to remember TOKENISM. I doubt that you have even heard of it.

What was WRONG with the origonal picture? Why did the magazine go with an Eddie Murphy look-alike? If you can answer that, you've won the argument.

Ahh, it's telling to me in turn that you perceive what I do as stirring and crashing rather than engaging, and dismiss my point. In fact I do seek to engage, but in many cases and contexts that is impossible without subverting the PC structure of the language which prevents certain opinions being expressed.

Understand... to liberal idiots like the cleverly-named "Anonymous," political correctness trumps reality. Every time.

Denial of reality is the essence of political correctness. Essentially, you can be the biggest bigot in the world, but as long as you use the current approved names for minority victim groups, you can get with it.

BTW: The real creepy part is the way the photoshopped black guy is staring excitedly at the little boy's crotch... or was this a deliberate attempt to get a PC two-fer?

KHarn, I've answered over and over again.

The "original" as you folks keep referring to it, wasn't the record of any ACTUAL event or ACTUAL family in the first place. It was a completely posed photo for stock purposes.

I don't think anything was "wrong" with the photo, but it apparently didn't suit their purposes, so they changed it. I only support their right to do so, although I would strongly suggest they find a more adept photoshop user next time around.

I didn't see the Murphy likeness in him, but now that you point it out I do, although a link between that and what we're discussing is completely absent.

What my age has to do with anything (turning 40 this year btw) is also irrelevant. Of course they included him as a token. I said as much above. Its a local rag and they're trying to appeal to as many readers as possible. Again, I say capitalism in practice, and no crime here, cultural or political.

Give it a rest.

I am a managing partner of a restaurant LLC. I go for the whole market not just a segment. It makes no difference to me what color you are as long as your money is green.

Where I have lived all my life, Memphis Tennessee, if a magazine or any other publication
was doing this with black folk you would hear about around here. Black folks don't care about the clients in this community they care about racial justice. That over steps everything in this town. Remember I live in the south in a cotton town on the Missippi River. There are many double standards that apply around here and this photo shop if it were a black man would be one of them.

Have you ever been to Memphis? I have been all over this country and believe me Anon in Memphis there are many whose mind set are still stuck in the civil rights era, Whites and Blacks. Hell our own Mayor here, Dr. Willie Herrington, has called the white community a bunch of "white devils". This is our black mayor saying this on T.V. during the last election. He won because this town is 70% blacks. All the white moved to the county.

Am I racially fixated? No but I get tired of favoritism for another group of people. It really doesn't matter who are to me it's what you do with and for others that really count, skin color aside.

One of you thinks he's looking at the woman's breasts (which are not even included in the photo)

Another thinks he's looking at the boys crotch (also not in the photo)

Personally I don't think he's looking in the direction of either, although what choice a disembodied head has in what its looking at is just the sort of thing you will cling to when cornered.

Are you pervs, or just bad at making jokes?

"t's telling to me in turn that you perceive what I do as stirring and crashing rather than engaging, and dismiss my point."

You said outright that you use the term as a way to crash the discussion. That's not me accusing you, those are your words.

After that, the only point you made was that you think other folks will view the photo in the same way you do. Maybe they will. That's what I've been about all along. The photo is what it is, people will decide.

As for a pasted on head "looking" at anything you're just inventing a backstory for a bland photo with a bad photoshop job. Something you guys do with regularity around here. If you're not trying to invent a story for my life, then its for some other poor sucker. I should stop being surprised.

VH, would you please start banning some of these liberal assholes? The Ghost of Wellpaid Whore and the ingeniously named "Anonymous" leap to mind in this connection. They have nothing to contribute, aren't even intelligent enough to eludicidate leftist doctrine.

Oh geeze Jay, talk about having nothing to contribute. Censoring is your answer.

I've said nothing even slightly leftist. I'm supporting a business' right to do business as it pleases! I'm supporting what should be your talking points!

So. Supporting a business's right to do business as it pleases. Sounds all well and good, but... are they really? Or is that just the guise under which you seek to misdirect the debate?

Is the input to their analysis clean and unblemished? Or are they accepting some PC contaminated ideals that are interfering with their ability to determine that what they are doing is indeed correct? That's what really matters. Pick a stance and stand or fall on it, really.

Of course the "input to their analysis" is anything but "clean and unblemished" I never claimed otherwise.

They are running a business. The motivation is to make money. You know, the driving force of our country? Capitalism. Perhaps you've heard mention of it?

