What was wrong with that picture?
Oh, only everything, said about two dozen readers who called this corner (and additional folks phoned others here) to condemn this journal after viewing the large color photo of a young actress in a provocative pose and the skimpiest of costumes on the Sept. 22 Show Weekend cover.
The headline across the lower part of the photo read, “On with the show,” and a subheading added, “Teen idol Elizabeth Berkley headlines the year’s most controversial film, ‘Showgirls.’” Well, the photograph immediately became the most controversial of the year (so far) with at least some of our readers, who said what the showgirl showed was much too much.
“This is a family newspaper, and that is an adult picture,” opined a La Mirada mom. “It has no place in the presence of children. I will revoke my subscription. It has crossed the line completely as far as our family is concerned….If anyone showed a picture like that to my children, I’d call the police.”
Other reader comments:
- “I don’t buy porno, and I don’t like for it to come to my door. You have it available for children and those of us who have different values and tastes. I’m not trying to censor you, but I certainly think it shows a lack of taste.”
- “I wouldn’t expect a newspaper like the Register to feature something like that….I’m not an old man — I’m 40 — but I don’t appreciate you peddling this erotica.”
- “I’m pretty liberal, but that was…too much, and I hope I don’t see anything like this again in your paper.”
The bashed photo of the “teen idol” (she evidently is a former teen idol; a story inside Show said she’s 21) in the almost unapparent apparel even sullied a coupon, one “rather shocked” woman declared. She noted that the coupon for the “ComputerMania” show at the Anaheim Convention Center this weekend (according to the ad, the Register is one of the supporters of what is modestly described as “the ultimate home computing experience!”) was on the second page of Show, slap-dab on the back of the essentially bare backside (but side view only) of our ex-teen idol.
Our observant critic said the computer show “is promoting kids and family and community,” but “the coupon which you’re supposed to cut and bring in to save on admission to the show has the girl’s butt on the back of it….And this is what we have to bring in in order to receive a discount? I think this is a terrible travesty. This is not free speech, this is grotesque, this is awful….I mean, it’s quite shocking in a family paper that we would have a Penthouse front cover on the weekend edition.”
I’m not sure it was that good, but let’s hear from Robin Doussard, assistant managing editor who oversees the features and business sections: “‘Showgirls’ has been one of the most written-about movie releases this year because of its adult NC-17 rating. That makes it news to people who care about movies, and elevated it to a Show Weekend cover. We preceded that cover with a news story on how Edwards Cinemas would make sure that underage kids would not be able to sneak in to see it, and a Show story explaining the history of NC-17 movies. In the following Friday’s Show section (Sept. 29) we ran a ‘Should you see’ feature in which viewers reacted to the film — both positively and negatively.
“In terms of selecting any cover picture, we always try to go with the image that we think best illustrates the story. In this case, the picture of the dancer wrapped around the pole was the most illustrative of the lot, along with being — I know some readers won’t agree — one that was not too sexually explicit. Most of the other handout pictures were of more sexually explicit scenes, or ones that didn’t evoke the story. Yes, there was flesh in the picture, but not any more flesh than you might see on the beach or in a lingerie ad. Was it provocative? Yes. Did it tell the story of a provocative movie? Yes.”
Every time I answered the phone to accept another complaint about the photo, I looked at it again (professional research) to try to draw a conclusion about it in my own mind. I tried to determine whether I would object to my own children viewing it. I decided I wouldn’t. Of course they’re approaching middle age. I can’t recall what my position would have been when they were 13. Alas, I can’t remember what my position would have been in August.
In truth, no really vital parts of our idol were shown. Some of our lingerie ads are indeed sexier, in my opinion. But for those who were offended, sorry, and I’ll continue to study the issue whenever I get the chance, though age-impaired vision makes the thankless task more and more difficult.
