Author: Michael Bugeja

Entertainment v. Celebrity News: Professor and Student Exchange

Media ethics teachers deal with weighty topics from philosophy, history and jurisprudence. Occasionally a student asks a question requiring more research. Here’s an exchange about a Khloé Kardashian love scandal involving an NBA player and model with lessons about entertainment v. gossip journalism.

EDITOR’s NOTE: In case you haven’t kept up with the Kardashians, Khloé, 34, blamed Jordyn Woods, 21, for her split with NBA basketball star Tristan Thompson, 27. She initially blamed Woods; however, upon viewing the video above, changed her mind and blamed Thompson for a scandal that seems to hinge on alcohol and a kiss. You can read the details as reported by People Magazine.


Media Ethics Student:

I don’t know if you keep up with the news of popular culture and celebrity news, but there is a story that has been circulating the media–a scandal of celebrity entrepreneur Jordyn Woods assumed to cheat with Khloé Kardashian’s partner. Sometimes celebrity news can be very dramatic, exaggerated and often irrelevant, but this scandal has piqued my interest with the relation to ethics.

I think the ethics of falsehood, specifically exaggeration, as the headlines of the story seem to position Jordyn Woods as the villain. Though after watching a video on Red Table Talk hosted by Jada Pinkett Smith, there are two sides of the story, and the media is not portraying the assumed side of Woods. Some questions I had are:

How are ethics considered from different media outlets, specifically when covering the topic of celebrity news? 

Should both sides be considered before publishing something with a specific bias?

Also, the media has reported that “supposedly” Woods was all over Khloé’s partner and eventually ended up making out with him, though in the video Woods explained that none of that was true and that it was only a peck on the lips. Before knowledge of what has been circulating in the media, Khloé asked Woods how her night went and Woods said that it went well and did not speak up about the peck on the lips.

Would that also be considered a white lie or even a half-truth, if Woods did not reveal the secret due to not wanting to hurt Khloé’s feelings?

I apologize for this long email as this is something I was processing. Of course I don’t expect you to have a clear answer for my questions, but I just included them as thoughts. I hope to hear back from you in processing topics like this. Also, I know celebrity news is sometimes toxic; this is a case that just seemed to correlate with what we have been learning about. I look forward to your reply, have a great night! Thank you.

Media Ethics Professor:

I’m happy that you are making connections with our class about what you see and hear on media. That’s the goal. The real learning happens outside of class when we apply what we learned.

So I spent part of my Sunday trying to catch up on the Khloe/Jordyn/Tristan situation. I watched the entire video on Red Table Talk. What I liked about the video, including the beginning with Will Smith, is the focus on telling the truth and accepting consequences.

This not only is a situation about falsehood but also betrayal and manipulation. I suspect Jordyn may not be telling the entire truth about that kiss. Perhaps it was more than flirting and an apparent betrayal—both of them on Khloé. Alcohol was involved, and Jordyn doesn’t seem to associate that with her condition in allowing at least emotional if not physical betrayal.

But this is celebrity news, and we always need to take what we view or hear with the proverbial grain of salt.

Now for your questions:

How are ethics considered from different media outlets, specifically when covering the topic of celebrity news?

The celebrity news business is based on gossip, not fact. Everyone wants the gossipy lowdown and that’s why Red Table, TMZ, etc., are so popular. The audience wants to follow their idols and live the celebrity life. Then fan bases that fight for and over their celebrities. It’s a real media circus, but it keeps us hooked.

I almost got hooked, listening with some interest to this 25-minute Red Table video because, well, that’s the appeal … the very slow narrative that keeps us listening. For Pete sake, it shouldn’t have taken Jordyn 20 minutes to get to the kiss. So some of this seems programmed for entertainment value.

Should both sides be considered before publishing something with a specific bias?

Even bad publicity is good publicity when celebrities are concerned. Sympathy for Khloé. Condemnation for Jordyn and Tristan. Thousands of fans tweeting about a celebrity war! In sum, entertainment news differs from celebrity news. The former is more fact-based, the latter more gossip-based. There’s a long history of celebrity news in newspapers, appropriately called “gossip columns.”

Media Ethics Student:

I thoroughly enjoyed your response and even chuckled at some points. I really appreciate you for taking your time to dive into this topic with me. This email has given me a lot to reflect on. Thank you again! See you in class tomorrow.


