Donald Trump, in addition to spouting sexist, xenophobic, and racist rhetoric on a near daily basis, has a pretty distinctive habit. He’ll retweet or repeat something that is offensive, and then receive criticism for it. Trump’s next move is to accuse his critics of being “oversensitive” or too “politically correct” or pretend that the comment in question was just misinterpreted by people who don’t want to see him become president. Given that Trump and Hillary Clinton are now the presumptive nominees for their parties, their exchanges are starting to get nastier, and Trump is up to some of these old tricks.

This weekend, that pattern repeated itself. Trump tweeted out a poster accusing Clinton of being corrupt. It contained a picture of her with money in the background, and a Star of David naming her the “Most Corrupt Candidate Ever!” The image’s origin has been traced to a site that contains other neo-Nazi and anti-Semitic content. Check it out for yourself:

Trump puts a Jewish star in an attack ad calling Hillary “corrupt” along with pictures of cash: pic.twitter.com/Q4A9GoRk0D

— logjammin Pete (@LogjamminPete) July 2, 2016

The Star of David juxtaposed with cash screamed not-so-subtle Anti-Semitism to pretty much everyone who saw it. After the backlash, Trump tweeted out a new image that contained a circle instead of the Star of David. Here’s the new tweet:

Crooked Hillary — Makes History! #ImWithYou#AmericaFirstpic.twitter.com/PKQhYhMmIX

— Donald J. Trump (@realDonaldTrump) July 2, 2016

And of course Trump blamed the media for lying about the image, another move straight out of his playbook. He also claimed that the image didn’t depict a Star of David, but rather a “Sheriff’s badge,” saying: 

These false attacks by Hillary Clinton trying to link the Star of David with a basic star, often used by sheriffs who deal with criminals and criminal behavior, showing an inscription that says ‘Crooked Hillary is the most corrupt candidate ever’ with anti-Semitism is ridiculous.

There are two ways to interpret Trump’s behavior in this case (and the dozens of similar incidents since his campaign kicked off a year ago.) Either he’s feigning ignorance at the socio-political impact of the horrible things he says, retweets, and shares, or he’s truly that ignorant. Either should disqualify him from the presidency. 

Anneliese Mahoney

Anneliese Mahoney is Managing Editor at Law Street and a Connecticut transplant to Washington D.C. She has a Bachelor’s degree in International Affairs from the George Washington University, and a passion for law, politics, and social issues. Contact Anneliese at amahoney@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Donald Trump’s Anti-Semitic Attack on Hillary Clinton is More of the Same appeared first on Law Street.

I recently wrote about how fashion ads are becoming less and less controversial. But now I think I know where all the controversy went in today’s retail strategy: it has shifted to the product itself. By now you may have heard about Urban Outfitters’ recent bloody Kent State sweatshirt. I’ve read a lot of opinions, including that of fellow Law Street writer Anneliese Mahoney, claiming that Urban Outfitters intentionally released the controversial garment in order to increase its recently dwindling sales. I’m not so sure about that though.

Urban Outfitters’ highly offensive Kent State sweatshirt is up for sale on eBay for $2500 http://t.co/0YFxkIMGyr pic.twitter.com/RpTZrUQHUi

— New York Magazine (@NYMag) September 16, 2014

A few weeks ago, Spanish retailer Zara came under fire for producing a children’s top with a six-pointed star patch on the chest that bore a striking resemblance to the star of David patches that Jews were forced to wear during the Holocaust. Last I checked, Zara has been doing pretty well financially. Maybe it isn’t necessarily booming but sales don’t seem to be dwindling either. If anything, producing such a controversial item would hurt its profits and reputation, especially in the dominant European market where the Holocaust occured. It would be a poor choice on Zara’s part if it purposely released a controversial shirt in order to gain publicity.  

The owner of Zara has withdrawn this children’s shirt because of comparisons to the Holocaust. http://t.co/xbyJcuuulR pic.twitter.com/jQ0OKIxPnb — NBCWashington (@nbcwashington) August 28, 2014

While the situation with Urban Outfitters may be a little different, I also don’t think it’s fair to claim that garments go through so many people in production that it would be impossible for someone not to catch something that appears to be a little off. There’s a reason it’s called fast fashion. Unlike more specialized design houses, mass clothing retailers have to move quickly in order to meet consumer demands and make a profit. It’s not like there’s a group of people focused on each item for more than a few seconds at a time. Often the products are presented as a seasonal collection, so details on individual items may be overlooked.

As a writer and someone who works in the creative field, I know what it’s like to look at a project so much that you get sick of it, which may be the case for both the design and production teams in these companies. Also, when you’re working for a company, you look at the product with a completely different mindset than the hypercritical masses that are always looking for a reason to be angry about something. Even The New York Times gets busted for being lazy sometimes. I’m not necessarily condoning such laziness when it comes to editing, but I know for a fact that sometimes it just happens because people are human.

The offending sweatshirt was a one-of-kind vintage piece from Urban Outfitters’ Urban Renewal line, which consists of curated items that may be slightly altered or updated by the company. What seems to be the case with this sweatshirt is that the college apparel was tie-dyed by Urban’s design team in an unfortunate red color. The deep red dots appear to be parts where the dye was more saturated than the rest of the garment. Now if you’ve ever tried to tie-dye before you probably know that it can be pretty damn messy, not to mention difficult to make a consistent design. In this case they only had one item to work with, so if they messed up it was just seen as added character to the unique vintage gem.

While part of Urban’s reputation is to make quirky — and not always politically correct — products, I don’t think this was the case here. Sometimes the viewer reads way more into a piece of art than the artist ever intended. Also, producing a controversial product instead of an ad is a pretty risky business strategy, especially in Urban’s case where the sweatshirt was one of a kind. If anything, they would be at risk of losing even more money if people were to start a boycott of the brand altogether. While I wouldn’t excuse Urban Outfitters or Zara for having such a sloppy editing process, consumers need to calm down when it comes to judging a whole company for a mere oversight.

—

Katherine Fabian (@kafernn) is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center and is currently applying to law schools, freelance writing, and teaching yoga. She hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers.

Featured image courtesy of [Neff Conner via Flickr]

Katherine Fabian

Katherine Fabian is a recent graduate of Fordham University’s College at Lincoln Center. She is a freelance writer and yoga teacher who hopes to one day practice fashion law and defend the intellectual property rights of designers. Contact Katherine at staff@LawStreetMedia.com.

The post Cut Urban Outfitters Some Slack, Mistakes Happen appeared first on Law Street.