UNT Journalism Prof Says She’s “Disturbed” by Mayborn Conference, Ctd.
“Just arrived in the mail: A D magazine “special edition” with the headline “Why Black Achievers Choose Dallas.” It’s good that D is making an attempt to cover the black community. But (of course there is a but) why segregate the coverage into a separate magazine? And did they really need to feature a lovely businesswoman who’s showing lots of cleavage on the cover?”
That led to a comment thread wherein Everbach offered more opinions of our cover:
“I doubt she chose her wardrobe — people rarely do for a magazine cover. Also, the cover is so obviously Photoshopped that you can tell the artist emphasized the cleavage on purpose. She may not even have known it would be so prominent. Take a look and see if you agree.”
And:
“Look at the shading in the cleavage area. It is clearly altered. The cleavage area is much lighter than the curve of her breasts. That is not natural…it is highlighted. Her skin color is altered as well. Look at her hands — they are much darker than her face and her chest. This is a technique commonly done to African-American women in magazines. This is the same type of photography done in fashion magazines — it is altered to the point where it is a distortion of reality. I can point you to websites that will show you original photos and how they are altered by Photoshop if you want to know more about the topic. Also, no one gets to choose their own wardrobe for the cover of a magazine. (I have studied fashion and popular mags and can tell you a lot about this. It’s all an illusion.)”
Bear in mind that Everbach, a woman who teaches college kids about reporting, made these assertions without attempting to ask anyone at the magazine whether we’d altered the photograph. When someone alerted me to what Everbach was saying on Facebook, I wanted to respond. First, though, I made sure I knew what I was talking about. I didn’t think we’d lightened Warrior’s skin or enhanced her cleavage or even dressed her for the shoot — but I wanted to make certain. I talked to our creative director, Todd Johnson, and the freelance photographer who shot the image, Dan Sellers.
Sellers’ response: “She looks just like she did when she walked in my door.” We didn’t pick the dress. We didn’t alter her skin tone. Neither did Sellers.
By the time I heard back from Sellers, though, Everbach had taken down her Facebook post. I messaged her directly and told her what I had confirmed about the cover. She said she’d taken down the thread because of an inappropriate comment, not because of anything she’d written.
Perhaps when this faculty meeting to discuss the Mayborn Conference takes place, they can chat about this, too.
Home |
Masthead |
News from D |
About Us |
Contact Us |
Subscribe |
Advertise |
Privacy Policy |
Customer Service |
Awards | Archives | Reprints | d custom | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
Awards | Archives | Reprints | d custom | Jobs | Advertiser's Index
38 comments
Wow! Teaching journalism and doesn’t do any research before she spouts off. This should headline the faculty meeting.
Is this “Pile on Tracy Everbach Day?” Sheesh.
Tracy Everbach sounds like someone who has never photographed and done lighting for someone with dark skin. It’s different than white people, and you get different results.
It makes me wonder if she’s ever been around black people for any significant amount of time at all.
I am sure that D Magazine would sell more copies if they put unattractive people on the cover.
@ Everbach
I have been to business events with Gail Warrior and can tell you first-hand that she’s very attractive. And quite smart, I’m told.
Here’s an actual journalism issue that’s not been addressed in any of this: Are there different standards for different media. The “editorials” y’all have linked to are, far as I can tell, blog posts. The offense that you reference here by Dr. Everbach was on a Facebook update.
Many of us are bloggers here. I’m betting most of us are on FB. Some of us are also contributors to dead-tree publications. Should a journalist who participates in all of these media be held to the exact same standard?
Should a post on the editorial blog, for instance, be required to have the same level of reportage and fairness as a column or editorial in that morning’s newspaper? Given the impetus to blog quickly and frequently, seems to me the standards are often at least somewhat different.
Should a journalism professor be expected to hew to all the standards of her profession on Facebook updates? She *is* a public figure who has some ethical obligation to act as an example to her students. But it *is* FB where the next item on my news stream may be a dancing cat or a link to a dirty joke…
I got no answers to any of these. I’ll now return you to the ongoing question of whether journalists should ever toke with sources and whether it depends on the quality of the weed.
What Jeff said, and
however, given D’s track record on the Trinity and Tim’s on using, shall we say his “influence”, not sure you have a lot of cred being a journalism watch dog.
