'Bawdy' story unfit for younger readers
I cannot fathom why you chose to include the "Magna cum bawdy" piece in the Jan. 23 paper. It isn't newsworthy. Was it to excite "those older guys who hang around high schools, chatting up underage girls" or men "fond of photographing young people who wear no clothes"?
Well, I don't have any of those in my home. I do, however, have two young children who will be exposed to enough filth without it seeping into our home via the newspaper. Your newspaper has been present in our home for many years, and I thought it was a good reading tool for my son. After seeing this article in your paper, I don't believe that anymore. To make matters worse, you placed the article on the page with the registration form for "ACC Hoops for Kids," which increases the likelihood of children seeing it.
I have seen your newspaper in my son's school, presumably through the "Newspapers in Education" program. A book containing this filth would never be allowed in a school library, so how could it be OK to bring it into school by newspapers?
Please rethink your "Newspapers in Education" program and use better judgment.
Michelle Bristow Pierce
Colfax
Editor's note: The Sunday newspaper is not distributed to schools.
Comments (1)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
The Puritan Patrol is out in force, apparently.
While I admit there is little hard-newsworthy about the BU student magazine, it was in the Life section, if I remember, which was distributed Sunday (no school children HAD to see it at school). This part of N-R is always rife with the less-than-mandatory silliness of fashion, music and movies. The thin gloss of pseudo-academia Harvard's rival magazine purports to give as "art" was ironic. I was a BU art student years ago, and when I went to study nude drawings at the Fogg Museum at Harvard, the curators and uppity harvard art history students were stuck between being titillated and appalled.
Give me a break. Do you randy Michelangelo cared whether the nudes on his ceiling were offensive? It took the hypocritical ex-Pope to cover the genitals of Mike's Jesus and others. Other artists have been briliantly blatant in their sexual content, and one, Egon Schiele, was given a full three rooms at the National Gallery in DC a few years ago! Take that, Ashcroftian anti-Laura Croftians!! of course, Schiele made his slender figures all nerves, not curves.
Please realize that the newspaper is not required to tone down the reality of lustful and loving behaviours among artists and students. If self-proclaimed pornography or dubiously advertised "art" inspires a few young people (and the young at heart) to spend time looking at and thinking about the effects of good visual design and provokes them to take control of their sexuality instead of cowering or waiting until they are infected with STDs, then I say, good for them!
Posted on February 3, 2005 6:22 PM