Shouldn’t a photo representing the parade have a picture of.. oh.. I dunno.. a parade? Instead of just one guy?

It’s just way too obvious what they’re trying to pull.

I agree.

Jarred said “No one picture or pair of pictures is ever going to be truly representative of the parade, let alone the gay community. So why are these two particular non-representative pictures more objectionable to other non-representative pictures you might prefer the paper to use?”.

Because nude people is a rarity at this parade and a picture of casually dressed participants would have been much more representative because that’s what typically is seen.

Realistically, is that’s what being done. Is any picture supposed to be taken as “representative” of the whole of an event or group that is being discussed in an article?

And even if it is, then what picture should be chosen as representative? Single and childless LGBTQ people may not find pictures of kids being pulled in colorfully decorated wagons as representative. Jocks may not find men dressed in business suits as representative.

No one picture or pair of pictures is ever going to be truly representative of the parade, let alone the gay community. So why are these two particular non-representative pictures more objectionable to other non-representative pictures you might prefer the paper to use?

There is nothing “wrong” with nudity OR outrageous attire. What’s wrong is presenting either as being representative of the gay parade, let alone the gay community.

It is a habit that the MSM has had trouble breaking and that made it worth pointing out, imo.

If they were two of dozens of pictures of various elements of the community in a slideshow it would have been different.

It is also pretty inexcusable that they weren’t even from this year’s event, since that is what the headline touted, given the current state of technology.

I agree with the bolded part. (Actually, I agree with it all, but I want to focus on the bolded part.) I’d also like to go a step further and suggest that part of the reasons such sloppy journalism continues to hurt us is because, despite quickly tossed out disclaimers saying the opposite, many in the LGBTQ community still react as if there is something wrong with nude men and nude people in general.

*Yes, it’s a MARCH–officially and technically–but, sadly, not in spirit much anymore. It’s the Heritage of Pride March, the organization behind it for years is Heritage of Pride (HOP).

Corporate-sponsored celebration isn’t wrong or unworthy or unhelpful; but, there are still RIGHTS to be FOUGHT for.

I’ve also noticed a lack of reporting on the fact that this year’s International Mr. Leather is a Transman, but reporting on the “freaks” of the GLBT community is not what this site is about.
I still like the reporting, just saying that everybody has a bias and sometimes Kincaid’s can come through as is his right to do so, since it is his site.

The way the Star chose to run them in this report is a throwback to the last century and not representative of the paper the last few decades. I know, because as editor of a gay publication, I covered their progressive policies on domestic partnership rights for their employees, as well as the issue of publishing gay survivors in obits in the 1990s.

Must have been a weekend editor that let the article post the way it is, though that is a pretty lame excuse.