There is no truth to the rumor that The Bee is auditioning for media mogul Rupert Murdoch by publishing photos of attractive naked women, just like the infamous Page 3 girls in his London tabloid, the Sun.
Several Bee readers, however, probably don’t believe that, given their reaction to the paper printing a large photo of naked actress Mary-Louise Parker wrapped in a large snake covering part of her backside and her arm hiding the tip of her left breast.
The actress and her come-hither look graced Page A2 last Tuesday as the focal point of an above-the-fold daily feature called “Names & Faces.”
“Names & Faces” is the paper’s bow to the popularity of celebrity, a sort of newsprint cross between People magazine and “Entertainment Tonight,” ripped from the wires and compiled by a copy editor.
The standard fare is fairly tame, given that such information permeates our culture and is ubiquitous and nonstop on the Internet and on television.
There’s always a celebrity birthdays section interspersed with the latest updates of Paris Hilton or Lindsay Lohan, news of movies, actors, entertainers and goings-on in Hollywood.
Included in the package are usually one or two unremarkable wire photos or mug shots.
Not so last Tuesday.
There in all her birthday suit glory was a large, vertical cutout photo of Parker with the headline, “I didn’t want the snake to win, so I put the snake on.”
The picture, a handout from Showtime, accompanied a story about the actress posing for the publicity photo for her comedy series “Weeds,” in which she stars as a widowed suburban mother who sells marijuana to support her family.
Reading the paper at home that morning, I was surprised by the photo, which is certainly risqu and different compared to the paper’s staid and conservative standards, especially in the A section. Senior editors I spoke with later who didn’t know the photo was coming also were surprised when they opened their papers.
I knew immediately readers would be equally surprised and would be calling. I wasn’t disappointed.
Let’s just say of the several who called or sent e-mails passing judgment, the frequent lead-in words “totally” and “very, very” were followed by a pick-’em menu of “offensive,” “demeaning,” “ridiculous,” “negative” and “prurient,” to mention the most popular.
“If I see more pictures like that, I probably will cancel my subscription,” said Agnes Sturms, 75, a retired office worker from North Highlands.
She is a regular reader of “Names & Faces” and enjoys following the celebrity birthdays.
The photo, she said, “doesn’t seem like something you should have to look at in the morning. … It was really offensive and you don’t need that.”
Then there was Marilyn from Granite Bay. She asked that her last name not be used, but said she had been designated the informal spokeswoman for a group of neighbors and friends who objected to the picture.
“There are so many negative images of women out there and this promotes the demeaning of women,” said Marilyn, 59, who described herself as “semi-working.”
“This isn’t newsworthy and you are catering and caving in to people who want to see (this) sort of thing,” said Marilyn, adding that she and her friends were considering cancelling their subscriptions.
She accused The Bee of using the photo to sell more newspapers and of promoting a false image of what 40-year-old women should look like (Parker is 43).
Included in the latter remark, she said, were 40-year-old neighbors as attractive as Parker who nonetheless found the photo inappropriate.
The person who approved using the photo was deputy managing editor Mort Saltzman, a long-time veteran of The Bee.
“The only thing I thought about was whether it was newsworthy at all,” explained Saltzman. He noted that since “Names & Faces” is all about entertainment and celebrities, one can legitimately ask whether any of it is “newsworthy.”
“Frankly,” he said, “I was aware some readers would be offended by it … and if they were, I would point them to the lingerie ads run by Macy’s.” His point is some Macy’s ads are as racy as Parker’s photo.
He noted that the paper ran a similar photo when actress Demi Moore posed naked and pregnant on a famous Vanity Fair magazine cover in 1991.
“Standards have changed,” Saltzman added, though he said the Parker photo is not the beginning of a wholesale makeover.
If it isn’t, then why confuse readers?
There’s no question the photo was a dramatic departure from the usual fodder in “Names & Faces” and what readers expect to find there.
It’s a matter of consistency.
If the last time the paper published a similar photo was the picture of Demi Moore 16 years ago this month, then you can see why some readers are convinced the Parker photo was printed simply for its shock value.
But maybe something else and more lasting can come out of this.
Maybe there should be wholesale changes to “Names & Faces,” making it more visually appealing, interesting, provocative, creative and consistently surprising.
Maybe the Parker photo can be a starting point for that discussion, of changing expectations all the way around.
I’m not advocating using photos of naked women a la the Sun’s Page 3 girls.
Again, what I’m talking about is consistency, a plan.
Otherwise, the Parker photo was just an exercise in seeing how far the paper can push the envelope every decade or so, and, really, what’s the point of that?
