RideLondon admits photoshopping picture of black woman

thehill wrote:

"there was absolutely no intention to mislead." - cos obvs photoshop = truuth
wombles!

there's no intrinsic falsehood in publishing composites. What was misleading in this case was not telling people, or making it absolutley obvious, that the picture was a composite.

I tend to believe them when they say they had no intention to mislead - I suspect that they were just a bit incompetent, naive and insensitive about it.

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

I don't know their motivations, but maybe they do realise there is a problem with diversity, they want to do better, and one of the ways they hope to do that is by making the event look welcoming to people of various backgrounds who may browse their website wondering if it was an event for them?

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

cqexbesd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

...

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

Fair enough: I hadn't considered that.

brooksby wrote:

cqexbesd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

...

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

Fair enough: I hadn't considered that.

Yes, perhaps we might conclude that they did the wrong thing for the right reasons. Or something like that. 

cqexbesd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

I don't know their motivations, but maybe they do realise there is a problem with diversity, they want to do better, and one of the ways they hope to do that is by making the event look welcoming to people of various backgrounds who may browse their website wondering if it was an event for them?

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

I agree. But there's the problem. Which then is the 'correct' approach:
1) a photo which fairly reflects the current situation
2) a photo staged or selected or commissioned to reflect the desired situation
3) a photoshop to simulate the desired situation

I think those who seek offence could find it in any of the above. I'm not sure that adding any 'disclaimer' to the photo would change that either.

Sriracha wrote:

cqexbesd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

I don't know their motivations, but maybe they do realise there is a problem with diversity, they want to do better, and one of the ways they hope to do that is by making the event look welcoming to people of various backgrounds who may browse their website wondering if it was an event for them?

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

I agree. But there's the problem. Which then is the 'correct' approach: 1) a photo which fairly reflects the current situation 2) a photo staged or selected or commissioned to reflect the desired situation 3) a photoshop to simulate the desired situation I think those who seek offence could find it in any of the above. I'm not sure that adding any 'disclaimer' to the photo would change that either.

Surely the correct approach is to have a diverse and inclusive management structure that is visible and interacts with various groups to encourage participation. Backed up with regular minuted meetings that show positive actions being taken to encourage inclusivity.  A sceptic could see this as recognition that insufficient progress has been made and that this is an attempt to gloss over matters without taking any actual positive action.

cqexbesd wrote:

brooksby wrote:

How long does it take for these groups to realise that its better to provide a genuine image and put their hand up to admit "could try better" on the whole diversity thing, rather than photo shopping an image to pretend there's no problem. 

I don't know their motivations, but maybe they do realise there is a problem with diversity, they want to do better, and one of the ways they hope to do that is by making the event look welcoming to people of various backgrounds who may browse their website wondering if it was an event for them?

We know from here un-referenced studies that presenting photos of only one demographic doing activities tends to cause other groups to self select out of activities to some extent. Maybe they were trying to counteract this?

I can make no comment on if it was the right approach, or if it worked and all of this post is pure speculation, but perhaps they were motivated by good intentions.

But they ought to have realised from past examples that doing it this way rarely works out well.  Besides, I  suspect any demographic skewing is a concequence  of more practical considerations than just pictures on adverts.  Just distorting the pictures might be seen as a way of covering up the real problems.

Is a weird thing though - if this had been an artist's constructed image rather than a photo, the same thing could have been done without any such fuss.  And these days the difference between a photo and an entirely constructed image is slowly disappearing.

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

"weird bedroom preferences"?  Where did that come from?  Your odd personal obsessions are showing.

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

 

"weird bedroom preferences"?  Where did that come from?  Your odd personal obsessions are showing.

Personal irritations more like......BAME, LGBTQI+ blah blah blah.

It’s a ruddy bike ride !!!!! 

Shipley wrote:

FluffyKittenofTindalos wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

 

"weird bedroom preferences"?  Where did that come from?  Your odd personal obsessions are showing.

 

Personal irritations more like......BAME, LGBTQI+ blah blah blah.

It’s a ruddy bike ride !!!!! 

I'm not sure that "BAME" is usually considered to be a "bedroom preference"... Or certainly not in the same way as " LGBTQ &c"

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

Alf0nse wrote:

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

Always odd that some think that the answer to racial discrimination is racial discrimination.

Sriracha wrote:

Alf0nse wrote:

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded.  Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

Always odd that some think that the answer to racial discrimination is racial discrimination.

where is the racial discrimination?

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people.

The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them.

Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people.

The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them.

Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people.

The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them.

Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people.

The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them.

Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

IAMSPARTICUS wrote:

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people. The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them. Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

Woah.  

Triggered by the g-word?

This is the sort of thing said by someone who would nail a man to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.

stomec wrote:

IAMSPARTICUS wrote:

Alf0nse wrote:

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

who cares that it’s not inclusive? How about the people being excluded. 

Cycling is great, it’s a shame it’s populated by so many white male bores.

you obviously care deeply enough to be offended by this. 

 

This is country is imploding because of reactionary wingnuts who are freaking out that it’s not the1950s any more 

Go back to golf 

No its a country imploding because of Lefty Liberals hell bent on forcing people into one view whilst hiding behind words such as diversity and pretending they are nice people. The irony is, if the Russians invaded tomorrow, thise same lefty liberals would hide behind their Ikea sofas and hope the 'good British working class' would fight for them. Liberals are scum and worse than right wingers.

Woah.  

Triggered by the g-word?

This is the sort of thing said by someone who would nail a man to a tree for saying how great it would be to be nice to people for a change.

Not at all. I hate golf.

But I hate liberals more. I cant be doing with them as they create more division.

Let people be and stop forcing agendas, most people get along anyway and dont need forced photoshop images promoting something that doesnt need promoting in the first place.

If black people want to ride bikes they will. They arent idiots. They dont need false images put in front of them to persuade them.

Its the liberal agenda BEHIND that image that I cant stand, not the actual message.

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

I prefer my bedrooms to be perfectly normal, not weird in any way, but then, I haven't ridden a sportive.

Shipley wrote:

Why do organisations bother to do this ? Who cares that it’s not ‘inclusive’ ?

Why does it have to be ?

Who cares what ‘colour’ the participants are or what weird bedroom preferences they have ? It’s a sportive, ridden by choice and often for charity.

This country will soon implode with politically correct nonsense.

They do it because of seven decades of feminism.  This 'movement' is based on the quite hilarious notion that there is, at a national and international level, a concerted effort on the part of men, to exclude women and to keep women 'oppressed'.  This is despite the demonstrable leniency shown to women by the criminal justice systems of most first world countries, as well as the preference shown to women in higher education.  And then there are the quotas.  My wife (who works in the public sector) was required to sit in on a panel interviewing candidates for a new position.  She has little to no knowledge of the subject matter on which the candidate was being questioned, but that was of little consequence, because it is now a requirement that there be at least one women on the interview panel.  Said panel can be all-female.  But it cannot be all-male.  

In time, 'feminism' will come to be recognised as the quite batty conspiracy theory that it is, and those who believe its ludicrous tenets, recognised as suffering from a bona fide mental illness.

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

~absolute drivel~

stomec wrote:

Legs_Eleven_Worcester wrote:

~absolute drivel~

 

 

Well, that's me told, then…