Lessons

Entertainment Journalism: If you want to keep up with the Kardashians, you should visit this link by the Chicago Tribune, which provides 15 slides on the clan’s various members. The slideshow with descriptions also represents fact-based entertainment journalism, a field that covers celebrities, fashion, music, dance, arts, cinema and other similar cultural venues.

Top Entertainment Media (National Arts and Entertainment Journalism Award-Winners):

Gossip Columnists: The most important three, according to “The History of Gossip Columnists,” are Louella Parsons (born in 1881), who wrote for the Chicago Record Herald. Hedda Hopper (born in 1885), who wrote for the Los Angeles Times. And
Sheilah Graham Westbrook: (born 1904 in England), who wrote for The Mirror and The Journal.

Top Gossip Websites:

Living Media Ethics has a section about celebrities whom media treat as idols and icons with information on how audiences adopt their values and covet their lifestyles.

Trump to Universities: Support 1st Amendment or Lose Research Funds

President Trump says he will sign an executive order withholding federal funds for universities that do not support free speech.

President Trump, speaking at the Conservative Political Action Conference, said colleges and universities receiving billions of federal dollars for research must support the First Amendment or lose funding.

An article in Inside Higher Ed stated that the president did not elaborate on how his executive order would function or how institutions would document support for free speech.

The president was accompanied at the podium by Hayden Williams, who was attacked while recruiting for a conservative grassroots organization at the University of California-Berkeley. Trump said that Williams should sue the university and the state of California. “He took a hard punch in the face for all of us. We can never allow that to happen.”

Here is a video of the attack:

Williams and the man who allegedly attacked him–Zachary Greenberg–are not students at Berkeley. IHE noted that Williams had permission to be on campus expressing his views.

CNN reports that Greenberg, arrested and booked in the assault, reportedly was upset by a  sign that stated “Hate Crime Hoaxes Hurt Real Victims,” an apparent reference to “Empire” actor Jussie Smollett, who has been charged with disorderly conduct.

Inside Higher Ed cited Terry Hartle, senior vice president for government and public affairs at the American Council on Education, who noted that higher education supports free speech and academic freedom because both are fundamental to the learning environment.

Hartle questioned whether religious institutions would lose funding if they denied speakers challenging their doctrines and also criticized Trump for attacks on others exercising free speech, including former NFL quarterback Colin Kaepernick. 

Living Media Ethics describes the First Amendment in several chapters, including a historical section on how Constitutional framers envisioned its use in free society.

Here’s an excerpt:

Madison, who drafted the rights, wanted another check on the balance of power between the government branches and states. The First Amendment in the Bill of Rights did that perhaps more than the other nine, clearly stating what legislators can and cannot do: Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances. The people’s “first right” actually was five: freedom of or from religion, free speech, free press, assembly and petition.

From a historical perspective, Madison’s notion of “balance” and “check on powers of government” also are core principles that define news media, in particular, in holding elected officials accountable. That is why journalism is sometimes referred to as “The Fourth Estate,” checking the power of the executive, judicial and legislative branches of government.

At the CPAC rally and in campaign appearances, President Trump has called the news media “the enemy of the people.” He also noted, “Nobody loves the First Amendment more than me,” defending his attacks on the media as his own fundamental free speech right.

Bias Roundup: KKK invoked, lynch-like hoodie pulled

Alabama publisher calls on KKK to “night ride”; Kennesaw State student threatened in post citing KKK; Burberry apologizes for noose on hoodie.

The Washington Post reports that the Feb. 14 editorial criticized Democrats and some Republicans for raising taxes, concluding: “Seems like the Klan would be welcome to raid the gated communities up there.”

Two journalism students at Auburn posted the editorial, which wasn’t in the Democrat-Reporter’s online edition.

KKK Oped

At KSU, an African-American student was depicted in a photo while in class with this comment: “Need to call the klan to solve this issue.”

According to the Atlanta Journal Constitution,  Elijah John–the 22-year-old student in the photo–stated: “He threatened my life and I’m not OK with that.” The university told the newspaper that the student who posted the photo no longer is enrolled.

Living Media Ethics reported earlier in the month about continuing bias in the fashion industry, with blackface-like shoes, sweater and ornaments pulled from product lines. Now Burberry has apologized for a hoodie with noose.