The stance that I picked in the beginning and still stand by is they can do it, and if they think it'll help circulation, then its their job to do it. Other motivations might be present, but they're unimportant.

Are you trying to support that stance that unless motivations are clear and unblemished, then it shouldn't be said or done? If that were true this site would be finished. Free speech? Anyone? anyone? Bueller?

Guys remember anon probably sees nothing wrong with sexual jokes about an underage girl. They're just trying to make a buck,right anon?

I understand the discussion here, and maybe this will clear things up for our liberal friends.

The point of the conversation isn't that the publishers shouldn't have a right to print what they want... that is a given*. What the discussion is about is how sad this particular choice was, as it shows a sort of pathetic and double-standard side of our culture.

*This is a given for conservatives, who can recognize somebody's right to do something yet still disagree with it. Generally, liberals see the two as one in the same... that is, if something is offensive and disagreeable, whoever did it should be thrown in the slammer or silenced.

Jumping topics is simple Farmer Ted. As a matter of fact, you've jumped so far, that I don't even know the subject you're referring to.

Try taking this one where we are head on, instead of answering a discussion with a completely different discussion.

* reading the posts above, that statement is anything but a given for your Moonbat cousins, dimes. You try to distill your cohorts opinions into one that agrees with yours, but they've already written and its there to read.

I'm all for disagreement, and haven't proposed that anyone be silenced, unlike Jay, who asked for my comments to be deleted. You're getting all turned around dimes. You say you understand the discussion, but obviously haven't read it very well.

Try again.

Let em' in Van this not like other blogs that censor. Leave that to the libs. I thinks it's cool when the libs come a trollin'. They are Idiots for the most part.

Hold on ANON! Why are you talking about capitalism? If Obama is your guy that you voted for then you voted against capitalism. You are walking a thin line here.

Also Anon the magazine did what they did in the name of marketing and cost I get that But I see this as race based strategy not market based. If it was market based then they would have used a darker skin person from the beginning and more than just one. Someone took the photo for the cover and decided "hey these people are to damn white" so they put in a token black man. This could also work against them as well. What if a black man saw this and said to himself, "Hey why is there just one black man in this picture and there is only one"? Now this man could feel like he's being singled out because of his color. This is not a good strategy at all, insert black man where needed.

Choosing this photo alteration is sad in your opinion, because you're ascribing motivations to it that may not even exist. For you it expresses a double-standard.

Well, I can see that as a possible conclusion, although it seems a stretch to ascribe all that to a one-off photo alteration by a "fun guide" but whatever. Feel free to see all the evil motivations in publishers of "fun guides" everywhere. Its likely a plot.

Dave ... its a "fun guide" they don't have much in the way of race-based strategy except as they see that it might impact the bottom line.

They don't write about politics, or race. Its a local guide to activities in the area. Quit trying to make it about something larger.

Are you going to defend this one to the death? Can nobody here admit when they are wrong? Its completely ridiculous.

Anon you sound like a couple of trolls that come to this blog....Casper Wellstoned or Wingnutcracksmoker. Which libtard is it? come on don't be a sissy. They tend to sound like you. Hell all you liberals sound the same now a days. Like a house full of egg laying hens.

Not about politics Anon....I never said anything about politics all I was talking marketing strategy. You keep defending this and why can't you admit you are wrong? Are you special? This is the topic of the thread Anon, in case you haven't noticed. If you want to debate something else then go to an open thread. You just can't accept someone else's views on this topic which is true libtard fashion.

The cover is racially motivated or they wouldn't have put in a token black man so as to not piss of any black folk. What do you not understand Anon?

"Hell all you liberals sound the same now a days."

That's the funniest part of this whole string, Dave, is that the point I'm arguing couldn't be more classically conservative. Its pursuit of property here folks, with a big dash of free speech.

As for those you liken me to, I'm not either of them. I agree heartily with wingnut, and many times with GoW as well. What difference does it make what I call myself? It doesn't. Its the words, the reasoning that matter.

And since your position doesn't have much of either in this instance, you get down to your typical name calling.

Labeling Anon not name calling.

There are racial motivations everywhere Dave, including the reason someone posted this in the first place. I understand completely.

Yeah, they don't want to piss off their readers. Again, I say that's at the heart of capitalism. You don't stand in the middle of your restaurant and spill your diatribes there, you do it online. Same with the publication. They need to sell magazines, and this time thought that their demographic had changed, thus, the photo changed.

