Follow Up: You Can Leave Your Hat On…Just Remove the Tag
Carelessness and photography go together like toddlers and alcohol: The pairing may be unpleasant for the people directly involved, but it’s often hilarious for any onlookers. The best careless photos are always the ones that mistakenly capture something embarrassing; typically some small detail that the photographer ignored. For example, check out this infamous (and very valuable) trading card:
But Fleer isn’t the only unobservant organization letting photos like this slip through the cracks and into the public’s hands, it appears as though SDC does it too. (No, you’re not about to see more expletives. Promise.) First, some background: In a post on May 22nd, I discuss the hypocrisy surrounding SDC’s sale of Chinese-made baseball caps. At one point I say that “there appears to be no attempt to hide their hypocrisy.” Well, it appears that I may have misspoke, because new evidence has come to light that suggests someone may, indeed, be trying to hide the fact that SDC’s hats are made in China. Take a look at this photo from SDC’s Flickr page, which shows an SDC hat from which the tag has clearly been removed with scissors or a knife or something:
Here’s a closeup:
Now, we don’t know for certain that anyone working for or affiliated with SDC cut out the tag of the pictured hat. For all we know, a janitor could have bought a Save Darfur hat, cut out the tag because it scratched his scalp and accidentally left it on a conference room table one evening while he was emptying the wastebaskets – the very conference room where a meeting among save Darfur advocates would take place the next day. Some people think Dane Cook is actually funny, so I guess anything’s possible. However, it is pretty interesting that I posted a critique, along with a photo of the tag of my SDC hat, on May 22nd and then the photo above of a tagless hat, taken on May 22nd at the Briefing on the Urgency of the Situation in Darfur, was posted on Flickr on May 23rd.
Could the tag have been removed in order to conceal the hat’s country of origin? Perhaps, but regardless of who the hat belongs to and the reasons for removing the tag, it seems unwise for SDC to post photos depicting one of their hats like this. Even if they’ve never seen this blog or my recent post, don’t they see how it could look suspicious for the tag to be missing; especially in this way, with bits of the tag still left on the hat, indicating a hasty removal? For example, let’s say an activist is very involved with SDC, has bought one of their green hats and regularly looks at SDC’s photos on Flickr. When checking out the photos one day, she notices the hat with the tag removed. Curiosity piqued, she checks out her own hat and notes the country of origin. Remembering SDC’s campaign for divestment from some Chinese companies and their general vilification of China, she jumps to conclusions, perhaps erroneously, and surmises that SDC removed the tag to conceal the hat’s origin. She loses a lot of respect for SDC because she thinks this is sneaky and tells all her friends about it.
It could happen. Furthermore, there isn’t just one possibly incriminating photo of the tagless hat, but three in total. Here’s one:
I mean, I can see SDC accidentally posting one careless photo on Flickr, but three? I declare! What crazy shenanigans will these drunk toddlers be up to next?