What Do You Think of the New Publishers Weekly Cover?

<img src="http://a330.g.akamai.net/7/330/2540/20091211220335/www.publishersweekly.com/contents/images/pwk121409cover.jpg"> The <a href="http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6711430.html">PW cover story</a> is 'African-American Books in Today's Marketplace'. UPDATE: <a href="http://www.mediabistro.com/galleycat/publishing/publishers_weekly_cover_photo_sparks_twitter_controversy_145997.asp">Galleycat</a> provides background on the choice of the photo by Calvin Reid of PW. Reid, who is black, wrote on Twitter that since the magazine picks recommended books in the issue, going to picks -- as in picks for Afros -- seemed like a funny leap.


This fails on so many levels I am hard-pressed to even begin.

It makes me wonder if PW actually has any Black people on their staff. And if they do, why they didn't object to these shenanigans. UGH.


I think it's a playful take on "afro picks" and that it works. Lighten up, people.

I am not offended by the picture. I just am not impressed by it.

Could someone explain *why* they think it's a problem?

Ask Don Imus and he can tell you about nappy headed hos.

WTF is that comment about ?!?!?!?

Google "Don Imus" and "nappy headed" and you you will see the controversy surrounding Imus when he commented on black women's hair.

The publisher weekly picture with the hundreds of hair picks in a black womans hair is evocative of the Imus comment. That is why some people would find the Publisher's Weekly cover to be offensive.

I thought it was an odd choice at first glance, but Reid's remarks clarify a lot.

He has a more extensive statement on PW's website now but it takes a while to load : http://www.publishersweekly.com/article/CA6711692.html

Actually, I think it's some clever wordplay.

If you are going to complain about something, at least sign in first so your name will be known. So far, every entry on this issue has been "Anonymous".

Personally, I have no opinion on the matter. I recognize the intent, and the pun, and that it may or may not work on people. Humor and puns can often backfire.

But if you are going to complain about something or someone, you owe it to yourself and the person you are complaining about to use your real name. There is nothing worse than fighting a bunch of "Anonymous" ghosts that you can't respond to.

Over the years, I have offended a number of fellow librarians in many ways. Often that was ont intentional, and sometimes it was. I have never paid any attention to "Anonymous" responders.

On the other hand, I have been roundly, and frequently correctly, criticised by other librarians who have been brave enough to use their real names. These opinions I treasure, and I have learned from them.

I appreciate and respect people who stand by their comments. I don't appreciate people who throw stones from behind the cover of a crowd, or use a false name.

R. Lee Hadden (These are my own opinions!)

Not this "anonymous" thing again. Personally, I don't know who you are. I don't care to know who you are. I most likely will never met you in real life. So, your "name" means nothing to me. I look at what you say, not what your name is.

And there are people on here that use their real names that are far worse (sarcastic, lacking in actual content in their comments, etc.) than many of the anonymous commenters.

If you truly have a problem with anonymous posting, you owe it to yourself to take it up with the people in charge of this site, not those of us who choose to post anonymously. We do so because it is an option.

The ability of the Anonymous Patron to even post comments has been revoked before. There have been debates upon debates about this. We've had temporary suspensions simply because we did not have the resources to deal with spammers coming through the AP account.

Choosing to post comments unsigned but yet not obfuscating how you got here is not anonymity by any conventional definition. Inviting complaints by other users to The Owner is rather self-defeating. Think about what you're doing.
Stephen Michael Kellat, MSLS

It would be self-defeating if I truly cared. If anonymous commenting is revoked and I want to comment on something, then I would just set up a pseudonymous name or use my real name. Not a particularly big deal.

I was merely pointing out that it is useless to aim the hatred of anonymous commenting at the commenters themselves when it is an option provided by this site. You are the ones that control it, not us. Any complaints should be directed to you, not us.

Kiss my anonymous bottom

I'd be happy to post under my own name. I really think it used to be an option here and then I did. What I'm not willing to do is set up yet another a log-on and password simply in order to do so. Many blogs have a text field to simply type in your name each time instead.

Whether you approve the cover or not, when was the last time you had a debate or opinion about a PW cover?

The following tagline is not an opinion, it is an observation.

There is nothing that cannot be found offensive by someone, somewhere.

I think a wise professor of mine said that if you don't know what to do with it it might be a teaching example. In that spirit, I'm saving this for the diversity class I have to take next quarter.

I agree that it is a clever play on words...however, I do see how someone could/would be offended by the choice.

So I ask, how seriously do we take ourselves and why? Is this really worth the complaints when the intent was not to offend, not to poke fun, not to put-down?


Afro Pick-a-ninnies
Cotton Picks

Just sayin'