Selwyn Duke

Thanks to Internet archiving and the computer function "print screen," the evidence remains.The article originally appeared as shown here (thank you, Wayback Machine).

And here is the deforested version, with "Iris Tree" sent to the e-sawmill.

Here are the tweets that started it all:

If the "artwork" Iris Tree really is appropriate for 10-year-olds, why are you blurring out part of the picture in your article?

— Selwyn Duke (@SelwynDuke) January 4, 2018

Your article censors the nudity. You just proved those opposed to their kids viewing it were correct. Excellent journalism. #howdoyoulivewiththehypocrisy

— K. Petersen (@Irishimay) January 5, 2018

Unsurprisingly, People also blurred the truth behind the story (which I reported, conducting interviews with local parents) but didn't scrub from its article Rueda's posturing, moral preening, and demeaning of his adopted community.Its writer, Cathy Free, quoted Rueda as saying, "[E]ven though I was overqualified, I took the [teaching] position with an open heart to make a difference in a predominantly[] Mormon community where there isn't much culture.I hate that this controversy happened, but I stand for art, altruism[,] and enlightenment, and I'll never back down from that."

Rueda, a native of Colombia, also said, "There are a lot of skeletons in the closet of the repressed culture here ... and there is very little freedom of expression," reports Free.Rueda had earlier characterized his fellow Cache Valley residents as "cultural dead-ends" and members of a "narrow-minded community."

What Free didn't report is that, accordingto the parents I interviewed, Rueda forced the children to view the nudes and belittled students who complained, telling them they had to "grow up."(A local source tells me he is not getting his job back.)

The article by People's Free is now free of the Tree, but observers note the hypocrisy.As the aforementioned Twitter respondent also opined:

You are really something. First, People Magazine blurs the pubic hair and nipples in the offensive artwork they included in the article. You must have realized the hypocrisy because now it's been completely removed from the article. You lack journalistic integrity.

— K. Petersen (@Irishimay) January 5, 2018

It's interesting that People didn't demonstrate its own "enlightenment" and react to the initial criticism by uncovering "Iris Tree" for all to see, but instead decided that it didn't want to be mistaken for Hustler.The only question now is whether, using descriptions Rueda and his defenders have generously applied to opponents, the people at People are best characterized as narrow-minded, repressed prudes, puritans, Nazi-like censors, or cultural dead-ends.Because the magazine knows something: certain images are too indecent for it to publish.

...but are just fine for ten-year-olds.

Contact Selwyn Duke, follow him on Twitter, or log on to SelwynDuke.com.

Posted by: Timothy Birdnow at 09:26 AM | Comments (5) | Add Comment
Post contains 606 words, total size 6 kb.