So your cover girls have big boobs by accident? Right like their real blonds.
(And for the record, I come down on the “no toke” side. But not as insistently as Tracy. In some of the nation, smoking pot is *exactly* the legal equivalent of running a red light. Which I would also not generally do in pursuit of a story. But I’ll stipulate to the possibility of exceptions.)
@Jeffrey Weiss: We do things differently here at D Magazine. Our reporters are instructed not to interview sources until both the source and the reporter are high enough to have consumed a bag of Fiddle Faddles.
All these people slamming this journalism professor and claiming she doesn’t do any research before she speaks are guilty of doing the same thing–Speaking without knowing the facts. Got proof she’s never done a photo shoot? Got proof she didn’t do any research before spouting off on Facebook? And whatever happened to the First Amendment, anyway? I thought people were still entitled to their opinion.
Who had 2:45 in the office pool as when the First Amendment would be erroneously invoked?
@Rita B Sorry, I CANNOT stand when people invoke that STUPID First Amendment argument.
The First Amendment guarantees that the FEDERAL government will not infringe on your rights…. not a privately owned magazine, or a chick at the computer slacking during working hours. Also, because i think it bears explaining we aren’t actually infringing on her rights, we are only saying that we find what she said laughable and will use our computers to let her know.
Nothing more frustrating than people who don’t understand how to apply the First Amendment.
Having this holier-than-thou, cynical website posture itself as the paragon of journalism ethics says volumes about the state of the craft today.
I want to thank D Magazine for this. I’m reading these very interesting arguments, and I’m carefully studying this very interesting and informative picture of businesswoman Gail Warrior.
I’m still reading through these arguments, and I’m continuing to carefully study this very interesting and informative picture of businesswoman Gail Warrior.
After sifting through some background noise, I’m still carefully studying this very interesting and informative picture of businesswoman Gail Warrior.
This picture of businesswoman Gail Warrior continues to be extremely interesting and informative, and D Magazine is to be congratulated for providing this service to the public.
So, okay now, who was Tracy Everbach again? The brunette on “Three’s Company”, right?
I will continue to monitor this breast situation closely.
All I know is that the picture of Gail Warrior should appear on Frontburner at least once a day. I’d also be interested in seeing the unused photos from that shoot!
Technically, running a red light is probably worse in the grand scheme, because you are potentially putting others at risk. Smoking pot in a guy’s backyard rarely leads to anything more than the munchies. Though Fiddle Faddles also come with risks.
I’m glad we’ve identified the crux of this issue, which really has nothing to do with Tracy Everbach. Smoking pot is smoking pot. One’s perception of the issue depends on many factors, but the law is pretty black and white — at least in Texas. That Professor Everbach chose to stand up for principle for her students’ sake, in hope that they would not believe breaking the law to get a story is a sanctioned journalistic practice, is refreshing in an age of moral and ethical relativism.
This is very typical of her. There is not a more close-minded person on the planet than “Dr.” Everbach. It is a shame that she talks so much about equality/diversity when she thinks she is superior to everyone. Learn to shut that gaping mouth of yours and try listening. I feel sorry for her husband, I wonder of he knows any words other than yes ma’am.
Liz–so you think the First Amendment is stupid. Figures.
You know that old saying, “academic politics are so vicious because the stakes are so low”?
This is a lot like that.
I disagree with Tracy, and Tod’s, views on the whole Weingarten issue, mostly because I think they miss the very critical perspective that breaking a rule, or earning a citation, or even committing a misdemeanor, doesn’t necessarily mean you are unethical. You might be a criminal, an offender, or a company rule-breaker, and you might (deservedly even) get fired — but unless your journalism is dishonest, hurtful or so sloppy as to be both, you probably can still be an ethical journalist.
Context, and a clearer understanding of the definitions of the terms we are using, is what is required to make sense of this stuff.
That, and I think, a little more restraint in your choice when denouncing a journalist who has given his working life to doing the best work he can.
But having said that, these attacks going the other way, in particular about Professor Everbach, are just as unsettling. She is a committed teacher, a former journalist, and dedicated to her students. Can’t we just leave the personalities out of it, and focus on whatever principles are being defended here?
A little public charity, and good manners, goes a long way — even, gulp, on the Internet.
