Thursday, December 23, 2010

Taking it all off . . . for journalism???


Via Dustbury, we learn of a journalist who - at the request of her editors - agreed to live nude for a week.

Most people wake up in the morning and get dressed. Last week, I agreed to hop out of bed and not get dressed. I called it Naked Week.

I believe that a lot of things are better without clothes: Bubble baths, swimming under the stars, frolicking between the sheets. When it's time to cook dinner, scrub the tub or watch "The Big Bang Theory," I prefer to be wearing clothes.

I agreed to take it all off for a week in the name of journalism. At first, I was going to pass on the assignment. I had all sorts of excuses: How will I walk the dogs? What if the UPS man knocks on the door? It's too cold to be naked!

But I decided that it might be fun and thought I could learn something so I signed on.




For an entire week, as long as I was at home, I was naked. I wrote articles, interviewed sources, washed dishes, paid bills and watched TV all while I was naked.

. . .

I counted the minutes until the naked experiment was over because there was something awkward about resting a bucket of suds on a naked thigh before setting it down to mop the floor or folding pants while wearing none. I found it downright comical when I stood in front of the fridge and searched for ingredients for dinner while staring at a cantaloupe and cucumbers! (Yes, being naked gave me the mindset of a prepubescent tween).

. . .

If Naked Week taught me one thing, it's that I need to work on being more comfortable in my own skin, even if it is in dire need of moisturizer. I might start sleeping naked or doing the weekend crossword puzzle in the buff. But for now, I'm off to put on some pants.


There's more at the link.

I'm afraid I just don't get it. Would someone please explain to me what, precisely, this stunt was supposed to achieve? What journalistic imperative was served by a week's nudity at home? In what way was this particular journalist's career enhanced, or skills developed, by doing so?

Now, if they'd put the whole thing on pay-per-view TV, I could have figured out the reason at once - money! Of course! But as it is, it seems to have been a monumental waste of time . . .

Peter

8 comments:

suz said...

"Would someone please explain to me what, precisely, this stunt was supposed to achieve?"
I just wasted a couple of minutes trying to think of a good explanation. I got nuthin'. I did note that she mentioned dogs, not cats;I wonder if she'd scoop a litter pan naked. Ick.

cybrus said...

It all makes sense when you realize people watch the news for humor and watch the cable comedy shows for news.

Old NFO said...

Titillation.... pure and simple...

FishStyx said...

Cybrus -
I do believe you have forced on me, an epiphany.
It is all much clearer now!

Anonymous said...

At the bare minimum (see what I did there), they could have had something useful like,"Don't fry foods while you're not wearing clothes."

Brass

Julie said...

well it kept her home for a week and out of everyone's hair?

Anonymous said...

I can see where it would have been an eye-opener for her; a lot of very ordinary people have embraced nudism. However, she didn't get it, and it's pretty obvious she wasted her time.

Antibubba

Skip said...

I didn't happen without pictures.
We need photos.