Vision pulled from campus after backlash over request for “nudes”

York Vision was pulled from campus hours after release due to its “completely unacceptable” back page [Image: Dan Powell]

The latest edition of York Vision was removed from campus today hours after release following backlash over a back-page request for students to submit nude photographs to be “reviewed” by their editorial team. The edition was removed after it transpired that the edition had not been sufficiently vetted before publication by the Union, a process normally undertaken before all campus publications go to print.

The request was printed on the back page of Issue 266 which printed a week and a half after it had been allotted to. The request featured a white page with the words “send nudes” formatting that Vision uses on its masthead: bold white text in a red box. The page also featured an assurance that any pictures will be anonymised and censored when “appropriate”.

The paper made a Google Form to receive the images despite Google’s terms and conditions state that it does not allow for submission of “sexually explicit material”.

The Sabbatical Officer team subsequently released a statement strongly condemning the paper which has only managed three printed editions in the last 12 months. The Sabbs implored Vision to hold themselves to higher journalistic standards and cited the potential for the requests to be a platform for revenge porn as the reason for the removal of the issue.

This is the latest in a long series of set-backs for Vision following multiple missed print deadlines and a decline in quality since its Guardian Student Journalism award triumph in 2015. The paper was criticised for an unpopular redesign in Issue 264, but has since returned to its former red-top style.

In response to today’s events, York Vision released a statement: “To advertise a future lighthearted piece, we published what was supposed to be an eye-catching and controversial back page. While the submission point was updated to include guidelines and a policy to ensure welfare, we have since removed the submission point. We did not fully appreciate the welfare concerns and we will not be publishing the planned feature.
The Vision editorial team would like to sincerely apologise for this error of judgement.”

11 comments

  1. Feel it’s quite rich to claim it to be a light-hearted piece. This is beyond even an Alan Partridge Twitter account parody, or a Tab article. It’s unadulterated bad practise. Controversial should be taken as trying to speak truth to power, not for someone to take the piss like this. Who made the decision to put this in, and why did the editorial team support it? If nobody’s for the chop from this, why should we have any faith they’ll not act in a similar way in the future? They’ve had public backlash and their edition isn’t available (what a change), but this isn’t good enough. YUSU needs to take some actual action.

    Reply Report

    • Has anyone within Vision actually considered that the idea that students are encouraged to send in nude photos of themselves to the editorial team to be “vetted/approved/poured over” simply makes them look like a bunch of perverts?
      The national media will have a field day with this one.
      Next thing you know they will be planning a Jimmy Saville lookalike social.

      Reply Report

    • i guarentee the students behind it didn’t mean any harm by it as anyone who would look into it would find “send nudes ” is a joke used a lot as satire by young people. The people at fault are the members of staff at the University who have the responsibility of checking through the newspaper and confronting students on whether or not something is good to post or not.

      Reply Report

    • I guarantee the students behind it didn’t mean any harm by it as anyone who would look into it would find “send nudes ” is a joke used a lot as satire by young people. The people at fault are the members of staff at the University who have the responsibility of checking through the newspaper and confronting students on whether or not something is good to post or not.

      Reply Report

  2. Vision remains shite then

    Reply Report

  3. Disgusting miscreants. Somebody should be held accountable for this. It’s not journalism, it’s pervertism.

    The least they can do now is update the page that’s printed on already circulated publications to provide information and support for those who are encouraged to send nudes and have been victims of revenge porn and/or blackmail.

    Reply Report

  4. Clearly a (bad) joke blown way out of proportion by lazy editors who want to get away with writing 350 words and label it an article. Find some real news, not this tabloid shite

    Reply Report

  5. I am horrified to have read about this low, low point in student journalism at my university, as many others who have passed through the institution in previous decades will be. The story rumbling along in national media harms us all, those associated with the university. Think before print. It’s not hard.

    Reply Report

Leave a comment



Please note our disclaimer relating to comments submitted. Please do not post pretending to be another person. Nouse is not responsible for user-submitted content.