Racist? Microsoft apologizes for editing black man out of photo!
Software giant Microsoft has apologised for editing a photo to change a black man's head to that of a white man.
The picture, showing employees sitting around a desk, appeared unaltered on the firm's US website.
But on the website of its Polish business unit the black man's head was replaced with a white face, although the colour of his hands was unchanged.
Microsoft said it had pulled the image and would be investigating who made the changes. It apologised for the gaffe.
The altered image, which also featured an Asian man and a white woman, was quickly circulated online.
Bloggers have had a field day with the story, with some suggesting Microsoft was attempting to please all markets by having a man with both a white face and a black hand.
"The white head and black hand actually symbolise interracial harmony. It is supposed to show that a person can be white and black, old and young at the same time,"
said one blogger on the Photoshop Disasters blog. Others have suggested the ethnic mix of the Polish population may have played a part in the decision to change the photo.
This Bull!
Comments
Not to make excuses for Microsoft, but I suppose a black person does not look very Polish. Given the theme of the ad, I assume they wanted him to look more like one of "your people." I don't see racism in this, just dumb marketing.
I'd rather not cry wolf in this situation either.
When advertising to just about any market, it is perfectly fine to use stock photography tailored to that market. When stock photos don't have exactly what you want, they get modified. If it had been a tampon ad, and some guy was standing in the background, they'd probably change the man to a woman.
Plenty of real racism happens every day. I think we should stick to harping on the real stuff, rather than call all allegations into question with such a stretch as this.
I'd rather not cry wolf in this situation either.
When advertising to just about any market, it is perfectly fine to use stock photography tailored to that market. When stock photos don't have exactly what you want, they get modified. If it had been a tampon ad, and some guy was standing in the background, they'd probably change the man to a woman.
Plenty of real racism happens every day. I think we should stick to harping on the real stuff, rather than call all allegations into question with such a stretch as this.
All fine and dandy. Maybe next time, Microsoft can spend the money in taking a real photograph suited to the market. Cheap s!@#.
Not to make excuses for Microsoft, but I suppose a black person does not look very Polish. Given the theme of the ad, I assume they wanted him to look more like one of "your people." I don't see racism in this, just dumb marketing.
But, if you say that, why would Microsoft want to change the image from a black man to a white?
Also: they have extremely poor photoshop skills. Even iPhone mockups look better than this.
Not to mention he was using a MacBook Pro (with the Apple logo removed) in a Microsoft ad.
+1! You noticed that too.. Microsoft secretly envies Apple.. Bill Gates really wants a MBP but he has to stick with a expensive but problem-filled and security-flawed blue-screen PC!
But, if you say that, why would Microsoft want to change the image from a black man to a white?
Because a black man doesn't look very Polish? I thought I'd said that already. Don't try to maneuver me into defending Microsoft. I've also already said that this is an example of dumb marketing -- I just don't see it as racism. If you question this, it might help to look the word up.
1. The monitor is connected to nothing.
2. The Mac shouldn't be there.
3. NONE of the people represent a Polish market.
4. The Photoshop job was poorly executed.
5. No one knows what on earth is being sold.
Did they even hire an ad agency or just give the job to a manager's 12 year old kid for extra credit at his private school? How is it that they are still in business?
As for the racism, that is a very delicate matter. Racism does not have to be overt, loud, crude, or violent to be "real." Racism may not be the best word to use as it is so emotionally charged. Perhaps racialism is a better term. Someone in a position of authority believed, rightly or wrongly, that the racial composition of the people in the ad would make the ad less effective. MS either thought the Polish were not racially egalitarian or the decision maker at MS wasn't. Either way, there is definitely a case of racialism in play.
To a broader point, I am not sure we should be catering to markets that do not share a spirit of human egalitarianism. We should not make ads that depict women as inferior for the sake of Arab sensibilities. We should not sell crippled products to China so that they can have better control over their people. And we most certainly should not be tailoring our ads to satisfy the racism, or racialism of another culture. People in other parts of the world may not hold to certain self-evident truths about human equality; but we do. American businesses ought to be held to the same standard around the world as they are held at home. Black men should be no less honored and displayed in positions of authority in Poland as in America.
