A few weeks ago, Philly.com, the Inquirer and Daily News underwent some progressive changes. The format and look of both papers changed (slightly), Philly.com entered the new millennium, and a new Daily News iPad app was released (and it is at least not totally half-assed like previous efforts!). We applaud Interstate General Media, owners of the IN, DN and PDC, for those things. We applaud them, too, for adding bloggers and talented young writers (like Mike Bertha, formerly of Philly Mag). They’re starting to get it. Starting to change with the times. So today, when I saw John Bolaris’ girlfriend’s tits next to this Dan Gross article about John Bolaris’ girlfriend’s tits – a story on Ms. J-Bo, Erica Smitheman, briefly taking over her man’s Twitter account and flooding it with sexy but clothed pics on Sunday night - I figured that a decision came down from the higher-ups to push the envelope with racy content (really, I thought that). The last two paragraphs of Gross’ story, which seemed to hint at the photo’s presence being intentional (it wasn’t), turned out to be perfectly ironic: [Philly.com]
For those of you who are ever inquisitive, you can find a fully nude picture of Smitheman at playboywiki.com/Erica+Smithman. Yes, although her last name has an E in it, there is none in the link.
A far too modestly cropped version of the image appears here.
One could have read that as: Yeah, we only included a tit here, but the full version of that photo shows a vagine resembling a canyon’s ridge. Check it out!
But that's not what it meant.
Through email, Gross told me that the correct – cropped – version of the picture appeared in the print version:
"The photo appeared appropriately in the print edition of Tuesday's Daily News, but, due to a production error, a pre-cropped version of the image was posted briefly onPhilly.com. It has been removed from the website."
The funny thing is that the photo, from Smitherman’s Playboy shoot, wasn’t even part of the story. The pictures she tweeted from Bolaris’ account were modeling pics of her in lingerie, not nude. The modestly cropped Playboy image was in the Philly.com story for effect and it wasn’t supposed to include the nipple, as evidenced by the fact that the photo was removed before 9 a.m. and the ensuing sheepish Tweets from Philly.com staffers. [We're guessing one web editor is having a bad day today.] Of course, everything lives forever on the interwebs, and we have a full, NSFW screengrab for you. But you’re going to have to step over the jump to see it.
UPDATE: Though the photo was removed from the story, it is still showing up in suggested reading elsewhere on the site, like on this travel article (thanks to reader Ryan for the tip):