To the editor,
The front-page picture of Maggie Gyllenhaal is both tasteless and sexist (“Hello, Neighbor!” Oct. 7). You have insulted your readers and Ms. Gyllenhaal. Is this any way to treat a new neighbor?
Mr. Kuntzman, I am glad I do not live next to you.
Hilary North, Prospect Heights
I am not a prude
To the editor:
What are you, the New York Post? I’m no prude but this is hardly appropriate for a “family” publication.
As a new “Brooklynite,” as well as new mother, Ms. Gyllenhaal would prefer to been seen in a slightly more demure guise.
Jane Landis, Park Slope
I’m really no prude
To the editor,
This is a community paper. I’m not a prude, but this is a bit much, don’t you think? Are you going to join the ranks of the Enquirer? It’s really terrible.
Daniel Luck, Fort Greene
Nice plug
To the editor,
Hey, what happened to your Brooklyn cool? We welcome celebs to Park Slope precisely by NOT making a big fuss and celeb circus.
Plus, the mom next door didn’t want her kid to see this picture.
If you ask me, this cover photo deserves a Bronx cheer. And I write this as the author of an award-winning guidebook to the borough.
Ellen Freudenheim, Park Slope
The writer is the author of “Brooklyn: Ultimate Guide to New York’s Most Happening Borough (St. Martin’s Press, 2004)
And from the left…
To the editor,
I’m actually a left-wing person. I’m not upset with puerile things in general, but I find the photo really distasteful and unwelcoming.
Part of the appeal of living in Park Slope is part of the snooping of neighbors, I agree, but not that kind of exploitation of our neighbors.
I actually think you owe her an apology, and you owe all of us an apology.
I feel very strongly on that.
Rebecca Welch, Park Slope
Cheap and easy
To the editor,
I was puzzled by your choice of photo. Running a nearly nude photo of the actress on your front page is hardly a neighborly welcome.
Did you just Google around for the most inappropriate free-of-charge photo you could find? Not nice!
Kevin O’Leary, Park Slope
Think of the kids!
To the editor,
What could have been going through the minds of your presumably mature editors, who made a decision that could have been expected of a 14-year-old [when they printed that salacious photo]?
The photo was especially inappropriate given that children can come across the paper after it is delivered to thousands of front stoops.
Michael Bradley, Park Slope
Great photo!
To the editor,
Kudos on exposing the Maggie Gyllenhaal threat. Let history show that The Brooklyn Papers was the first to realize that her move to the Slope could undermine marriages within a 12-block radius.
My own wife (who was once quite attractive, I might add) has ordered me to cross the street if I see the Divine Miss G coming down the block.
Hyram Biafra, Park Slope
No ethics
To the editor,
I bet Maggie Gyllenhaal felt really good about moving here when she spotted your cover while pushing her newborn in a stroller along Seventh Avenue.
Anything to sell free papers, right?
Catherine Gigante-Brown, Windsor Terrace
Not on my watch
To the editor,
What’s with the soft-core porn on the front page?
Seriously, yowza! Just so’s ya know, that wouldn’t have flown with me, back in the day.
Diane Webber, Silver Springs, MD
The writer was editor of The Brooklyn Papers from 1996-1998
An apology from The Papers
Our front-page photo last week of actress Maggie Gyllenhaal represented a lapse of discretion for which we apologize.
Given the nature of the photo, its placement on Page One was inappropriate and not in line with our standards.
