THE VIRGINIAN-PILOT
Copyright (c) 1996, Landmark Communications, Inc.
DATE: Sunday, March 17, 1996 TAG: 9603150034
SECTION: COMMENTARY PAGE: J5 EDITION: FINAL
SOURCE: LYNN FEIGENBAUM
LENGTH: Long : 105 lines
It was a charming photo and an upbeat education story. So what could go wrong? Something as basic as the ABCs.
The story was about how Ruffner Middle School in Norfolk is in the limelight for its pioneering role in introducing uniforms to public schools.
``An idea wears well,'' said the headline on the March 7 MetroNews front. The photo showed seven Ruffner students, a lively group, wearing their school uniforms.
The problem: only one of the students in the photo was black, and he was barely visible.
Some Ruffner parents were distressed, and made the same point: The school is predominantly black. Now that Ruffner is receiving national acclaim, where are the faces of the black children who helped Ruffner reach this status?
Bridget Hayes-Stewart was particularly disturbed because her daughter, Shauna Hayes, was with the group that was photographed - but wasn't in the picture.
``There's black kids in that school doing something with their lives. . . '' said HayesStewart. ``To open up and see six white girls, I couldn't understand that.''
Photographer Martin Smith-Rodden says he went to the school without knowing its racial makeup and ended up selecting the photo that visually worked the best, as a group shot. In retrospect, he feels he should have been more aware of the school's racial makeup.
When the Associated Press picked up the Ruffner story, he sent them the photo that ran in the paper that day plus the photo shown here, which he also sent to Shauna with a letter of apology.
I'm not sure that a reporter or photographer needs to study up on ``racial makeup'' before shooting a picture, but I think the alarm bells should go off when a gathering of this sort lacks diversity. Smith-Rodden said students tend to ``self-segregate'' and apparently did, in this case.
That may be the case, socially. But, journalistically, it ended up giving a misimpression of the school. It reminded me of a criticism we heard in years past - that the newspaper only photographed white Navy families greeting their returning sailor men and women.
We've gotten better, much better, about that. Ruffner was a slipup.
ROMANCING THE COMPUTER. Between cybersex and Dilbert, it's been a long week.
On-line romance was the hot topic last weekend after the subject was featured in Saturday's Daily Break. The illustration showed a colorful menage a trois: a computer and a nekkid couple, embracing.
Nothing anatomically shocking could be seen but the idea of it, with the cybersexual headline, infuriated numerous readers.
``I'm not a prude. . . '' began several callers, who went on to say they were offended, irate and disappointed in the newspaper.
Most brought up the usual dilemma: Their children read The Break because of the comics, but they didn't think this was appropriate for youngsters.
``What is with you all?'' asked one woman. ``It's bad enough that stuff's on the Internet. . . My 9-year-old grandson asked, `What is cybersex?' It was not Virginian-Pilot quality; it was like some rag you read in the supermarket line.''
I wasn't particularly bothered by the illustration, as a parent or as a journalist, but I understand that many people are. Somehow, I think we could have illustrated the subject just a tad less suggestively.
Staff artist Sam Hundley, who drew the illustration (and is a parent of two young children) said he thinks he illustrated the story appropriately - and tastefully.
``It was about people who develop a passionate relationship through this device,'' he said, ``a cultural phenomenon.''
Perhaps the question that should be raised, he suggested, is whether the story should have run at all.
All this made me wonder how readers would have reacted to an award-winning Los Angeles Times photoillustration with a story on how couples are using videos and books to improve their sex lives.
That photo showed a couple in bed, covered by sheets. The twist: instead of heads, their kissing faces were images on two TV screens.
A clever idea - but no doubt it, too, would have been controversial here. Anything involving the word ``sex'' usually is.
MISSING ``DILBERT.'' And then there was ``Dilbert.'' Or, rather, he wasn't there in Thursday's BusinessNews section.
The phone rang all day, it seemed. To hear people talk, you'd think most offices in Hampton Roads came to a screeching halt without their favorite workplace satire.
``It's our kick start in the morning before we get to work,'' explained one man.
Also missing that day was part of the business news digest but nary a reader complained about that omission. Both ``Dilbert'' and the digest got bumped by an ad that was larger than expected.
Surely there's fodder here for a future ``Dilbert'' strip. . .
GRAPH GAFFE. Readers also picked on the BusinessNews section two days earlier. On Tuesday, with a report on Wall Street's ``March Madness,'' a photo-cum-graph charted the week's Dow activity.
William Oberndorfer, a sixth grader at Kemps Landing Magnet School in Virginia Beach, called - as well as two adults - to let us know that the graph lines didn't correspond to the numbers.
The main problem: Monday's Dow of 5581 points was depicted as higher than the four previous days, when the Dow ended at more than 5600. In other words, the graph zagged when it should have zigged.
Back to school. . .
ILLUSTRATION: Martin Smith-Rodden/ The Virginian-Pilot
Shauna Hayes was missing from the original Ruffner uniform photo.
by CNB