The Blaze and Drudge freak over a front-page nipple
Did the New York Times go too far in their front-page photo of a woman showing barely one-third of a woman’s areola? Really?
Apparently, the pic so alarmed the folks at Drudge and The Blaze that they put heavy emphasis on the picture and the story. I’m more than a little peeved about the reaction from my two favorite Conservative news outlets. There is a difference between making a passing observation and engaging in histrionics, and I’m afraid both The Blaze and Drudge are guilty of the latter.
There are many, many reasons to criticize the Times, and maybe we can be a little critical of the front-page treatment of the nippleage. I would have rather seen a little criticism of the Times’ focus on the large photo and heavy treatment of the breast-cancer story at the expense of the smaller headline carrying water for the Democrats in the “Plea to Avoid Crush of Users at Health Site” article.
The hysterical reaction to a photo of a partial nipple seems (to me) more than a little juvenile, and over-prudish. I understand that it’s front-page status may be noteworthy, but the hype is neither necessary nor helpful. Conservatives are sometimes slammed by the left for being overly body-conscious, and today’s histrionics merely feed the left-wing beast. For goodness sakes, y’all, there was nothing even vaguely pornographic in the photo, and it’s just a nipple, after all. Most of us are born with two of them, and in the context of discussing breast cancer, I think an allowance should be made. The surgical scar on the woman’s breast is far more prominent and eye-catching than the apparently offending nipple, anyway.
At the risk of trying too hard to drive my point home, I’ll just say that I have seen photos of dead bodies on the front page of newspapers from all around the country and all over the world. People don’t bat an eye at photos showing the violence that occurs in this world, but a partial nipple portrayed in a medical context is hypeworthy? Really?