Take this test.

Define these in relation to the place where you live: decency, good taste, community standards, censorship.

These intangibles make up the minefield upon which newspaper editors great and small tread in their toils to produce each edition. Most times taking the right step is as easy as telling the truth. Other times the line between what should and shouldn’t be published blurs. And even worse, occasionally one plunges ahead without noticing the danger, until the explosion of public opinion does its damage.

It wasn’t an explosion, but a small display of fireworks erupted after we printed a review and the cover of the book Burning Girl two weeks ago. Perhaps some of you noticed the bare buttocks, smaller than a thumbnail, on the book’s cover.

A flurry of phone calls and emails came our way after the episode. One caller threatened to take the photo and ask advertisers to boycott our newspaper. I have no idea if that occurred. Others simply stated their distaste, said they thought we made a mistake. I appreciate readers taking the time to let us know how they feel.

The call that really caused me, a father, to sit back and ponder our decision to run the photo, however, came from a mother.

“I love your newspaper, and my children read it. I don’t think you should print pictures like that,” she said.

Short, polite, pointed. I hung up the phone feeling both admonished and overjoyed (children reading a newspaper, our newspaper at that! This mother is doing something right).

Censorship is on my Top 10 list of “Things Most Odious,” but when it comes to children parents like to monitor experiences or at least be around to offer explanations. It doesn’t usually happen that way, but that is the ideal. Giving some perspective to new experiences is what parenting is all about. In the case of children, then, censorship is usually a good thing.

Perhaps perspective was an important part of this whole episode. One friend who writes for this newspaper told me that, even though we always publish book covers with our reviews, this one, with its smidgen of nudity, may have been gratuitous. What purpose did it serve, really, he asked?

We certainly didn’t publish it just for shock value. When I worked for paid circulation newspapers, the typical comeback from those dissatisfied with something shocking was that “ya’ll are just trying to sell papers.” That accusation founders in this case because we don’t sell our paper.

Let’s admit that, in general, we do like the idea of being a little edgy, of occasionally challenging people’s comfort zone. Talented writers discussing books, music, traveling, politics -- this culture we live in -- often do that. They get us to think differently about subjects.

There is a huge difference between doing that thoughtfully -- like in a book review -- and doing it merely to titillate. This is not Temptation Island. Not publishing the book cover would have been an admission that something was wrong with it and the book, and that is not the case (at least when the readers are adults).

The trail of most any newspaper person’s career is littered with debates about what is acceptable to the community in which the newspaper circulates. It’s an ongoing discussion with readers that never ends.

A few examples I’ve been involved in or as a reader have witnessed: a photo of a bunch of dead dogs euthanized at an animal shelter; a vehicle in a creek with a sheet over its dead driver; a cheerleader wearing what some choose to call evocative clothing; the tool rep with the tight clothes who autographs posters showing her in a scanty bikini; and the uproar over a column that made a passing mention of farting.

These are both trivial and important matters, depending on who is reading. And they are tossed back to editors and reporters to decide whether readers need to see or hear about them. The debate sometimes is about morals, sometimes about ethics, sometimes about decency, sometimes simply about trying to figure out who our readers are and what they want.

The reviewer of the book in question wrote that the characters in the story should have been judged more harshly for their flippant, easygoing attitude toward sex and other gluttonous forms of behavior.
In other words, he made a decision on the appropriateness of the book and its subject. That’s what readers do -- read, think, draw conclusions. In other words, they use their brain. If readers have comments, then they should call, write, email or fax us. In the end, our job is not to try and deduce how people will judge us, but rather to make them ask questions. If we don’t take chances every now and again, we’ll never know where to draw the line.

(McLeod can be reached at info@smokymountainnews.com)

 

Back to Top
The Smoky Mountain News