Today, I received a very interesting email from an irate Yahoo! News reader. Interestingly, the reader interpreted this graphical promotion , which is for my Yahoo! News interactive story on the Democrats’ forum over gay issues, as showing a man holding another man near the ‘behind.’ A careful look will show that the photo shows the man with his arm around the waist of the other man – a common display of public affection for many couples, gay or straight. But this reader didn’t see that when he looked at that photo, and his anger lead to the email below. (Warning: the email below contains objectionable language.)
I’m pissed off that Yahoo has the discriminatory in-sensitiveness to illustrate your promo with a picture of two men, from the rear, with a hand near the ass ….
If you wrote about Catholic voters or Asian voters, would they (Yahoo News) use the same goddamn pose? I am not gay, but I’m fucking angry that Yahoo used this trite stock photo.
What’s it filed under by “keyword” at the Photo Service?
What did the shithead Editor think? That this was OK?
Tell you what, cousin – have that motherfucker illustrate an article about Black voters with a picture of frigging Alfalfa in a goddamn straw-hat, OK? I mean what’s the difference, right?
Al Sharpton will hand him his empty fucking head on a plate, and rightly so.
I hate most journalists in general ( for selling out and/or lying) and Yahoo in particular.
I would sincerely appreciate if you’d talk to your Paymasters there and ask WTF was the editorial decision to use that image – of all the fucking pictures in the world.
We haven’t come very far, brother, if this is how gay men are still perceived in 2000-fucking-7..
Seriously, PLEASE forward this to the Yahoo News Senior Editor. I want that lowlife scumbag to read this. Whether he made the decision or not, he’s FAILING TO LEAD HIS TROOPS in one of the most significant positions in modern society.
————————————–END OF EMAIL———————-
Online news seems to inspire particularly vociferous views from readers. I’m surprised, at times, at what readers find objectionable.
In this case, this promotional graphic was made from a photo that was not, in fact, stock footage as the writer assumed. Had he watched the interactive report, he would have seen that the photo came directly from the report and was in fact a shot of a gay male couple watching the debates.
The photo was used in the promotional graphic because it clearly communicated a gay couple – in a candid moment – watching the debates. If I was to not use that photo because I thought it played into stereotypes, would I be, in fact, stereotyping?