Media and obscenity, part I (probably).

There's a hot story in Loveland, CO about a piece of visual art that garnered public protest and picketers, right up until yesterday when a woman from Montana destroyed it and was arrested. Coverage of the story continues, but honestly, what surprises me a little is that someone would come all the way from Montana to destroy a piece of art she viewed as blasphemous. That's dedication, but it may make it harder for someone to suggest later that the art goes against local standards for decency (a necessary part of building the case in court that an artwork is legally obscene).

For all the news coverage of the artwork, Chagoya's "The Misadventures of Romantic Cannibals," I have yet to actually see a reproduction of the artwork in TV or newspaper coverage of the story. (I did find one through a Google search, which quickly clarified why people would find it offensive; consider yourself forewarned if you do the same.) In media coverage, there are just photos of protesters.

This makes it hard to have an informed opinion on the work itself, but very easy to hold a position on the controversy. It's also clear that many of the people who are protesting are missing facts about the story (for example, the work was donated by the artist to the exhibit and no tax dollars were spent on its purchase, so the people who are complaining about funding the artist with tax dollars could use a fact-check). Some have valid points but most are jumping on the bandwagon with a minimum of information.

Judging by the coverage on the Post website, where it's the most-commented story of the day, people just can't wait to get into discussion about free speech versus blasphemy and public decency. The Supreme Court case heard yesterday about Fred Phelps' church protests at the funeral of a soldier is covering some of the same ground regarding distasteful speech in the public arena. Phelps' protesters followed local laws about the distance from a church that protests had to occur, and then picketed the funeral of a soldier with signs including "God Hates Fags" and "Thank God for Dead Soldiers" (for the record the soldier in question was heterosexual). Phelps' lawyer, one of his daughters, has tried to make the case that the first amendment should protect them from charges of causing emotional distress to the soldier's family.

Offending people's standards of decency gets media coverage for your ideas, no matter where they fall on the political spectrum. I am repelled by the idea that the level of public discourse has sunk so low that tactics like these, of obscene images, cruel words, and hate-filled speech, are what it takes to be heard.

However, I think it reflects most poorly on the media that their stories do not raise the really important questions at hand, but simply mirror the polarization of our communities on moral values. I don't expect journalists to attempt answers to moral questions except perhaps on the editorial page, but I would expect responsible journalists to provide what good coverage of the Supreme Court does: accurate portrayals of the positions on all sides of a controversy.