Naked came the rider
When readers complain about a photo, they usually say the picture was “too much.” In this case, they complained there was “not enough.”
By Robin Hughes, editor
When The Virginian-Pilot and The Ledger-Star published a photograph of a nude man mowing his grass, some people complained about the coverage, or actually, the lack of it. It wasn’t exactly naked rage, but about 60 readers said they found the photo offensive; some felt it was even pornographic.
The photo, which was four columns wide and about 6 inches deep, ran on the front page of the local news section. The subject of the photo is a member of a clothing-optional group. His decision to do his yardwork in the buff landed him in court on charges of indecent exposure.
Assistant Managing Editor Ron Speer said the decision to run the photo required no "soul-searching." He simply looked at the picture closely "to make sure nothing was revealed that shouldn’t be."
After the initial round of complaints, the Norfolk newspapers decided to ask readers whether the photograph offended them. Using Infoline, the newspapers’ telephone information service, 4,361 calls were logged — 65 percent of them disagreeing with the readers who said that the photo was in bad taste.
One supporter responded, "Once again, we have 60 people out of how many in your readership trying to tell me what I should read. I find that more offensive than any picture."
Another reader said, "To me it’s not as bad as some of the photos the newspaper runs when there has been a tragic accident."
From another supporter: "Neither my 95-year-old mother nor I thought the picture was offensive. To tell the truth, the first thing I thought of was, ‘He isn’t afraid of skin cancer.’"
A "pro-photo" caller who said she was the 83-year-old mother of two sons said she found the picture of the man "perfectly beautiful." She added, "God help us, if we had to look at most men in the buff, my sons included."
But these comments were in the 1500 calls objecting to the picture:
"I have a 9-year-old daughter who now knows what a naked man looks like thanks to you . . . I will no longer buy your paper until you raise your standards."
"The editor who decided to print this needs counseling."
"Nudity is not expected in a newspaper. Nudity is abnormal. If it were normal, the editor who put this picture in the paper would be sitting there with no clothes on.
Speer (who does wear clothes to work) said he’s been amazed at the amount of reaction. He said if he had the decision to make again, he "perhaps wouldn’t play the picture so big."
In case you’re wondering, the indecent exposure charges against the naked rider were dismissed. The story accompanying the photograph said the judge decided "it’s OK to expose one’s private parts in the private parts of one’s yard."
Source: FineLine: The Newsletter On Journalism Ethics, vol. 2, no. 7 (October 1990), p. 6.
This case was produced for FineLine, a publication of Billy Goat Strut Publishing, 600 East Main Street, Louisville, Kentucky 40202. Reprinted with the permission of Billy Goat Strut Publishing. This case may be reproduced for classroom and research purposes. Publication of this case in electronic or printed form requires written permission from the publisher and Indiana University. An exception is granted for use in readers designed for specific academic courses.
October 9th, 2008 at 12:29 pm
I think that the newspaper shouldn’t have printed it because it was not appropriate for a public newspaper. Since younger kids could have been reading it. The man should have been punished for his actions. On the other hand, he said it wasn’t exposing anything that shouldn’y be. His picture really made a statement for the idea he was trying to get across.
March 18th, 2009 at 9:18 pm
I think that the newspaper shouldn’t have printed it because it wasn’t appropriate. If they wanted to print the picture, they should have done so in a tasteful manner, with all the necessary parts covered up.
March 24th, 2009 at 12:53 pm
I would have to agree with Grace in this type of situation. The chances of a kid picking up the paper and seeing that picture was probably 1 out of 4. The paper should of never published such a thing.
March 24th, 2009 at 1:16 pm
I don’t think the newspaper should have printed the picture in the paper. It isn’t appropriate for younger children to see. They should have been punished for printing the article.
March 24th, 2009 at 4:35 pm
What’s so offensive to a child about a naked body? Especially one that is properly covered with no genitalia showing. Children have a naked body of their own and you are forgetting that children do not analyze things the way adults do. Unless you point it out as being offensive (which by the way its not because its a human body) they wont know the difference at all. If the photo was unnecessary I could see how one might be concerned about the judgment of the newspaper but the photo was appropriate considering the story it reflected without harming anyone in the process.
April 6th, 2009 at 12:14 pm
We think that it wasn’t that big of a deal. The picture got the point across and it went along with the story. We also think it could have been sensored a little bit better considering that there could have been younger readers who did not need to see that at their age.
May 20th, 2009 at 9:52 am
I think that it would seem perfectly alright to me. If the parents find that offensive, they shouldn’t leave the paper out for the younger kids to find. If they don’t find it offensive, then I think it goes to show a bad example to children who do read it. By the time kids do read the paper, they are usually mature enough to take that.
May 31st, 2009 at 9:54 pm
I would not be offended by the photograph. I see where others are coming from, but nudity should not be looked down upon if it is used in an appropriate manner. One complaint “My daughter knows what a naked man looks like” humored me- nine year old girls don’t read the newspaper. Even if they did, who does it hurt to see the human body?