GiveDirectly, a charity that sends cash to people in Kenya and Uganda, is raising $30 million to fund a program that will give 6,000 Kenyans a basic living wage, no matter what, for 10 years. The future of humanity could depend on what happens to these Kenyans.
“6,000 Kenyans are going to be given a yearly salary just for being alive”?
C’mon, mic.com writers, I know you’re all about the clickbait, but there were so many better ways of phrasing that. The inflammatory way your wrote that headline sounds like you feel those 6,000 Kenyans are undeserving and that people don’t have a basic right to survival. Like…I don’t even know.
Not only that, but look at the picture you used, Mic.dom:
The foreground is fine: man using a wheelbarrow to transport apples, maybe to market because he’s a small business owner or farmer or something, which is cool.
Though he’s also looking down at the ground, seems kind of dispirited or something.
But the background? a wall graffitti picture of a baby smoking marijuana with the words “rasta baby” painted right next to it? And “motherless child” painted under that?
Like, I don’t know the context of the art, but I do know that pairing a picture of a baby on drugs under the headline “Kenyans get money just for being alive” implies the worst of “welfare queen” racist stereotypes. or racist drug using stereotypes. Something pretty unsavory.
Check out the contrast with this headline from The Verge:
“Tech’s favorite policy, universal basic income, is about to get its first big test”
Pretty informative, naming a concept universal basic income which has garnered a lot of interest lately.
Paired with a picture of a smiling woman looking directly at the camera, holding up some technology, her cell phone. There’s a lot of positive energy in this picture.
Do you see the difference?
Mic.com writers, Jack Smith IV , editors, whoever
You folks really need to work on your sociological imagery and implications.
^^^ thank you, that was so well written
reblogging for the comments