My newspaper column
Nothing gets the juices flowing like a good photo of a naked woman.
Week before last, we got some juices flowing, all right. We published a picture of a gray-haired woman without a stitch on as she stretched out before a 5K race at the Bar-S-Ranch in Reidsville.
Well, she wasn't completely nude; she wore shoes, socks, a runner's registration number and eye-glasses.
But the Bar-S-Ranch is a clothing-optional place, and by no means was she alone in her choice of attire. With judicious cropping of the picture, no body parts that might be considered prurient were visible.
No matter, according to some of our readers.
"I am all for freedom of the press," one letter writer said, "but don't publishers get it? There is a segment of the population that is pretty tired of sensationalism for sake of advertisement or just for the sake of print....Granted, this picture is mild compared to some, but are there no limits or boundaries at all for our communities?"
And another:
"I am appalled to have such a paper represent the Triad that would actually print a picture of a nude woman....I have used the News & Record in my classroom before, but how could I trust that there may be something in it that is NOT appropriate for students in 4th grade to see!!!"
There were others -- including one that we published last week applauding the photo -- but you get the picture, so to speak.
Good photographs pack an emotional punch. When that's coupled with a hot-button issue such as nudity, the punch can be a knockout blow. Before publishing images like this we talk about them because we know that obscenity, like beauty, is in the eye of the beholder. We don't want to offend readers needlessly, but we also want to convey items of interest.
Occasionally, our discussions border on the silly. I've been part of conversations in which we've debated the consequences of publishing photographs of Michelangelo's David and Da Vinci’s Vitruvian Man. Honestly, these days, what we publish is tame considering what you can see on broadcast television, never mind cable.
In this case, we published the naked jogger photo because it was tasteful and you couldn't see anything, it occurred at a public event to benefit a charity -- the Monroeton Volunteer Fire Department -- and it was something you might talk about over the breakfast table.
It's also worth noting that the photo was published on page 34 of Go Triad magazine, not on the front page. For some reason, we received no complaints for a more prominent photo we published on the front page of the local section Sunday of naked men running in the same race. A ribbon that marked the course was strategically placed in the photo.
I'm at a loss to explain the lack of response on that one.
An unrelated package of photographs that we published last Wednesday evoked fewer letters, though no less discussion on our part. The photographs showed three children enjoying a summertime ritual practiced by kids and adults everywhere. They were eating slices of watermelon on their front porch.
No big deal, except that the children were African American.
Dating back to the days of Jim Crow, the image of black children eating watermelon is steeped in historical stereotypes that are demeaning to many African Americans.
Editors here knew that, and we didn't publish the photos to offend. The photographs showed kids having a good time at home. When I saw them, I smiled, at the children's intensity of purpose, at my own memory of myself doing the same thing. The editors decided those images were worth showing –- that far from being derogatory, they were joyful -- even as they risked upsetting some readers.
Some have said that we were wrong. I accept that.
It will be nice to reach a time when the stereotypes are not such raw memories. Until then, editors will continue to talk about a photo's emotional message, trying to balance the value of the image with readers' sensitivities. We invite you to let us know what you think.
Comments (5)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I think my head may explode if someone tells me one more time that the media in general doesn't "get it."
The phrase is almost always the beginning of a rant about how the entire country is extremely conservative and doesn't ever want to see anything that might offend their delicate sensibilities, but because we're commie-pinko fags who want to ruin society and warp the minds of children we keep shoving it down their throats. And of course, this applies to EVERYTHING they see or hear - including the non-issue of this photo. Well...everything but that episode of CSI on their TiVo.
Posted on August 14, 2005 11:44 AM
I think Beauty is in the Eye of the Beholder.
I thought the photo of the three children was very sweet and reminded people of one of the simple joys of summer. (Missed the naked lady.)
Photos and art are supposed to cause emotion.
I think people just try to read too much into something and need to get a life.
Posted on August 14, 2005 3:17 PM
How does a carefully cropped photo of a naked person differ from a carefully cropped photo of a couple having sex? In my mind, there is little difference. Both leave something objectionable (the viewing of a naked body that is not your spouse's) to the imagination.
Posted on August 15, 2005 8:47 AM
"Nothing gets the juices flowing like a good photo of a naked woman."
Frankly, that statement is way more objectionable than the photo you printed. The photo didn't bother me. Your comment does. That's just nasty.
Posted on August 15, 2005 11:23 AM
I think to assume that a picture of someone who happens to be naked is the same as a picture of two people engaged in a sex act is flawed logic.
It assumes that the nude photo is pruriant, or it assumes a pruriant interest in those who see any nude photo, in any context, ever. Those of us who saw the picture can attest to the fact that it wasn't meant as an article of erotica. If anything, it was a "wow - looks how strange and funny this is" moment. As was the picture of the men running naked.
To argue that all nudity is objectionable all the time unless it's yours or your spouse's...that's going out there on a limb on which I'm not entirely comfortable.
Posted on August 16, 2005 9:14 AM