That's why I suggested looking it up.
Racism and racialism have the same meaning: "the belief that all members of each race possess characteristics or abilities specific to that race, esp. so as to distinguish it as inferior or superior to another race or races."
That's why I suggested looking it up.
I mostly used the word as a matter of sensitivity. Racialism is used a bit more broadly to include racial awareness that influences the decision making process. More people can own up to that more readily than to the charge of racism. I do not know even one self-proclaimed racist. I do, however, know many who admit to having racial preferences and using those preferences to influence decisions about any number of things. No matter what word one chooses to use, one cannot escape the fact that MS made a race based decision.
I realize that people do like to use emotionally-charged words because they think it helps them make their point more forcefully, but that doesn't mean it's the right terminology to use. More often than not, it isn't. What I am trying to point out here is that "racism" isn't the explanation for this event and so neither is another word which means the same thing.
The two words have exactly the same meaning, which I have cited above. The definition you offer is your own personal definition. But don't take my word for it (so to speak), try a dictionary.
I realize that people do like to use emotionally-charged words because they think it helps them make their point more forcefully, but that doesn't mean it's the right terminology to use. More often than not, it isn't. What I am trying to point out here is that "racism" isn't the explanation for this event and so neither is another word which means the same thing.
I am not disagreeing that the words have the same dictionary meaning. But language, especially American English is a funny thing. The common understanding of a word is far more important in basic communication than the dictionary meaning. Emotionally charged words tend to shut down our ability to communicate sensitively. Euphemisms work much better in many settings. I happen to believe that this is in fact an example of racism. However, if using a milder word that has a socially digestible meaning for the sake of dialogue is what it takes to advance the ball, so be it.
Let us stop quibbling over semantics. I say this action by MS is wrong and represents at the least, cultural insensitivity. I personally believe it represents a lack of moral fortitude. Back in the day. individuals and companies that practiced equality would often hide their black employees or downplay their role so as not to offend racist business partners. Black writers would have their photos replaced by that of a white person so that their work could be published. The list goes on. It was racism then as it is today. Regardless of your choice of words, it is wrong and more people ought to stand up and say it. These actions by MS should not be defended by saying that it wasn't that bad and should not be blown out of proportion. It IS that bad. It SHOULD be placed front and center in the public eye. They should NOT get away with a simple press release. Any crackpot who ever sued MS over a discrimination charge, now has a case. This is 2009, not 1909. This type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable.
...These actions by MS should not be defended by saying that it wasn't that bad and should not be blown out of proportion. It IS that bad. It SHOULD be placed front and center in the public eye. They should NOT get away with a simple press release... ...This is 2009, not 1909. This type of behavior is absolutely unacceptable.
What type of behaviour; marketing?
I really don't see the editing of this photo as anything other than marketing, it's not racist IMO.
If you're gonna get pissed at companies that fix photos to show a false depiction of real life, when do you draw the line?
For example if I pick up a brochure for my local toy shop it'll have staged pictures that show a playground with a white kid, a black, kid an asian kid and a kid in a wheelchair on just about every page; yet they're marketing to a community that is 80%+ white, and with nowhere near 25% disabled. It's just PC marketing rubbish.
I'm the first to agree that actual racism is abhorrent, but no moreso than a knee-jerk reaction that gives minorities in any community rights not afforded to all.
By quibbling, I assume you mean that my objections are trivial. Thanks. Oh, wait -- you don't believe in definitions. You could mean something different, though what that is we can't really know, and you may very choose to explain using other terms for which you have your own personal definitions. As a consequence, I'd call this discussion futile. You know what that means, right?
I tried to move the discussion from choice of words to heart of the issue. I do believe I explained my point of view sufficiently and invited you to do the same. How about discussing the race issue brought up by the MS ad. It happens to be the topic of the thread. Enlighten me on your views regarding the current issue. If you use small enough words, I'm sure I can muddle through it just fine. If you don't want to talk about the issue, then I guess the discussion truly is futile.
Futility, indeed.