UPDATE: Cover Drama

You've got to love a good controversy to hype up PR for a magazine. Jezabel has an update/recap of the LeBron James Vogue cover here.

Samir Husni was quote in a USA Today article:

Husni believes the photo was deliberately provocative, adding that it "screams King Kong." Considering Vogue's influential history, he said, covers are not something that the magazine does in a rush.

"So when you have a cover that reminds people of King Kong and brings those stereotypes to the front, black man wanting white woman, it's not innocent," he said.

I agree, it does scream King Kong. And I agree, any comparison between humans and animals is NOT acceptable, especially when the relationship has been used in the past as a horrible, horrible derogatory comment about a specific race. But I also am going to give Vogue a little credit. I highly doubt that's what the magazine was going for.

I'm sure they wanted him to appear in that angry athletic stance that would be a direct opposite from Giselle's model smile. I also wouldn't hold it past Annie Leobovitz to make the connection to King Kong as a way to portray this theme in a easily recognizable style. USA Today has some quotes about how this pose shows LeBron's 'game face.' I believe what Vogue was going for was something in between the two.

It also seems as if more people pointed out my comment about why he wasn't wearing a suit and the post also notes that the inside photo shoot had other sports stars also wearing 'sports apparel' -- Apolo Anton Ohno, Shaun White, Michael Phelps -- next to models in high fashion.

So that's a no to the suit. I get it. But I also offer another question. Had LeBron been wearing a suit, does it make a different statement?

....hmmmm....this image actually brings to mind the ever present financial woes of the country right now. LeBron's anguish suddenly seems real as he learned the value of his BearSterns stock .....WAY too politically ironic for Vogue, though.