OMG girlie pix!

This is what happened when Roger Ebert wrestled with a question of propriety:

I hesitated just a moment before including Miss June 1975 in my piece about Hugh Hefner. I wondered if some readers would find the nude photograph objectionable. Then I smiled at myself. Here I was, writing an article in praise of Hefner’s healthy influence on American society, and I didn’t know if I should show a Playmate of the Month. Wasn’t I being a hypocrite? I waited to see what the reaction would be.

So he waited, and this is what he got:

At first no one at all objected to the photo, even though the entry was getting thousands of hits. It went online early on Sunday afternoon. But Monday was a workday, and a reader asked if it had occurred to me to label it NSFW (“not suitable for work”). The thought may have crossed my mind, but come on, would anybody be surprised to find a nude somewhere during a 2,200-word piece on Hef?

This thought crosses my mind: does it make any sense to optimize one’s Web postings for someone surfing when he should be working? “Oh, right, you’re on your lunch break. Carry on.”

But things ended up about where you’d think they would:

I went in and resized the photo, reducing it by 2/3, so that it was postage-stamp 100 pixel size and no passer-by was likely to notice it. This created a stylistic abomination on the page, but no matter. I had acted prudently. Then I realized: I’d still left it possible for the photo to be enlarged by clicking! An unsuspecting reader might suddenly find Miss June 1975 regarding him from his entire monitor! I jumped in again and disabled that command.

Roger Ebert, of course, is no prude; you can’t very well be a prude and work with Russ Meyer. But if you insist upon wrapping a towel around Miss June, well, Ebert has already thrown it in for you:

In the future I will avoid NSFW content in general, and label it when appropriate. What a long way around I’ve taken to say I apologize.

Interestingly, he’s titled this piece “To NSFW or not to NSFW? (NSFW)”, which pretty much says it all.





5 comments

  1. Mark Alger »

    2 November 2010 · 6:33 pm

    Me, I just label my whole blog NSFW, whether there happens to be any NSFW content on it at the time or not.

    Except, what with the Repeal Obamacare thing, not so much right now. So people COULD be led unsuspectingly into looking at a picture of nekkid boobies.

    See what you’ve done, Obama!?

    M

  2. Teresa »

    2 November 2010 · 10:00 pm

    Ebert proves once again he hasn’t got two brain cells to rub together. Why not pull the pic off to a separate link? Label that as Miss June 1975 NSFW? What’s so friggin’ hard about that The picture remains full size and no one gets in trouble. But that leaves Roger with nothing to complain about. What a wanker.

  3. Laura »

    3 November 2010 · 11:00 am

    I supposedly have too much cursing on my blog. Can you fucking believe that shit?

  4. CGHill »

    3 November 2010 · 1:27 pm

    Yeah, but you have a warning posted on the front page.

  5. Charles Pergiel »

    3 November 2010 · 6:03 pm

    Arrrgh! All this yakking about nothing! NO ONE COMPLAINED ABOUT THE PHOTO. This whole exercise took place in Roger’s mind. It’s like all the legalese warnings that nobody reads, or the End User License Agreements that nobody reads, or the [legalese that gets tacked onto the emails from some companies telling you not to read it if it’s not for you] that nobody reads.

    And here I am yakking about it. Gahhhh! Doesn’t anybody have anything better to do?

RSS feed for comments on this post