Fortune reported this apology from Burberry CEO Macro Gobbetti: “We are deeply sorry for the distress caused by one of the products that featured in our A/W 2019 runway collection Tempest.” Gobbetti removed the product as soon as complaints were posted about it. He said the design “was inspired by the marine theme that ran throughout the collection, it was insensitive and we made a mistake. ”

Living Media Ethics has a chapter on bias and also reports about it on this website.  The subtitle of the text–“across platforms”–showcases the blended media environment, from a print editorial in an Alabama newspaper and social media post, invoking the KKK, to a lynch-like sweater ornament. All made the news. The KKK op-ed was associated with journalism; the KSU University News Service (information public relations) had to answer media requests; the noose-sweater advertisements and promotions had to be pulled.

That is what “across platforms” means.

UPDATE: Jussie Smollette Charged With Hoax “Publicity Stunt”

Chicago Police superintendent Eddie Johnson angrily announces charges against Empire actor Jussie Smollette, alleging the actor sent a false letter and later staged a hate crime because he was dissatisfied with his salary and sought publicity.

Jussie Smollett, a star on Empire and LGBTQ+ activist, has been charged with disorderly conduct, a felony that can bring as much as one to three years in prison with a large fine.

Police Chief Eddie Johnson, an African-American, stated:

“Why would anyone, especially an African American man, use the symbolism of a noose to make false accusations? How could someone look at the hatred and suffering associated with that symbol and see an opportunity to manipulate that symbol to further his own public profile? … I only hope the truth about what happened receives the same amount of attention the hoax did.”

In an analysis of the news conference, The Washington Post noted that media coverage of the hoax has surpassed Smollett’s claim of a hate crime, focusing now on the ramifications of the act.

Smollett turned himself in to authorities on Feb. 20.

The saga began when Smollett said that two men attacked him in Chicago on Jan. 29, dousing him with bleach and putting a noose around his neck. Because of a series of purported discoveries by police, many in media doubted the crime actually happened.

On Feb. 1, he gave this statement to Essence magazine:

“As my family stated, these types of cowardly attacks are happening to my sisters, brothers and non-gender conforming siblings daily. I am not and should not be looked upon as an isolated incident. We will talk soon and I will address all details of this horrific incident, but I need a moment to process. Most importantly, during times of trauma, grief and pain, there is still a responsibility to lead with love. It’s all I know. And that can’t be kicked out of me.”

Smollett reported to CNN that two men called him racist and homophobic slurs. Chicago police noted that Smollett in his initial report did not say that one of the men shouted, “This is MAGA country,” a reference to Donald Trump’s campaign slogan: Make America Great Again. According to People Magazine, he stated that to police in a subsequent meeting and the record was updated.

He had told police on the night of the attack he had been on the phone with his manager. Doubt began to surface when Smollett did not hand over his phones but instead provided a redacted copy of his phone record.

Then police found surveillance footage of two men.

Smollett told his story and maintained his innocence in a widely disseminated interview with ABC’s Robin Roberts.

In that interview he was shown the surveillance footage of the two men and said he believed them to be his attackers.

The two men, arrested by police, Abel and Ola Osundairo, are brothers, one of whom appeared briefly on Empire and both of whom purportedly know Smollett. The men cooperated with police. Both cooperated with police and were seen in this video, purchasing materials to be used in the purported attack.

The case brings to light a significant 17% increase in hate crimes, according to the FBI. Smollett and his brother Jake also are respected advocates for worthy causes. In 2018, they  helped raise more than $1 million for a historically black college for women, Bennett College, to keep its doors open.

Days before the reported attack, the Chicago set of Empire received an envelope containing white powder, later shown to be aspirin, according to police. Authorities believe that Smollett sent the letter and then decided on a subsequent attack when the letter alone did not generate sufficient publicity.

At the time of the police news conference, Smollett still maintained his innocence. His lawyers issued this statement:

“Today we witnessed an organized law enforcement spectacle that has no place in the American legal system. The presumption of innocence, a bedrock in the search for justice, was trampled upon at the expense of Mr. Smollett and notably, on the eve of a Mayoral election. Mr. Smollett is a young man of impeccable character and integrity who fiercely and solemnly maintains his innocence and feels betrayed by a system that apparently wants to skip due process and proceed directly to sentencing.”

Living Media Ethics covers the ramifications of a hoax in a chapter on manipulation. It notes several types of hoaxes, including publicity stunts.

