ShareThis Page
Allegheny

Pittsburgh City Paper decides against reposting story tainted by racist symbol

Natasha Lindstrom
| Thursday, March 8, 2018, 5:36 p.m.
Pittsburgh City Paper's logo
Pittsburgh City Paper
Pittsburgh City Paper's logo

Pittsburgh City Paper further distanced itself Thursday from a cover story that spurred controversy for inadvertently promoting a white power band whose lyrics call for the killing of non-whites.

Editor Charlie Deitch announced he is fully retracting the story, “Women Ink,” because he now has no confidence in the factual reporting of the piece published Wednesday in the alt-weekly newspaper's first issue after a redesign. His decision marked a pivot from plans to re-post an edited version of the story to City Paper's website that would omit the retracted portion.

Longtime City Paper reader Edward King-Smith, 37, of Pittsburgh's Stanton Heights neighborhood was among those who alerted Deitch that his publication included a photo of a woman tattoo artist wearing a T-shirt for Aggravated Assault — a white-power band he's observed “trying to infiltrate the punk scene in Philadelphia and in Pittsburgh.”

“I'm a very tolerant person, and I'm not a huge believer in censorship,” King-Smith said. “My concern is the normalizing of neo-Nazi hate groups coming into the mainstream and just sort of being accepted as if their ideas are just like everyone else's in the marketplaces of ideas.

“That's really dangerous because these aren't normal politics,” King-Smith said. “These aren't normal ideas. These are the political ideas which led to the murders of millions of people.”

Tattoo artist Lettia Suchevich (Meikle) told City Paper she was not ashamed that she was “taught by skinheads.” She said she suspected she would anger people by wearing the shirt promoting the band, which she said was run by her husband, Warren.

His band's song lyrics explicitly celebrate the killing of black people and Jews and infamous Nazi leaders such as Adolf Hitler and Joseph Goebbels.

Once learning of the connection, Deitch immediately pulled the story.

Kat Rutt, the freelance writer and photographer who produced “Women Ink,” stood by her story, telling City Paper that she had not talked to any of the 16 women she profiled “about their politics.” She also admitted to airbrushing a photo to remove what appeared to be a small swastika on Suchevich's arm.

Deitch emphasized that Rutt does not speak for City Paper. He issued a public apology on Facebook and wrote a response stating that “ignoring someone's racial ideologies to celebrate their achievement as a female small-business owner is not a trade-off that should have been made.”

Shortly after 12:30 p.m. Thursday, Deitch shared with readers an updated statement to announce he would not republish the story after he was “given some time to think about the piece and do further research on reader complaints.”

Initially, Deitch said he and his staff thought retracting the story in full “was not fair to the other women profiled in the piece.”

“However, given that we know that a photo was intentionally altered to remove a swastika, I don't have enough confidence in the factual reporting of the piece, even though it may all be accurate,” Deitch said.

The altering was done without editorial permission and against City Paper policy, Deitch said.

Several tattoo artists profiled also asked City Paper not to republish the story, Deitch said.

He added that he and his staff found possible social media evidence that a second person profiled in the piece has ties to white supremacists.

King-Smith said he will continue to read City Paper and appreciated the way Deitch handled the situation.

“I think he really did a good job of taking responsibility,” King-Smith said.

Natasha Lindstrom is a Tribune-Review staff writer. Reach her at 412-380-8514, nlindstrom@tribweb.com or via Twitter @NewsNatasha.

TribLIVE commenting policy

You are solely responsible for your comments and by using TribLive.com you agree to our Terms of Service.

We moderate comments. Our goal is to provide substantive commentary for a general readership. By screening submissions, we provide a space where readers can share intelligent and informed commentary that enhances the quality of our news and information.

While most comments will be posted if they are on-topic and not abusive, moderating decisions are subjective. We will make them as carefully and consistently as we can. Because of the volume of reader comments, we cannot review individual moderation decisions with readers.

We value thoughtful comments representing a range of views that make their point quickly and politely. We make an effort to protect discussions from repeated comments either by the same reader or different readers

We follow the same standards for taste as the daily newspaper. A few things we won't tolerate: personal attacks, obscenity, vulgarity, profanity (including expletives and letters followed by dashes), commercial promotion, impersonations, incoherence, proselytizing and SHOUTING. Don't include URLs to Web sites.

We do not edit comments. They are either approved or deleted. We reserve the right to edit a comment that is quoted or excerpted in an article. In this case, we may fix spelling and punctuation.

We welcome strong opinions and criticism of our work, but we don't want comments to become bogged down with discussions of our policies and we will moderate accordingly.

We appreciate it when readers and people quoted in articles or blog posts point out errors of fact or emphasis and will investigate all assertions. But these suggestions should be sent via e-mail. To avoid distracting other readers, we won't publish comments that suggest a correction. Instead, corrections will be made in a blog post or in an article.

click me