YAAAAAAWWANNN.

I wasn't aware that sissy and libertard were common nomenclature. In my neck of the woods, that's name calling.

Yeah, it is boring, and time for you to give it up.

You are boring and it's time to take take of business. And as liberals say.....Bah Bah now. I'm sure we will meet again Anon and I will never up my experiences and opinions. That what Liberals tend to do. SHEEEEEPLE!!!! Obama your flock needs tending over here!!

LOL!!!!!

I for one approve of this magazine cover. The photoshoppers could have had a nice job doing cartoons and comics of those folks in the 30's.
Ah, the good ol' days.

Jay, the more rope you give moonbats, the more fun it is to watch them swing when they hang themselves with it.

"Anonymous at June 14, 2009 4:09 PM"

No, you did not answer the question, I asked what was wrong with the origonal picture.
OK, so you MIGHT know what "tokenism" is. But I'm sure you have heard of a more recent term: "NOT ALTHENTIC". Or maybe "NOT BLACK ENOUGH".

That is what pissed me off and you seemed to argue in favor of it.

That is my position and I've defended it enough.

Oh, BS. No readers would be pissed off if they had used the original photo, anon. That is an absurd claim, even for a moonbat.

What? Are the readers going to say, "Damn, I used to like that "Fun Guide", but remember that Summer/Spring 2009 issue? The one where the guy in it was too damn light-skinned? I'll never forgive them for that one!"

Judith, I made no such claim. You're making things up again. You;re the race obsessed one here. I say let them show whoever they want however they want. You're the one complaining that they added a black person. Or this string is, anyway.

KHarn, same to you, you cannot hear. I said nothing is wrong with the original picture. SO that you don;t have to go back and find it, I'll paste it here again: "I don't think anything was "wrong" with the photo, but it apparently didn't suit their purposes, so they changed it. I only support their right to do so..."

As far as you talking about someone not being black enough, again, you've made that up. I said nothing like that. This is the first its been mentioned as far as I know ... by you and you alone.

"Jay, the more rope you give moonbats, the more fun it is to watch them swing when they hang themselves with it."

Well that's the first you've piped up, and its not much, and addresses nothing. Great job!

Robert Byrd,

This is an actual photo of an actual man's head. That you infer that it's a caricature is fairly disgusting. But so is the use of this guy's name in use of your argument.

Dave, sheeple are people who follow without thinking. As I think I've amply demonstrated, I can reason and argue at least as well as the average guy, and definitely don't cow to the first opinion that comes along. So that shoe isn't feeling like it fits.

I think I see the problem here. If the photo had started out with the black man in it, it would have been fine for you? Its the pasting over of the white man that's objectionable?

You seem to think that there's something natural about the photo in the first place. Nothing about it is real. Its probably not a family but a group of models hired for a shoot.

Yeah, OK "piss off their readers" was the wrong phrase, but that's only because I made the mistake of using Dave's words from the previous post. The meaning though was clear, as much as you may want to mis-cast it.

The point is I was agreeing with Dave that the edit was probably made as a racially motivated move by some boss at the magazine who said, "We have more black readers these days, (for whatever reason he thinks this) ... let's get a black person in the shot"

And to this I still say "So friggin what?" If he thinks it will make a black person more likely to pick the thing up (I agree with him there) then its his job to make that call and put the person in the shot. Its his job! Its economics! Its selling magazines!

You sound just like the special interest groups you claim to hate. Boo Hoo! Someone pasted over a white guys face!"

I love that every time somebody comes on here with a differing opinion, you guys accuse them of being "trolls".

And by the way, you guys are being schooled by the "anonymous' troll... and no, it's not me.

"Judith, I made no such claim.
You're making things up again."

Really? Was it a different anonymous that said:

"Yeah, they don't want to piss off their readers. Again, I say that's at the heart of capitalism."

Because it's kind of hard to keep all you chicken hearts straight when so many of you refuse even to use a fake handle so we can tell you apart.

If it was you that made that comment, you clearly implied that people would have been pissed if they'd used the original photo. That is BS.

"You;re the race obsessed one here."

Wrong-o! I couldn't care less who they show on their covers. I'd be fine if everyone on the cover was black. What I think is ludicrous is claiming they had to photo-shop in a darker individual or face the wrath of their readers.

"You're the one complaining that they added a black person. Or this string is, anyway."

