DATE: Sunday, May 4, 1997                   TAG: 9705020014
SECTION: COMMENTARY              PAGE: J5   EDITION: FINAL 

SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM

                                            LENGTH:   94 lines

REPORT TO READERS WHEN PHOTOS TELL A DIFFERENT STORY FROM REALITY

Last month, I ran a ``You be the editor'' quiz asking readers to be the Solomons of journalism. One question concerned a photo of students involved in community service. Six of the seven students in the photo were white, even though their school was 95 percent African American.

Nearly three out of four respondents said they would have reshot the photo. And several readers applied that lesson to visuals in the newspaper this past week.

``OK, OK, you guys have helped educate me on the multiracial make-up of our country,'' e-mailed Mary Martin of Virginia Beach after looking over last Sunday's Commentary article on ``The college debate.'' The file photo with that story showed a gallery of students, all white.

``The last six years of reading your paper has really made a dent in the consciousness of this Caucasian woman who `never meant any harm, but just did not pay a lot of attention to context,' '' she said. ``So it is with incredulity that I ask: Why was the article on the college debate illustrated with a graduation picture of all Caucasians?''

Ironically, the photo could have shown diversity had the camera panned a row or two higher. That's what I learned from my assistant, Deborah Alexander, and she should know. Her son, Nathan, was in one of the top rows to get his bachelor's last December from Old Dominion University, where he was named an African-American honors student.

Sometimes, it's just a matter of chance. Or do we need to try harder?

That's what another e-mailer concluded after reading Tuesday's front-page story about safe neighborhoods in Norfolk. There were two photos, both showing white homeowners.

``The Pilot clearly takes as one of its responsibilities the fostering of good relations between the races,'' wrote William D. Jones, ``and you understand that there are subtle ways of doing that.''

The article itself noted that one of the two neighborhoods is predominantly black. So why, he asked, ``did you choose to put a photo of a white man on the front page to represent that neighborhood?

``. . . As an editor, I'd see that no-crime statistic and say, wow, it's worth showing the folks that the stereotype of black neighborhoods as crime-riddled is completely contradicted here. Moreover, this is a crime-free RACIALLY MIXED neighborhood, which might also be something that article could have celebrated, if the paper is pursuing its civic mission.''

Reaction from the editor and writers involved in this story was a collective groan. ``I actually agree with the complaint,'' said reporter Naomi Aoki.

Several attempts were made to get a photo reflecting the neighborhood's mixed populace, they said, but either the subjects didn't show up or didn't wish to pose.

Here's the irony: Of the two reporters who wrote and compiled information for the story, one is African American and the other Asian-American. The editor is white, the photographer black. So much for stereotypes!

Did they try long and hard enough? That's a question they raised themselves. Perfection vs. the realities of deadline create a constant tension in the newsroom.

And, finally, Kaye Tice of Norfolk scolded us about the photo on Tuesday's Public Safety page. Showing two hands shackled, it accompanied the story ``Tracking crime in Norfolk's neighborhoods.''

Tice said she's tried not to see it that way but she can't escape the conclusion that the hands might be of an African American, and she would rather have seen something generic - i.e. just the handcuffs - than a photoillustration that reinforces race.

Of the three challenges, I feel that the neighborhood photos were the most troublesome. Too often, a black, ``inner-city'' neighborhood illustrates a community plagued by crime and the white neighborhood reflects safety and comfort. Despite the best efforts, we fell right into that stereotype.

It's clear that our readers are conscious of these pitfalls. And they're playing ``You be the editor'' even without a quiz.

NO IFS, ANDS OR BUTTS. And talking about that quiz. . . several newsroom editors turned the tables on me. They showed me an Associated Press photo out of Hong Kong, and asked, ``Would you print this picture?''

The caption provided by AP will give you some idea of the content: ``What does a Scotsman wear under his kilt? Nothing, as this picture proves, as the wind whips up the kilt of an unidentified member of the British Army's Black Watch regiment lowering the Union Jack. . . ''

Preceding that information, by the way, was the all-caps warning: ``EDITORS: CONTENT MIGHT BE OFFENSIVE TO SOME READERS.''

If it makes any difference, I'll tell you that the wind-whipped soldier had his back to the camera. And, yes, his kilt had flown waaayyy up.

Would I have run the photo? Sadly, no. Too many years of being a public editor, I fear. I could already hear the refrain, ``This is a family newspaper. I don't want my children seeing such sights.''

But it was a wonderful photo and goes to show that fear of offending readers sometimes takes away the fun. The, um, cheekiness of the picture was in contrast to the regimental formality of the three soldiers shown, and was a guaranteed chuckle.

Pilot editors were split on running it and finally decided against. The photo was published, just a tad larger than postage-stamp size, in USA Today - back on an inside page.

In, um, hindsight, I wonder if anyone here regretted not using the photo. .

Send Suggestions or Comments to webmaster@scholar.lib.vt.edu