And now a actual discussion that is occurring in the office of whether the magazine will run a controversial cover featuring the confederate flag. Oh yes, I'm serious.
Backstory: The cover feature next week is one that is supposed to be examining the existence of confederate Missouri, looking at the lives and reasons for modern day citizens who support the confederacy, or consider themselves confederates. This could have been a really beautiful narrative piece examing the reasons people need to hang on to causes and purposes, or looking at how people twist history and flags to suit their own ends. As it is, it looks as though it will simply be a piece offering the information that some people in Missouri identify as confederate soldiers.
The debate: This feature will be going on the cover, the most obvious visual image is the confederate flag, and yes people are seriously considering running it big on the cover.
Point: Those in the pro-camp feel we shouldn't shy away from controversy before we've given it a try.
Counterpoint: Those in the opposing camp feel that the story - the narrative, point and writing should be strong enough to justify selling controversy on the cover. At this point the story looks as though it will be an embarrassingly weak effort, barely addressing the amount of conflict surrounding new and old supporters of the confederacy.
My feelings: I hope that I don't have to waste words here reassuring people that I have no problem confronting controversial subjects. However, I see absolutely know point in running the stars and bars on the cover. Though I haven't read the story yet, my understanding is that it is not strong or compelling narrative. Secondly, I don't see a point to riling people up by putting such a controversial image on the cover without a strong justification. Thirdly, I really have a serious problem placing a symbol that is so associated with racism on the cover of a community magazine, particularly one that sells itself as more pithy than serious, more fun and offbeat than concerned with social issues. Whether the flag originally represented racism is moot, as the symbol is now associated with racists groups and sentiments. Fourth, controversy for controversy's sake is always a distasteful and uncouth choice in journalism.
Stay tuned for Monday when we find out what the ones in charge have decided.
7.27.2005
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
3 comments:
And here I was convinced that the vampire story would surely be the all-time low mark.
Ouch - I didn't think anyone read the vampire story.
sara i'm beginning to wonder if you are going to go postal employee (as in the people that deliver your mail who have surprising access to automatic weapons and indulge in arbitrary execution) on this place. man here's a hug.
as far as the flag goes...if the story sucks then forget it. i abhor ignorance and this place abounds in it. on another note...how many people in missouri are still exhalting state's rights? thomas calhoun was an idiot and so are the people that run this magazine it appears.---humbly submitted, ryan
Post a Comment