The Barry Headline: Thinking About the Children
"Think of all of the children," says one letter-writer. "CHILDREN DEAL WITH A LOT NOW OR DO YOU TEACH YOUR CHILDERN THATS WHAT LIFE IS ABOUT," says another. "You put that phrase -- "Suck your dick", remember? (tee hee) -- right out there on the front page where not only adults, but kids could see it too!" writes another.
One fellow who called me said he was so concerned about children seeing the headline on this week's issue that he dumped all the copies we'd delivered to his business. His business? A bar.
Yesterday we got about 30 phone complaints. By e-mail, 21. We'll print every one of the latter next week, provided their authors give us permission. By far, the most common complaint was that children might see the cover. The fact that no one has provided an instance of kids seeing the cover---and, you know, caring---doesn't render their complaints illegitimate. I've got two kids. I worry about what they see, too.
It's just that I'd have more trouble explaining to them some of our previous covers, not one of which has generated a single angry phone call or a Fox 5 story about our editorial judgment.
Here's one about an off-duty police officer shooting a 14-year-old kid in the back of the head because he thought the kid stole his dirt bike.
Here's one about the police shooting and killing a mentally ill man in his own bathroom.
And here's one about police killing another mentally ill man in the foyer of his group house.
Debate the specifics of these stories all you want, but I teach my kids that the police are the good guys. And I'm a lot less equipped to teach them the exceptions to that rule than I am about explaining a politician's clumsy attempt to engineer himself a blowjob.
Finally here's one I'm terrified of having to explain. It's about sex at Catholic University.
I'm not so much concerned about the subject matter---I'm riding "That's something adults do" as far into the sunset as I can---I'm more worried about an illustration in which one of the participants in athletic congress appears to be on a different side of the bed as his partner, and that something inexplicable seems to have happened to the bottom half of her left breast. When we have the sex talk, this cover will be nowhere in sight. Way too confusing.
Comments
Leave a Reply
You can follow any responses to this entry through its comments RSS feed.
Blogs Linking to this Article
-
Linked From: September 14th, 2009Profanity on Web Not as Bad as Profanity on Paper - City Desk - Washington City Paper
3:56 pm[...] on a newsstand kids could conceivably walk by and ask their parents about. This possibility, though no specific instance of this happening, motivated many of our angriest letter-writers. Someone got so angry that s/he swore publicly [...]
3:22 pm
Does this mean City Paper will discontinue the Kids' Page and K-12 classroom program?
3:39 pm
That last cover didn't inspire a Fox 5 story, but we did field at least one angry phone call. That call, too, was on behalf of The Children.
3:41 pm
It's DC - kids in bars would not surprise me. Come to think of it I have seen them in bars plenty of times. Being European I could care less - at least they will be good at socializing. And after reading CP at said bar they will be better educated than the current public school sex ed classes will have them.
3:52 pm
Andrew, I think you have a point. However, the outrage wasn't merely the imagery of murder victims or cartoonish excapades. The outrage was the vulgar language juxtaposed with someone most of the 600,000+ DC Residents and greater Washington Metropolitan Area loathe or love...Marion S. Barry. If it were Adrian Fenty, Vincent Gray, Ms. Holmes-Norton (three folks I've been critical of as of late), I would still be just as offended. Granted, they may not have the negative noteriaty as Marion, but not too many folks outside of DC care about those folks. Basically, WCP put intimate details of an elected official, in an attacking way on display.
The reason that you won't hear examples of kids reading it is that school is not in session. Albeit, Washington City Paper is picked up at many area libraries (it is a periodical), 2nd Graders alike may have heard this vulgar language in passing, but to read it means something entirely different. Parents can dispute spoken words or verbal commentary, admonishing a child for using that language. However, disputing the printed word, is something of a different animal. Almost like reading forbidden books. A kid may think, "If they printed it, it must be true!" Likewise, questions like "Daddy, "What is a d*ck? Why would you suck it? Why would someone be mad and put someone out because of it?" come to mind.
Honestly, even if you didn't want to take the kid route in the complaints, know that hat you put on the front page in part is actually less of a function of marketing a story and more catering to the attention deficit crowd. In that 2~5 seconds you've got someone's attention, there is a major effort to keep them there.
As for the other covers, they had their macabre and lewdness about them. The "Screw U" cover and artwork was stradling the lines of indecency, but was offensive mainly to folks in the Brentwood/Brookland area and other Catholics who may have defied the The Catholic Standard and read City Paper.
The Cop-Killings were pretty gruesome, but at least in a humanity sense, you showed photos of the victims while they were alive. Had you shown a photo of the scene, blood and all, WCP would've been rightfully accused of exploiting the victims for a story. 'In the Back of the Head' was sensational because the phrase denotes a cold-blooded execution, not that the child was running away and got shot.
I don't know Andrew. I hope your kids understand the virtues of journalism so that they don't commit their father's (and father's co-worker's) mistakes. Nobody is perfect, but as you know how subjective this business is, the importing thing is the integrity of the STORY. All else is extra.
3:52 pm
Considering its programming over the years, the comment is a little rich coming from Fox.
3:57 pm
My apologies for the grammatical and spelling mistakes...escapades, hat instead of what, importing instead of important, etc.
3:58 pm
Agreed Brandon! I guess WTTG has some morals even if the parent company doesn't.
4:00 pm
If it were Adrian Fenty, Vincent Gray, Ms. Holmes-Norton (three folks I’ve been critical of as of late), I would still be just as offended.
If a City Paper cover trumpeted that Eleanor Holmes-Norton put a staffer out because they wouldn't suck her dick, I don't think I'd be so much offended as stunned. Then confused. Then baffled. (Then a little bit weirdly aroused. But mostly stunned, confused, and baffled.)
4:16 pm
Playing out in my brain right now: Q sitting his children down and teaching them the virtues of trolling comment boards during the hours of 9 and 5.
4:24 pm
cminus, although she supports same-sex marriage, I am not changing her gender. As an update, even FOX5's news article and video censored the cover - granted the curiousity has driven more to come to WCP's website to read it (cue Evil laugh from Wemple).
Their poll of 121 respondants, still has the majority 39% in support of the cover. Some like Brandon could say that Fox viewers are pretty numb to this type of obscenity anyway with Family Guy, American Dad, Temptation Island, etc.
4:26 pm
I'm in complete agreement with Brandon Green re: Fox 5's hypocrisy on the story. I'd rather my future kid read the City Paper, warts and all, than to watch Fox 5 News at Ten, which is crap.
4:30 pm
LOL Amanda. No, Ms. Rhee cut the budget for my "children's" school blog and internet access some time ago. So I made them write summaries of articles from various periodicals instead. Can you guys have a less controversial cover next week. My daughter really wants to complete her assignment. LOL!
WCP has the (mis)fortune of captivating my precious trolling time. BTW, are you not satisfied with my answer to your question, "Why I read City Paper?"
4:37 pm
I'm satisfied!