THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1995, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, January 22, 1995 TAG: 9501210005
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Medium: 85 lines
True confessions time. For a brief lapse early in my newspaper days, I wrote semi-salacious headlines for an otherwise respectable Florida newspaper that was in the throes of a street-sales war.
We soon returned to bannering stories on municipal bonds and storm sewers, but for a while my typewriter blazed out goodies like ``COUNTESS CALLS KIDNAPPER `MY ANIMAL LOVER,' '' ``TOURIST FLEES MAN-EATING FIRE ANTS'' and ``STARVING MOTHERS EAT BABIES.''
Anyone who spent a dime (hey, it was 20 years ago) for the last headline was in for a surprise. The story was a serious, almost academic, report about a United Nations conference on food shortages. Somewhere, maybe in the 27th graph, there was one sentence about isolated cases of cannibalism.
I was reminded of the ``good'' old days by the cacophony of responses to, first, our three-day sex series and then the opening salvo of the O.J. Simpson trial. In both cases, the word ``tabloid'' came up once again.
First, sex - or SEX. Due to typographical limitations, I can't reproduce the sensuous, red-lipped, kissy-huggy letters that formed the three-letter word on last Sunday's front page.
It was a clever, catchy design that tied in neatly with the rest of the headline: ``We know the images. Why can't we find the words?'' So catchy, in fact, that more than 1,400 readers responded to the accompanying sex quiz.
But to other readers, it remained a subject that doesn't belong on the front page of their respectable hometown paper.
``I was shocked,'' said one caller. ``We see enough as it is of the three-letter word in the media, and it's something that should have been put in another section, more discreetly.''
In fact, the three-part series, ``The Subject Is Sex,'' was just a tad racier than the story of the U.N. conference. Focusing on the lack of serious discussion about sex, it used such wholesome techniques as community dialogue, statistical evidence and individual views of relationships.
But, in the newspaper biz, appearances mean a lot. Placement, too.
``I think it's sad if there's nothing better to put on the front page than sex,'' said a Suffolk reader. ``I don't feel like The Virginian-Pilot should have been reduced to a grocery-store tabloid. Is there so little news?''
A Norfolk woman thought the subject was more appropriate to a section like The Daily Break. The bold headline on A1 also bothered her. ``The National Enquirer doesn't blare like that,'' she said. ``I guess this is to sell more papers.''
Even more controversial was a photo, with the second segment, that showed two homosexual men hugging. The picture ran on an inside page but it drew more than a dozen angry calls - and as many in defense.
``I am not for homosexual behavior to begin with,'' said one woman, ``and found that photo a little too intimate for the newspaper.'' Other said: We don't want our children to see this; show only ``normal families.''
The flip side were calls thanking the newspaper for ``having the guts'' to run the photo and also for including a panel of homosexuals in the series.
Not only was it a great photo, said one man, but it was ``inspiring to those of us that are bombarded with sensationalized treatments of lesbian, gay and bisexual people.''
I'm torn at this point. I thought it was a sensitive photo, one that captured the message of the individual. But it was distracting, and I knew it would be grating to some readers.
Worse, I had to wonder if anyone had read the series. Or had they simply focused on this one image? If so, it's a shame to lose the very audience that the newspaper was trying to reach.
As a reporter, who is gay, said of the photo, ``It was almost as if we were trying to make of it a lightning rod that was certain to draw anger and resentment.''
There were other reactions, too. Several readers called in to praise the story and to encourage future reports to be even more forthright.
But window dressing means a lot. And what I'm hearing from readers is that if a story looks ``tabloidy,'' they aren't going to give it benefit of the doubt.
And that brings us back to the O.J. trial. Actually, I'll leave that for another day, since the spectacle is just beginning. Besides, I'm out of space.
My own problem is: How to keep up with the long, tedious trial coverage. Already, I'm getting hints that readers are facing the same fear. O.J. phobia has only just begun.
MEMO: Call the public editor at 446-2475, or send a computer message to
lynn(AT)infi.net. by CNB