Rachel Ray Hipster Scarf Scares America

May 28, 2008 - 12:30 pm By COED Staff

As you may have already heard, conservative commentator Michelle Malkin claims that Rachel Ray’s scarf in a new Dunkin’ Doughnuts commercial is an Arab keffiyeh, apparently a now commonly associated symbol of terrorism in the United States.

Appalled, she went so far as to contemplate ditching Dunkin’ altogether saying, “Is Ray’s blunder worth boycotting DD over? I’ll be interested to hear the company’s take.”

And, in fact, her warnings worked; Dunkin’ Doughnuts pulled the commercial.

What Malkin doesn’t understand is that Ray’s wardrobe selection has nothing to do with politics, Islam, the Middle East or terrorism, whatsoever. It has to do with hipster fashion.

Having worked in the film and commercial production business, I’m sure this is what happened: Some wardrobe woman, most likely from New York or L.A., knew the keffiyeh was in fashion in Manhattan, threw it around Rachel Ray’s neck, and the director called action, all without thinking of the political and P.R. ramifications about to crash upon their heads.

To imply that Rachel Ray chose her own outfit for that day is ridiculous, and ignores the reality of commercial production. So don’t blame her. Blame the wardrobe department. And even then, when what you’re dressing someone in is mostly worn by trust-fund 20-somethings with apartments on the Lower East Side, the last thing you’re thinking of is Osama bin Laden.

Patrick says:

May 29, 2008 at 9:59 am

you gotta be kidding me.

we here in America need to stop listening to these hacks.

the media is filled with morons that thrive on the USA being scared.

this is so damn ridiculous.

adam says:

May 30, 2008 at 1:51 pm

i agree patrick. when deployed to desert regions, both US and British armed forces are issued these things to keep the sand out our faces, keep us warm or cool. they’re practical. there is no religious or political purpose. is like wearing socks or a hat for protection.
as far as fasion goes, ive seen people wear these in england, italy and the netherlands and these were all students, artists and working class types not trendy rich people like the article suggests.

hubert.mansfield says:

June 4, 2008 at 9:32 am

so, your argument is that there is no signification in this garment or that articles of clothing carrying no meaning? you gotta be kidding me. what if the kids pictured above were wearing brooks brothers (and were shaved and bathed)? but, for this type, who cannot conceive of a world outside of this month’s williamsburg, neither is there a political sphere to which they are accountable. blame wardrobe, blame anyone, be *ironic*, but take responsibility for nothing.