Dick

The point I was trying to make (which has moved on from Ted's Flesh & Blood!) is that I quoted the Black Stocking article as another possible mis-step. You don't feel it was and yet you ran specific apologies to certain individuals. This confused me and stuck me as a contradiction of principle. If it's okay to run photos of undressed women per se, then why apologise to anyone?

The apology suggests that if one of your interviewees or friends say publication of photos is objectionable, you accept that the photos in principle may be objectionable and then apologize. However, if the photos are of people you don't interview or regard as a friend, than you are prepared to ignore that the photos in principle might be objectionable. So, on the one hand, nudity as a class editorial decision is fine, but on the individual basis may warrant an apology if the subject of the photo complains to you. Which begs the simple question are such photos potentially objectionable or not? I feel they are, some of your interviewees and friends think they are and you seem to have apologized on the basis they might be. Now, however, you seem to be saying that the apologies were not for running the photos as such, but because you didn't establish their provenance -- which I now understand.

I totally accept your point that Blair's photos were never intended for UK publication and you may have felt it was okay to print on the understanding that they had been before. Even so, we all know the story of actresses who allow nude shots/movies in early years only to be ashamed of them later in life once their career is established -- a number of actresses in LSoH have expressed this very point. But even if LSoH had gone to the trouble of gaining actress permission before running the shots (which would be preferable) I, for one as a lifetime LSoH reader, am glad you didn't run more installments. Like you say, there are many other online and print sources for such material and I believe LSoH has been the better for not straying into such murky territory. Sure, readers can skip articles but there are certain books or mags whose reputation is such that you feel such content doesn't belong there in the first place; I feel LSoH is one such publication. Rather than skip certain articles for potential tackiness/offense, I'd rather skip those magazines.

At the VERY LEAST I'd prefer to see such material placed in context -- it's one thing to see the notorious Stensgaard photo in an article on Lust which graphically illustrates the decline of Hammer; it's another to effectively run a nudie photo supplement.

Hope this clarifies and thanks for taking the trouble to reply -- though we clearly disagree.

Last Edited By: Aug 1 11 4:59 AM. Edited 1 times.