Now you're making things up. I never complained that they'd added a black person. I made two comments. One was making fun of the fact that they work so hard to artificially introduce "diversity" when we should be PAST worrying about such things. The other comment called you on claiming they needed to do it to not "piss off their readers". Were you the one who did the photoshop or something? You seem pretty personally invested in this debate.

By the way... I think the guy in the original photo was black as well. Chances are, the client complained that they didn't like the photo of the first guy because he looked too old or not hip enough.

By the way, isn't North Korea threatening nuclear war as you guys whine about some canadian, small-run tourism rag. Nope, can't get anything past ya'll! Keep up the good work fellas!

North Korea IS threatening nuclear war and we already covered that in an earlier thread that had a three minute clip of Obama showing how unqualified he was to deal with such a threat. Thanks for reminding us.

Why does the resident liberal keep making posts using different usernames?

"Safety in numbers" only counts when there's more than one of you.

Dipshit.

Naaah Jimblow. Anonymous obviously has much more time to deal with you idiots than I do. I'm more of a "drive-by poster" ;-)

Actually... humm... maybe there is only one of YOU guys posting on here... it's all making sense now!

WHOA! Great comeback & name calling! Did you think that up all by yourself?

Dipshit.

Hey Jimbo a guys gotta eat dinner sometime you know?

"I couldn't care less who they show on their covers."
Of course you care, its the whole reason this is here.

"If it was you that made that comment, you clearly implied that people would have been pissed if they'd used the original photo."
I did correct myself if you read. It took me a minute to see what you were referring to, and I replied:
"Yeah, OK "piss off their readers" was the wrong phrase ... The point is I was agreeing with Dave that the edit was probably made as a racially motivated move by some boss at the magazine who said, "We have more black readers these days, (for whatever reason he thinks this) ... let's get a black person in the shot"

And to this I still say "So friggin what?" If he thinks it will make a black person more likely to pick the thing up (I agree with him there) then its his job to make that call and put the person in the shot. Its his job! Its economics! Its selling magazines!

"I never complained that they'd added a black person."
Its the entire reason this was posted. WHy else is it here? There's absolutely no other possible reason to defend this string except that you object to the black fella being added. What other objection could there be?

Yes, they want to falsely add diversity to an all white photo. I keep agreeing with that. The reason being they need to sell magazines. Is it sinking in yet?

Jay, the more rope you give moonbats, the more fun it is to watch them swing when they hang themselves with it.
Posted by: Van Helsing at June 14, 2009 7:06 PM

Aye, Captain. That's the way I see it too. Give 'em the rope and then lead them to the yardarm.

By "piss of the readers" you can insert "make it less likely a black person will but the magazine"

From a selling standpoint they're one in the same. A person who doesn't buy might as well be pissed off. They're not giving you money. That's Capitalism baby. Deal with it.

oops "buy the magazine" don't want you jumping on that typo!

Yeah, pirate talk and lynchings. Good one Kevin. Right on moonbat level.

Gotta get some sleep. I'll catch you guys making fools of yourselves in tomorrow's headlines again no doubt!

Talk again some other time.

Yeah, pirate talk and lynchings. Good one Kevin. Right on moonbat level.
Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 11:33 PM

What a marvelous little ugly troll we have here. It'll twist everything. LOL!!!

What I wrote is called a metaphor, troll. Lynching doesn't have anything to do with it. I love the way you twist things, though. It shows a real understanding of... how to twist things. I'll bet you're the life of the party. I've lead many a troll to its proverbial yardarm, Anonymous. I've taken trolls to their proverbial yardarms and watched them tie the rope of their own words to the yardarm and hang themselves. I enjoy it, but it's not lynching. Beautiful loaded word though, lynching. Conjures up all kinds of things and puts the onus of bad on the one you throw it at. You must have learned debate from the masters.

Of course, you'll never hang yourself Anonymous; that'll never happen to you. You've decided to hide yourself in the thicket of "Anonymous." A thousand and one people are "Anonymous." You can't pin anything on "Anonymous." That is where cowards hide.

""I couldn't care less who they show on their covers."
Of course you care, its the whole reason this is here."

Wrong, little troll. The whole reason it's here is show how moonbats can't deal with reality as it is and must force it conform with their idea of what they want reality to be. You see things through moonbat-colored glasses so you couldn't possibly understand that a person who doesn't have a racist bone in his or her body might object to "fixing" a picture so it reflects the current moonbat idea of perfection (you know, where within any photo of a group of people, everyone must represent a separate race). And I again dispute your claim that blacks would be more likely to pick up the magazine because there is a poorly photoshopped black man on its cover. If it did make them more likely to pick it up, they would be the racists, wouldn't they?

