This is my final response addressing the City Beat interview in which I feel I am grossly misrepresented and misquoted.
Over the course of the past two days, I’ve exchanged messages with David Rolland, editor of City Beat. (Read the exchanges here.) I requested a correction of my quotes in the “You’re My Obsession” story written by Stacey Tolbert. Mr. Rolland said that because he had no access to the original story notes, he could not make changes beyond asking me to identify “problem” words he would eliminate and then add an editor’s note saying I feel I was both misrepresented and misquoted in the article. I chose not to identify “problem words” because I take issue with my interview in its entirety. Thus, Mr. Rolland did not change the story but did insert a statement reflecting my objection to how I’m depicted in the story.
Please note that I also have the written support and endorsement of Mrs. Tolbert who wrote the article. Mrs. Tolbert’s comments can be found here.
I responded to Mr. Rolland by saying he could handle the situation as he sees fit, including making no change at all. Short of a retraction or correction, the story would still remain in its original form, misrepresenting who I am, depicting me as a chauvinist, and misquoting my comments. It’s the old adage about the “gotcha” headline on the front page in 100 pt. type, while the correction or retraction the next day is buried on A2 in 9.5 pt. type.
For the record, here is my edit of my comments. This edit reflects my actual comments and addresses the topics raised in the article by Mrs. Tolbert as well as the other six interviewees in the article. It is possible the City Beat article has harmed my reputation and my career. I am thankful that colleagues and the many people with whom I’ve worked in my career know the depiction of me in the City Beat article is inaccurate.
St. Louis-based journalist Darryl Swint agrees with Evers and Hall in that men notice breasts because they are an obvious symbol of femininity and represent complex roles.
“Studies show men are more visually stimulated than women,” Swint said. “Men’s interest in female breasts reflects a dual symbolism.
“When viewed in a sexual sense, it generates a response of male attractiveness to female sexuality. When breasts are viewed in a maternal sense, it reflects the powerful symbol of women as givers of life.”Addressing the role of the Janet Jackson Super Bowl debacle in the breast debate, Swint believes a historical double-standard in media exists within the dual symbolism of female breasts. The depiction of bare breasts of women of color has long been published and broadcast — particularly of women in other cultures. At the same time, publishing or broadcasting of a fully exposed white female breast in mass media is unconscionable, Swint said, agreeing with Evers that visible nipples are taboo in American media.
“Janet Jackson’s three-second exposed breast was over-hyped by media and politicos,” Swint said. “Most men watching the show weren’t complaining.
“The furor did not originate with them. It originated elsewhere. And the furor was mostly directed at Jackson and not at Justin Timberlake, who was the real cause of her exposure.”
I asked Swint if Jackson had instead been Madonna or Britney Spears, would the reaction have been the same?
“No,” he replied. “I think it would have been treated as a genuine mistake if it happened to Britney and debated as a statement of empowerment if Madonna had done it. She has been known to challenge and reject societal beliefs on who a woman is and what a woman does.
“I doubt either would have received the amount of criticism about indecency leveled at Jackson.”