Shield your eyes, kids!

A Romenesko reader writes: “Check out the anchor photo on this page….[C9, on the left] and then consider the audience for the very next page [C10, on the right].”

Washington Post ombudsman Patrick Pexton’s verdict on this:

Passion and physicality are indeed facets of love. But the photo was also a bit tasteless. I would not have run that [butt squeeze] photo. It’s a touch too edgy for a family newspaper. And the coincidence of having it on the reverse of KidsPost, with Valentines’ cutouts? Well, Cupid must have had a hand in that, or on that.

* The cheek squeeze that roiled the world



  1. Not at all. Simply another normal day at the Post since nothing is now allowed to be reported without a solid pro-gay angle attached to it. America shall not ever again be allowed to get through a single day without a gay update. It is the sworn duty of all media slaves, gay or straight. Especially straight. We simply must have more news and details about the gay!

  2. fermata said:

    oh, cut it out, vanderleun. I’d say the guy grabbing his woman’s ass — the bigger photo — is way more suggestive to a kid audience, which was the point of this post. I’m sorry you are so bitter than love comes in many forms.

  3. Not at all. I’m sad because there is not yet enough coverage of what you obviously view as the love that dare not speak its name.

  4. There is so much pressure on kids to grow up quickly these days — to find boyfriends/girfriends by the time they’re even in second or third grade. That’s where my heart, pardon the pun, falls on this.

    Youngsters are looking to young adults and older adults for role models and to mirror their behavior accordingly.

    I’m a parent and would not want my kids seeing adult content like this next to a kids page largely because, it seems to me, that is condones some of the behavior I’d seen exhibited from time to time on the playground when I’d pick my daughters up after school. Thankfully, I never witnessed anyone trying to exhibit their affections in such a manner to either of my daughters.

    From my perspective, placing this content side by side was a poor choice. It simply is not appropriate to their age level.

  5. Don Lee said:

    Wasn’t side-by-side until displayed on the web. As pointed out earlier, they’re not facing pages (wonder if that would even matter; how many people actually read a broadsheet with both pages spread out in front of them). Oh, I’m sure some folks will go out of their way to be offended but this is a yawner.