The "newspaper" setting is similar to the "clinical" setting and sometimes the two are confused, but only in the clinical setting is it proper to discuss absolutely anything without any bounds.  The term "clinical" setting refers to a sort of doctor's office where are present only the patient and the doctor.  If the setting is modified by family memebers or others it might still be called a clinical setting.  It is also possible to have a clinical setting without a doctor or clinic at all.  One may simply invoke the clinical setting by saying, "May I speak clinically?"  That can even be done at dinner, but should not unless there is an emergency.  It is not necessary to "invoke" the clinical setting if the need for one becomes obvious.  At dinner one might say, "Michael is sick, I need the car tomorrow to take him to the hospital" if the arrangements cannot wait.  The details of Michael's sickness should only be given if necessary.  If the reply is, "I also need the car tomorrow, how sick is Michael?" more details can then be discussed.

Plain as all this should be to sensible people the internet began as a sort of lawless wilderness.  The setting on most of the internet sites should be the "newspaper" setting, but many of them are from people without newspaper training.  They try to enforce clinical setting boundaries because they do not understand the difference between the newspaper and clinical settings.  They produce what they consider "writing" but without the professional writer's careful establishment of various settings.  Of course some sites may actually use the clinical setting, not all sites are for the general public.

If you are learning this for the first time there is no need to be embarrassed, many trained journalists believe their newspaper setting should be an absolutely boundless setting, not well trained obviously.  Their misuse of the "openmindedness," and "balance" generally expected of the press has led to other problems explained in other articles here.  Be careful judging.  Sometimes what appears wicked is actually altruism mixed with inexperience, and you might need the altruistic, idealistic types later.  And be careful judging infrequent slips, they might be just that, accidental.  But a frequent and persistent artlessness should not be excused. Take note, TSA!

You perhaps saw on NBC's Today Show the "artwork" of the hosts about Adam and Eve in the Garden of Eden.  The full frontal nudity of the paintings was covered with tape and a poll on the internet asked whether the tape should be removed.  Seventy-four percent voted to remove the tape and it was on national television.  It is important to note seventy-four percent of whom.  Morning radio and television audiences are not representative of the nation as a whole.  But suppose by chance they are, suppose the nation as a whole would vote to remove the tapes (which I do not doubt).

Should the tape have been removed?  My opinion is that in the context of an examination of standards it was less offensive than it probably otherwise would have been, but it was still not necessary.  I believe most of the pressure to deal more often with such matters in the national press comes from people who for some mental or social deficiency cannot grasp the concept of setting.  They go through life with an unwarranted fear that if something doesn't appear in the national media it can't really exist, or be fully understood, or be dealt full justice.  And they will proudly proclaim that they are not "offended" by nudity as though being offended has a switch that must remain fully open or fully closed.  They do not understand that it is not the nudity that offends, it is the time and place and company to which the nudity is presented, the circumstances of the presentation, that offend.  Too many grew up in this country with no traditional values and really have no idea what ought to offend.

Our media in this country usually has some, if not extensive, press coverage of some trial or another and many people have lost their understanding that it is not a good thing to attempt trial by press.  Some crimes are committed for no other reason than to bring negative attention on someone, or as an exercise in muckraking.

Ancient Greek sculptors put full frontal nudity in their sculptures, but their culture was different, nudity was far more common.  Many cities these days have sculptures with much nudity.  But no one stares at them, or at least they shouldn't.  They know how to avert their eyes after a sensible time limit.  And don't you know many males who need to practice averting their eyes?  In most circumstances full frontal nudity in the national press would constitute a similar failure to avert the eyes.  Nude statues are usually not news.  The news should only consist of issues pressing or imposing for some timely public reason.

To the credit of the hosts who actually painted the images, they did, however deliberately or not, use much abstraction.

It is difficult to say how much of the nation would approve the paintings shown.  You need to have traditional values deep in your hearts, if nowhere else, because if you don't the terrorists win.