Twitter Slams LA Times For All-White Magazine Cover

Twitter is all over the LA Times today:

It’s not just an all-white cover, it’s a jarringly all-white all-blond cover (with one redhead). Even Donald Trump would probably look at it and shake his head.

Is this a frequent thing for The Envelope? I don’t have their covers for the past year, but a quick scroll through their most recent stories shows that 8 out of 30 are about people of color (or a roundtable that includes at least one POC). That’s 27 percent. Is that bad? OK? Good but could be better? I’m not sure. It’s better than the Oscars, at least.

But what I’d really be interested in is a story about how a cover like this happens. Obviously every magazine wants big stars who are likely to win awards. But I assume that you can’t always get everyone you want. Agents make their clients available depending on whether they have a movie to promote; whether they happen to be in town on the day of the shoot; whether they feel like doing it; etc. Did the Times invite some black actresses, but by chance they didn’t accept so they were stuck with an all-white roundtable? Or what? Once thing I know for sure is that it didn’t happen just because no one noticed it. At the very, very least, the photographer, Kirk McKoy, who’s shot a million of these things, certainly noticed it.

Somebody at the Times should write this story! Not in a defensive, apologetic way, necessarily, but more as a sort of explainer about how things work in the entertainment biz. It would be a good read.

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

TIME IS RUNNING OUT!

We have an ambitious $350,000 online fundraising goal this month and it's truly crunch time: About 15 percent of our yearly online giving usually comes in during the final week of the year, and in "No Cute Headlines or Manipulative BS," we explain why we simply can't afford to come up short right now.

The bottom line: Corporations and powerful people with deep pockets will never sustain the type of journalism Mother Jones exists to do. And advertising or profit-driven ownership groups will never make time-intensive, in-depth reporting viable.

That's why donations big and small make up 74 percent of our budget this year. There is no backup to keep us going, no alternate revenue source, no secret benefactor. If readers don’t donate, we won’t be here. It's that simple.

And if you can help us out with a donation right now, all online gifts will be matched thanks to an incredibly generous matching gift pledge.

payment methods

We Recommend

Latest

Sign up for our free newsletter

Subscribe to the Mother Jones Daily to have our top stories delivered directly to your inbox.

Get our award-winning magazine

Save big on a full year of investigations, ideas, and insights.

Subscribe

Support our journalism

Help Mother Jones' reporters dig deep with a tax-deductible donation.

Donate