Homeless reading vogue in Paris, controversial post is called cruel and tasteles.

[marylander1940]

I meant tasteleSS but the titles have to be shorter.

 

A posh fashion editor got a predictable reaction when she posted an Instagram photo of a homeless person. But what happened next?

 

Elisabeth von Thurn und Taxis is an editor at Vogue magazine. She's also of royal lineage, isn't short of a bit of cash, and shares snaps of her predictably jet-setting lifestyle with nearly 15,000 followers on Instagram. In Paris for the city's fashion week, she posted the above photo of a homeless person reading Vogue.

 

"Paris is full of surprises . . . and @voguemagazine readers even in unexpected corners!" she commented underneath.

 

http://www.bbc.com/news/blogs-trending-31799543

 

EXCLUSIVE - 'It's no joke being destitute': Homeless woman hits back at Vogue editor after 'cruel' Instagram photo of her reading magazine sparks fury

 

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2986140/EXCLUSIVE-s-no-joke-destitute-Homeless-woman-hits-Vogue-editor-cruel-Instagram-photo-reading-magazine-sparks-fury.html#ixzz3TvXmiAxb

 

http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-2986140/EXCLUSIVE-s-no-joke-destitute-Homeless-woman-hits-Vogue-editor-cruel-Instagram-photo-reading-magazine-sparks-fury.html

 

http://i.dailymail.co.uk/i/pix/2015/03/09/266DC94500000578-2986140-Vogue_s_style_editor_at_large_Elisabeth_von_Thurn_%20%20und_Taxis_post-a-3_1425898067669.jpg

 

[video=youtube;ri6bbhlNgfk]https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=ri6bbhlNgfk

[wisconsinguy]

The editor should be canned.

[+ SundayZip]

A very predictable response from the "always so politically correct" crowd -- likely to be the same people who look the other way when walking by a homeless person on the street. So the editor snapped a photo and posted it. Maybe a mistake, maybe not. I don't know. But geeez, give the woman a break.

[bigvalboy]

A very predictable response from the "always so politically correct" crowd -- likely to be the same people who look the other way when walking by a homeless person on the street. So the editor snapped a photo and posted it. Maybe a mistake, maybe not. I don't know. But geeez, give the woman a break.

 

Well that was my reaction also. "Much ado about nothing"

[joselowe]

I'm sorry but

http://ronreads.com/wp-content/uploads/2012/12/tanisha-laugh.gif

[+ purplekow]

A very predictable response from the "always so politically correct" crowd -- likely to be the same people who look the other way when walking by a homeless person on the street. So the editor snapped a photo and posted it. Maybe a mistake, maybe not. I don't know. But geeez, give the woman a break.

Perhaps she should just be fired for taking a selfie with such a smug self satisfied holier than thou look on her face. For a Vogue editor, shouldn't her eyebrows' color match that terrible dyed blond of her rat's nest of hair. And since when is a tea cozy appropriate neckwear? She should be fired for all of that, her bad taste and for demonstrating that a homeless person is more appropriately dressed for the weather than she is, and might i add, is at least as fashionably dressed.

[+ quoththeraven]

A very predictable response from the "always so politically correct" crowd -- likely to be the same people who look the other way when walking by a homeless person on the street. So the editor snapped a photo and posted it. Maybe a mistake, maybe not. I don't know. But geeez, give the woman a break.

 

I don't think the photograph itelf is cruel and tasteless (though perhaps taking it was) nor that Thurn und Taxis should be canned. It was sharing the photo on her Instagram taht was the problem. While she did not say anything overtly negative, giving the photo the kind of public exposure Instagram provides without asking permission was clueless, as was the ironic/joking observation she made. It comes across as condescending (as in either "why would a homeless person read a magazine like Vogue, filled with goods she couldn't possibly afford" or "hey, Vogue's so good at selling expensive fantasies that even a homeless woman gets it!") and considering a homeless person worthy of amusement. Given the ugly surroundings, why else (the thought goes) would Thurn und Taxis photograph this woman? She's not doing it to make a point about homelessness or as a work of art.

 

If you were homeless, would you want want your photo plastered all over social media? What if you were a hoarder and someone took a photo of you and the piles of stuff in your home and released it on social media without your permission? Most likely not. Homelessness and hoarding are ugly sources of shame. It's a matter of human dignity and privacy. In the greater scheme of things, it might not mean much, but to Dumas, the subject, it does. She didn't give permission, she didn't want it, end of story. Thurn und Taxis should apologize to her directly, and we should move on.

 

Actually, what Thurn und Taxis should have done is spoken to Dumas rather than taking her photo. She could have let her know she works on the magazine and appreciates her readership without exploiting her image.

[Guest boiworship08]

Perpetual outrage