Here’s an excerpt:

10 Common Time Elements for Hoaxes *These time elements can be combined, of course.

  • When information about a sensational story, client or product seems to have reached a standstill.
  • When information about an event, incident, client or product threatens or supports a person’s or a group’s interests.
  • When a political candidate is running for office or an issue is being debated or considered for legislative action.
  • When society is consumed by a widespread fear or desire.
  • When society searches for a missing link, cure or other piece of evidence to advance learning, science or technology.
  • When a hoaxster needs the exposure or publicity.
  • When a media outlet has recently run a promotional campaign soliciting reader or viewer participation or feedback.
  • When a deadline or production schedule doesn’t allow for research.
  • When the media outlet has a need for a certain type of story, client or product line.
  • When a story, client, or product line is linked to a specific season, holiday or occasion

Reporters and practitioners are instructed to be patient and seek facts from reliable sources before disseminating a hoax story and also to:

  • Question the motive of the source. Try to ascertain why the person is resorting to falsehoods and manipulation. A person risks reputation and even criminal liability by resorting to a hoax.
  • Question your own motive and media needs. Ask yourself if your own motives, ambitions and deadlines are playing a role in your perspective.
  • Question the impact on audience. Determine how the source’s story, problem, discovery or product will affect your readers, viewers or customers. The bigger the story, the bigger the impact on you if you are wrong in your assessment.
  • Assess your own fears, desires, convictions or values. Ultimately hoaxsters rely on journalists and practitioners and their inherent biases to perpetuate a hoax. Be sure to take that into account.

Journalists and practitioners who refrain from prematurely dubbing a report a hoax gain credibility because they do not need to issue a retraction. Likewise, journalists and practitioners who outwit, defuse and expose a hoaxster enhance their credibility, along with that of the employer.

Living Media Ethics is available from Routledge and addresses ethical issues in advertising, journalism and public relations.

More Blackface Bias and Insensitivity in the Fashion Industry

This month a Gucci black turtleneck sweater was condemned on social media, as was a Prada blackface-looking ornament. Katy Perry blackface-like shoes are being pulled.Vogue misidentified journalist Noor Tagouri, and now Vogue Brazil is apologizing for an offensive racial photo.

Yahoo News and TMZ are reporting that Katy Perry is removing shoes from her footwear collection because shoppers complained that one style resembled blackface.

The $129 shoes no longer will be sold.

Yahoo included a statement from Perry and her company:

“The Rue and The Ora were part of a collection that was released last summer in 9 different colorways (black, blue, gold, graphite, lead, nude, pink, red, silver) and envisioned as a nod to modern art and surrealism. I was saddened when it was brought to my attention that it was being compared to painful images reminiscent of blackface. Our intention was never to inflict any pain. We have immediately removed them from Katy Perry Collections.”

As if to make matters worse in the fashion world, Vogue Brazil has been accused of a race-based insensitive photo showing style director Donata Meirelles celebrating her birthday on a throne alongside black women in traditional dress, CNN has reported.

Journalist Fabio Bernardo posted this photo of Meirelles, sparking more outrage about inherent bias in the fashion industry.

According to CNN, Vogue Brazil apologized “profusely for what happened and hopes that the discussions generated have served as a learning opportunity.” The company plans to create a forum to help identify biased and exclusionary content.

These were the latest in a string of apologies in the fashion world.

Social media erupted upon seeing an $848 sweater resembling blackface, prompting Gucci to pull the product from its catalog and online and physical stores.

Film producer Tariq Nasheed tweeted …

In covering the story, the New York Times recounted a series of stereotypical blunders in the fashion world.

Dolce & Gabbana was excoriated for advertisements laden with stereotypes about Chinese people. Zara has featured a skirt with a character like Pepe the Frog, a figure embraced by far-right groups. Prada adorned bags with charms, part of a line of goods called Pradamalia, that resembled black monkeys with outsize red lips. And the Swedish company H&M dressed a young black male model in a hoodie with the phrase “coolest monkey in the jungle,” setting off protests at South African stores.

Prada also tweeted an apology about its blackface-looking ornament with a statement that read, in part, “The resemblance of the products to blackface was by no means intentional, but we recognise that this does not excuse the damage they have caused.”

The company’s statement also noted that it would create an Advisory Council to guide its efforts pertaining to diversity, inclusion and culture. In addition, it would donate proceeds from its ornament to an organization dedicated to fighting for racial justice.

That apology was better than the one Vogue issued after misidentifying Libyan-American journalist Noor Tagouri , 24, with Pakistani actress Noor Bukhari, 36.

