For Inquirer reporter Alfred Lubrano, his powerful Feb. 2 Page One report on “canned hunts” — in which helpless, fenced-in trophy animals are killed — was the culmination of a year’s work.
Lubrano, who joined The Inquirer staff last October, started work on the story while he was still with New York Newsday, but it took him a year to find a hunting preserve that was willing to let him witness a shoot.
His account told of hunters killing — often at point-blank range — deer, sheep, goats, boar, antelope, even exotic animals such as gazelles and yaks. The animals were stalked on fenced ranches they could not escape; some were slain at troughs where they innocently came to feed.
Lubrano’s story and Vicki Valerio’s photographs stirred strong reaction from readers who were revolted by the so-called “hunting.” A few called to say the story did not focus enough on what they see as people’s right to do whatever they want on private property.
But the biggest reaction, all negative, came from women who were highly offended by the Page One photo and caption. The photo showed a Michigan man straddling a boar he had just killed with bow and arrow, holding the animal’s bloody head by ears. The caption said he was exclaiming, “I’ll grab it like I grab my women.”
Although the provocative photo and caption complemented each other, that reinforcement only made the image more offensive. Indeed, most women who protested said they were more offended by the quote than the photo and had more blame for The Inquirer for publishing it than for the man who said it.
“I can’t believe my eyes,” a reader said. “I’m almost speechless with rage. In a day when sexism is no longer acceptable, when violence against women is in the news all the time, The Inquirer still has the insensitivity to print such a picture and quotation.”
“We all know sexism is out there,” another said. “But you don’t have to shove it in our face.”
None would agree that the display was a compelling shorthand portrait of the men written about in the story. “It may very well represent those bums,” a woman said. “But have you no idea how offensive that picture and those words are to women? The hell with your intent to give us the news. You have only shown us the most offensive thing of the week.”
Steve Klock, copy desk chief, defended the display. “At the core of the story were the feelings of the four men as they went about killing the trapped animals. The reader needed to know just how powerful — and ugly — the story was. The caption was intended to do just that.”
I agree with readers that the quote should not have been highlighted on Page One, even though it was appropriate in the story. Coupled with the man’s straddle position, the image was too blatant, too crude to stomach.
After two days of complaints, it seemed that the issue was one thing for our callers, another for the copy desk.
The callers saw the display as validating brutality, sexual abuse and submissiveness. The journalists saw it as telling the story succinctly and compellingly.
Still, there was disagreement even in the newsroom, albeit after the fact. Jeffrey Price, assistant managing editor/copy desks, felt the caption highlighted the wrong element of the story. He said the story was about the killing, not the sex. Giving the man’s exclamation Page One prominence “may have defined that one man, but not necessarily everyone,” Price said.
According to Editor Maxwell King, “One reason the story and picture had such impact is that they exposed something that many people found abhorrent. That’s our job. After all, there is legislation pending concerning these hunts that many readers may want to influence.”
While there is no way to rewrite the paper after it’s been published, we can heighten our sensitivity about the readers’ reactions to what we have printed, and gain from that.