@Rita B… oh, darling. Not the Amendment, LOVES it. Just your argument. But, way to try and misconstrue what I really said when you realize you look like an idiot.
Can anyone at D Magazine put a stop to this endless navel-gazing by graduates of a second-tier journalism school?
Tracy Everbach and George Getschow should work together. They are very different, with different experiences, but they both bring assets to the table. The conference is GREAT for UNT. I’d never heard of the journalism department there before I heard of the conference a few years ago. Their personalities may clash, but they should use this moment as a turning point. Tracy can apologize for her snide comments and adversarial undermining, and George can acknowledge that Tracy brings a valuable perspective that deserves respect and consideration, and that she’s clearly sensitive to issues (even if they are mostly academic in nature) that he is not. Go for a drink. Or better yet, pass the peace pipe.
E did not get high with Zac when he interviewed me for his story. However, I’m always high, semi-bi-polarism does that for you.
E instead of I is the result of three broken bones in right fist. A pencil clasped by a thumb and a splint is poor substitute for working hand.
Buck—D Magazine won’t end the drivel because most of them are graduates of said journalism school.
I”d like to direct the discussion back to the cleavage.
We need additional pictures to better evaluate this issue.
@Rita B: re: UNT j-school grads
Mike — yes
Me — UT
Tim — Notre Dame
Krista — OU
Nancy — isn’t here, but I don’t think so
Actually no one else is here, but I don’t think we have many UNT j-school grads. Maybe Jason Heid? Anyway.
@Michael L. I couldn’t agree more with you and thought your discussion with Tracy on her wall was exactly on point. It’s hard to keep to the high road when someone says you are unethical just because you disagree with them and so, while I’m not excusing or condoning how very personal the attacks on her have gotten, I do think that she bears a little responsibility for starting the discussion from a very judgmental and close-minded place. I respect someone who stands up for what they believe in, but there is a way to do it that encourages others to come to your side without passing judgments.
Scoreboard:
Frontbunervians – 3
Rita B. – 0
Is this the prelude to the next “Best in Dallas” issue? Best cover cleavage in Big D(s)…
Dan Sellers is a GREAT photographer. He’s done great pics of people (and places.) Stop by his studio and check out his stuff. He’s a nice guy, too.
Todd Johnson is also FABULOUS, extremely talented, and truly has a knack for presenting quality images…this is NOT the case in many (okay most regional magazines.) In my opinion, his “eye” is basically unmatched in ANY city mag.
Everyone has opinions…
i was amazed at the comments about her attire. not once have I seen a mention of what a man has on in regard to business. Well, Deion Sanders when he came to the Cowboys press conference.. sorta business.. and i was also suprised that not one mention of Gail being one of D Magazine’s 10 Most beautiful women in 2009, I was expecting that if we’re going to talk about what she has on… she has many honors and deserves all of them.. She is a distinguished woman honored by Northwood University and so many others.. I know her from the Northwood honor.
I think it’s interesting that you have taken Tracy Everbach, a respected former journalist, to task, but failed to examine the substance of the important critique she provides. Rather than sniping at her, use your journalist’s thick skin and critical-thinking skills to do some self-examination. You don’t have to agree with her, but a blog post calling her out for critique is embarrassingly overly sensitive on your part.
I happen to agree that having a “black issue” of a magazine is not in the best interest of diversity. Including African American entrepreneurs as sources and in your photos and perhaps doing a few profiles would better serve your readers, in my opinion. Holding black business people out as “other” can be read as “What a surprise!” This might not be immediately evident to someone who has not lived that experience.
Further, the cleavage shot is odd. She is not wearing business attire. The fact that you have presented a sexualized image of an African American woman on your cover contributes to the long history of media marginalization and subjugation of black women, who face double biases based on race and gender.
Perhaps you should sit in on one of Dr. Everbach’s Race, Gender and Media courses. I think you might find it enlightening.
Carolyn, a voice of reason, finally.
She is wearing business attire. I’m actually curious as to what people who have a problem with this picture do consider business attire? Men’s style pantsuits? High-necked gingham dresses? She’s dressed like hundreds of other women executives in this city go to work as every day.
The fact is she’s a beautiful woman who was well lit, bringing out the highlights in her skin and hair, and that has brought the haters out in droves.