Living Media Ethics covered the incident earlier this month in a post titled, “In Vogue: Journalist Tagouri Misidentified as Pakistani Actress.” The magazine issued this apology:

Its apology lacked two of seven basic ethical components of a correction, as described in Living Media Ethics:

  • Identify the error (what it was, when/where it occurred).
  • Correct the record.
  • Do so as soon as possible.
  • Do so prominently.
  • Provide an explanation to the audience or clientele.
  • Disclose how the error could have been avoided and/or how it will be prevented in the future.
  • Issue an apology to those damaged by the false disclosure.

In attempting to address the cultural problem of such a mistake, the magazine stated: “We also understand there is a larger issue of misidentification in media–especially among nonwhite subjects [emphasis added].”

Some viewers on social media criticized the use of the term “nonwhite,” wondering why the magazine didn’t simply say “people of color.”

Living Media Ethics dedicates a chapter to correcting bias and stereotypes, noting consequences for content and products that offend others. Here’s an excerpt:

Mistakes. Your report, photograph, advertisement, illustration or campaign will contain misconceptions and inaccuracies tarnishing your own and/or your company’s reputation.

Substandard quality. Your misconceptions and inaccuracies may cause your story or campaign to fall short of expectations, costing your outlet subscribers, patrons or contracts.

Professional embarrassment. When your work is deemed racist, you become the focus of media attention and implicate your employer and coworkers by association.

Personal liability. When your work contains race-related misconceptions and/or inaccuracies—such as believing allegations made by sources or over-billing or shunning clients because of their ethnic heritage—you or your firm can be sued, depending on factors involved in each case.

Undermined morality. Even if your work succeeds, appealing to prurient interests who embrace stereotypes, you contribute messages to society that cause other people pain, suffering and humiliation.

Unanticipated disturbances. The pain, suffering and humiliation caused by your report, photograph, illustration, advertisement or campaign can lead to protests against your employer or boycotts against your product or client.

Let’s hope the fashion industry and media that cover it are more sensitive to the issue of stereotypes–not only in Black History Month–but throughout the year, every year.

Bezos accuses the National Enquirer of extortion

This story is complicated, so Living Media Ethics breaks it down to fathom why the world’s richest man–Amazon CEO Jeff Bezos, who also owns The Washington Post–claims he is being blackmailed by the National Enquirer. As far as journalism is concerned, there’s one small positive outcome in this sad, sordid affair.

Above video by CBS Evening News posted on YouTube

In early January, Bezos was informed that the National Enquirer would be publishing a story replete with intimate text messages about an extramarital affair he was having with television anchor Lauren Sanchez.

Two days later, Bezos announced that he and his spouse of 25 years, MacKenzie, would be divorcing.

Bezos hired security expert Gavin de Becker to discover how the Enquirer obtained those text messages.

The Post then ran a story titled “Was tabloid exposé of Bezos affair just juicy gossip or a political hit job?” quoting de Becker who suggested that the Enquirer story was a “’politically motivated’ leak meant to embarrass the owner of The Post — an effort potentially involving several important figures in Trump’s 2016 campaign.”

David Pecker, chief executive of American Media Inc., parent company of the Enquirer,  is a friend of President Trump.  According to The Washington Post, Pecker has repeatedly attacked the newspaper as fake news and reportedly directed the Enquirer “to write favorable stories about Trump during the 2016 presidential campaign, while paying $150,000 to former Playboy model Karen McDougal to suppress her claim of a long-running affair with Trump.”

Here’s where the story implodes.

In a long and at times embarrassing post, Bezos details how the tabloid purports to have salacious photos of him and Ms. Sanchez. He alleges that a top editor at the Enquirer threatened to publish those photos unless Bezos directed The Post to write a story stating that he and de Becker, “have no knowledge or basis for suggesting that AMI’s coverage was politically motivated or influenced by political forces.”

Rather than agree to that, Bezos wrote: “The Post is a critical institution with a critical mission. My stewardship of The Post and my support of its mission, which will remain unswerving, is something I will be most proud of when I’m 90 and reviewing my life, if I’m lucky enough to live that long, regardless of any complexities it creates for me.”

Bezos added:

“Any personal embarrassment AMI could cause me takes a back seat because there’s a much more important matter involved here.”

And that’s the hook. Is The Post investigation honing on a politically motivated “hit job” and, if so, by whom?

The answer to that, at the moment, is nobody knows until somebody does, and when that happens, news will go viral.

