A reader — also a frequent participant in STLtoday online conversations — wondered why we used the photo we used in this morning’s Post-Dispatch with the political brief about the controversy over the satirical New Yorker cover.

The photo we used didn’t show the American flag burning in the fireplace.

And the item we published didn’t mention the burning flag. The burning flag was mentioned in the original AP article that was edited down to the item we ran.

Here’s the reader’s email complaint:

Today in the Obama satire piece (p.A3), the photo used had a thumb over bin Laden’s face and a black fireplace. In the real picture, there is a flag burning in the fireplace AND

the paragraph which states: “The couple is doing a fist tap in front of a fireplace in which an American Flag is burning. Over the mantle hangs a portrait of Obama bin Laden.” was removed from the original AP piece.

I have a huge problem with this “deletion” of information. I am very disappointed that someone was not doing their job to see that this type of bias by “elimination” did not happen. I will say, however, I was truly shocked the PD even covered this story in over a bus crash picture.

I questioned our photo editor on duty last night about the selection of the AFP/Getty Images photograph that accompanied the New Yorker cover. Here’s his response:

“I was the photo editor that picked the New Yorker photo Monday night, with no conspiracy in mind. Basically, it was a split between a direct image of the cover, or an image with the newsstand which offered a little more context. The original photo was also a square shape, and I asked the designer to make it a more pleasant looking horizontal. I didn’t think it obstructs from the main focus of the NYer cover.”

Larry Coyne, our director of photographer, examined the image in question and reports:

“The AFP photo was taken at a newsstand, and the content in the fireplace is obscured by what looks like a piece of metal that wraps around the stack of magazines on the shelf (attached is the original file that I blew up that detail). The content doesn’t appear altered to me.”

The sentence deleted from the text was edited out by the copy desk to make the item fit. One could argue that a longer story was warranted. But once the decision was made to include the item in the political digest, it needed to be edited to just a few paragraphs. (Four paragraphs is a very long brief.)

All in all, I think the photo and item fully conveyed the controversy over the satirical magazine cover.

Here’s a Washington Post piece on the controversy.