And a side note, I hadn't read your little retraction before I posted mine because I was writing my response to your first attack when you posted it. I'm glad to see you can admit you are wrong sometimes. It's a start, even if you screwed up in your next post by assuming I could have read your post before I posted my rebuttal. I guess that will require another retraction, ay?

I am Obama, and I approve this magazine.

I wonder what the IP read would be if each of annonopukes posts were followed? ...and of course all the other leftard trolls.

I wonder what the IP read would be if each of annonopukes posts were followed? ...and of course all the other leftard trolls.
Posted by: FREE at June 15, 2009 11:53 AM

We'd probably find out it's James Carville or Al Gore.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 2:31 PM- "There is no race game here, except for what the publishers think will sell magazines."

In Canada? What would the %age of the population be, in Toronto? Let's assume for a moment that the coloured-ethnic total will turn out to be high enough for this to be a genuine marketing tactic- They aren't going to be made up of "African Americans". They will be "African Africans" and Arab-asians. How long has this supposed large chunk of "immigrants" been in Toronto? How did they get there? Wishful thinking aside, the answer is going to be recent, top-down, socialist driven, "multicultural" population displacement. No, no "race game" going on there.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 8:11 PM- "...If he thinks it will make a black person more likely to pick the thing up (I agree with him there) then its his job to make that call and put the person in the shot. Its his job! Its economics! Its selling magazines!"

There is no real correlation for this assertion. It is an excuse. It has much, much less- if anything at all- to do with "selling magazines", than it has with the Diversity Industry. Clients of stock photos, for example, might actually "request" such nonsense, but it has little to do with real desire for actual actual sales... But everything to do with conforming to the demands of the multi-billion dollar Diversity Industry. It is FEAR. This industry is not about private enterprise. It is about shake-down insurance- for everything from hiring quotas to product presentation.

Posted by: Anonymous at June 14, 2009 6:21 PM- "its a "fun guide" they don't have much in the way of race-based strategy except as they see that it might impact the bottom line."

Virtually all companies have "Diversity" departments, "Diversity" resources, "Diversity" policies etc, in order to offset attacks from the Grievance/Indignation Industry. They have a "race-based" strategy alright- conform to the demands and expectations of the Industry, or lose revenue (or worse). This includes diversity quotas in all aspects of product, regardless of the impact on sales.

The "bottom line" is to pay the Indignation mafia protection "money". Which is exactly what this illustration represents.

CHairman chickenshit,

You know this is wrong. You don't even have a viable argument here and its obvious. The bottom line is the magazine can do what it wants.

If this fun guide had put a confederate flag on it and people were complaining, you'd be defending the magazine's right to do so. But since its a black guys face, your racism shows up to win the day for you.

THat you're unwilling to admit that you would quickly jump the fence if the image were something different only makes it easier to call you a hypocrite. You are.

Judith, would you be more or less likely to pick up a fun guide if the group pictured on the front were all black or all hispanic? I think you might be. And that is completely fine in my book. TO me that's not racist, that's just identifying that the book might not be geared to you.

And I still say, none of this matters. You can (and apparently will) cry about it, but their right to do so is utterly apparent. So your crying will come to nothing but mascara running down your face. None of us want to see that.

Kevin don't be mad if you throw out pirate talk and hanging people and I call you on it. There was nothing in your post but what I said.

If you're going to throw your spite out there, expect a little in return. Yaar matey.

"Judith, would you be more or less likely to pick up a fun guide if the group pictured on the front were all black or all hispanic? I think you might be."

Well, like a lot of what you think, you'd be wrong (and FYI, my two older children are Hispanic, and I love Hispanic cultures, so it's funny you would assume that I WOULDN'T like pictures of Hispanic people).

Who is on the cover would not matter to me as much as whether the content of the guide was of interest to me. I might add, it's obvious that the Chairman knows a lot more about publishing and market demographics than you do, although you may have more hands-on experience with the diversity shakedown business.

Damn anon you still using this marketing and demographics to defend your position on this issue?

Are you a black man trying to defend that this magazine isn't trying not to look racist so it threw in a token black?

PA LEEEEEEZ! BE A GOOD LIBERAL AND MOVE ON!