Here is what we do know. Bezos did not use The Post as a mouthpiece to save himself devastatingly bad publicity sure to upset stockholders of Amazon and his other holdings. And that, as far as Living Media Ethics can see at the moment, is about the only good that has come out of this sordid journalism episode.

UPDATE: Fashion Under Fire: More Apologies from Vogue, Prada et. al.

The fashion world has been apologing about insensitivity for the past month. A Gucci black turtleneck sweater with red-mouth feature, appearing to be lips, was condemned on social media, as was a Prada blackface-looking ornament. Vogue misidentified journalist Noor Tagouri. Now Vogue Brazil is apologizing for an offensive photo featuring its style editor.

Vogue Brazil has been accused of a race-based insensitive photo showing style director Donata Meirelles celebrating her birthday on a throne alongside black women in traditional dress, CNN has reported.

Journalist Fabio Bernardo posted this photo of Meirelles, sparking more outrage about inherent bias in the fashion industry.

According to CNN, Vogue Brazil apologized “profusely for what happened and hopes that the discussions generated have served as a learning opportunity.” The company plans to create a forum to help identify biased and exclusionary content.

This was the latest in a string of apologies in the fashion world.

Social media erupted upon seeing an $848 sweater resembling blackface, prompting Gucci to pull the product from its catalog and online and physical stores.

Film producer Tariq Nasheed tweeted …

In covering the story, the New York Times recounted a series of stereotypical blunders in the fashion world.

Dolce & Gabbana was excoriated for advertisements laden with stereotypes about Chinese people. Zara has featured a skirt with a character like Pepe the Frog, a figure embraced by far-right groups. Prada adorned bags with charms, part of a line of goods called Pradamalia, that resembled black monkeys with outsize red lips. And the Swedish company H&M dressed a young black male model in a hoodie with the phrase “coolest monkey in the jungle,” setting off protests at South African stores.

Here’s a comparison of the Gucci sweater and Pradamalia ornament.

Prada also tweeted an apology with a statement that read, in part, “The resemblance of the products to blackface was by no means intentional, but we recognise that this does not excuse the damage they have caused.”

The company’s statement also noted that it would create an Advisory Council to guide its efforts pertaining to diversity, inclusion and culture. In addition, it would donate proceeds from its ornament to an organization dedicated to fighting for racial justice.

That apology was better than the one Vogue issued after misidentifying Libyan-American journalist Noor Tagouri , 24, with Pakistani actress Noor Bukhari, 36.

Living Media Ethics covered the incident earlier this month in a post titled, “In Vogue: Journalist Tagouri Misidentified as Pakistani Actress.” The magazine issued this apology:

Its apology lacked two of seven basic ethical components of a correction, as described in Living Media Ethics:

  • Identify the error (what it was, when/where it occurred).
  • Correct the record.
  • Do so as soon as possible.
  • Do so prominently.
  • Provide an explanation to the audience or clientele.
  • Disclose how the error could have been avoided and/or how it will be prevented in the future.
  • Issue an apology to those damaged by the false disclosure.

In attempting to address the cultural problem of such a mistake, the magazine stated: “We also understand there is a larger issue of misidentification in media–especially among nonwhite subjects [emphasis added].”

Some viewers on social media criticized the use of the term “nonwhite,” wondering why the magazine didn’t simply say “people of color.”

Living Media Ethics dedicates a chapter to correcting bias and stereotypes, noting consequences for content and products that offend others. Here’s an excerpt:

Mistakes. Your report, photograph, advertisement, illustration or campaign will contain misconceptions and inaccuracies tarnishing your own and/or your company’s reputation.

Substandard quality. Your misconceptions and inaccuracies may cause your story or campaign to fall short of expectations, costing your outlet subscribers, patrons or contracts.

Professional embarrassment. When your work is deemed racist, you become the focus of media attention and implicate your employer and coworkers by association.

Personal liability. When your work contains race-related misconceptions and/or inaccuracies—such as believing allegations made by sources or over-billing or shunning clients because of their ethnic heritage—you or your firm can be sued, depending on factors involved in each case.

Undermined morality. Even if your work succeeds, appealing to prurient interests who embrace stereotypes, you contribute messages to society that cause other people pain, suffering and humiliation.

Unanticipated disturbances. The pain, suffering and humiliation caused by your report, photograph, illustration, advertisement or campaign can lead to protests against your employer or boycotts against your product or client.

Let’s hope the fashion industry and media that cover it are more sensitive to the issue of stereotypes–not only in Black History Month–but throughout the year, every year.