How long until some Journal Star commenter has a conniption fit over the graphic that accompanied the aging article [Warning: nudity!] on the front page of section D?
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
Diane K
February 6, 2007 at 3:15PM
But really—did Barbie need to appear naked? I found it a bit offputting. It was poor judgement on the paper’s part, and the plastic nudity wasn’t essential to the story.
D.M.B.
February 6, 2007 at 8:39PM
the picture is gone now.
Dave K
February 6, 2007 at 9:22PM
It’s still on the (402) main page. I don’t think anyone else has noticed or cares. I wouldn’t have thought twice about it without it being mentioned here.
And right now there are no comments mentioning Barbie’s lack of clothing.
Mr. Wilson
February 6, 2007 at 9:38PM
<em>And right now there are no comments mentioning Barbie
Comments
See what your friends and neighbors have to say about this.
But really—did Barbie need to appear naked? I found it a bit offputting. It was poor judgement on the paper’s part, and the plastic nudity wasn’t essential to the story.
the picture is gone now.
It’s still on the (402) main page. I don’t think anyone else has noticed or cares. I wouldn’t have thought twice about it without it being mentioned here.
And right now there are no comments mentioning Barbie’s lack of clothing.
<em>And right now there are no comments mentioning Barbie
I think you’re grasping at things Mr. Wilson.
Share your thoughts with the community.
Commenting is no longer permitted on this post.