From Monica at the $pread Blog:
Again, what other profession would we do this with? “I was going to help with the open heart surgery for my article, but…at the last minute I threw up and ran out of the room.” “I was going to sit on the 10th floor’s ceiling beams with the construction workers so I could bond with them over lunch, but my fear of heights was just too great, so I just stayed on the second floor, crying and shaking in my hard hat.”
A-freakin’-men.
Last night, several of us local thin-skinned types got together for food and beverages at our collective second office, and talked about the latest “us vs. them” dust-up and Lack Of Getting It on the part of some traditional media folk. At one point Sara and I said something to one of the Democratic Party guys who’d shown up to do Jäger bombs about how our blogs were a little different because they’re not straight-up political blogs. And this is something I’ve talked about all over the place plenty of times before: how making sweeping statements about “blogs,” as if blogs are a monolith, is pointless because there are so many different kinds of blogs. There are blogs that are online news outlets, many of which break stories. There are blogs that are devoted to political analysis. There are blogs that are focused on a specific topic and definitely write with more of a “for the audience” perspective. And there are plenty of blogs (such as I would class my own) that exist primarily for the blogger, cover a wide variety of topics, but do not purport to be unbiased or “fair and balanced” or objective, etc. etc. etc. So when talking about credibility, citizen journalism, etc., I was thinking it only makes sense to apply those standards to the certain types of blogs that want them.
But then I thought, well, that’s too simplistic, too. With a lot of blogs, there’s not this stark dividing line between one type vs. another type. I would call my blog a “personal blog,” but I also have, arguably, “reported” on plenty of things. So have many other people who write the type of blog I do - and that makes sense, because why should writing about an issue, or posting news, etc., have to be sequestered from writing about one’s life? And really, i think when the two mingle, that’s when some of the most effective political activism can take place - or am I abusing the old adage “the personal is political” again? ;) I just think for a lot of people, putting the humanity into something helps them see why it’s important, and think of it in a more concrete way, and not just as an abstract “issue.”
And, blogs similar to mine have broken stories. Kyle Payne, anyone? And that’s just the most recent example that comes to mind. Look, too, at how bloggers of various stripes pulled together in an ad hoc media team during the Eliot Spitzer brouhaha. A few MSM outlets here and there started to realize that yes, we are the experts, and it didn’t matter what “type” of blog we had.
So are we all really that different? I think yes and no… as Facebook would say, it’s complicated.
I’ve lost what little patience I had left.
The following words and phrases, as so often tossed about in the blogosphere, mainstream media - hell, most anywhere - by people sitting up on their high horses feeling so proud of themselves, get me steaming; and with rare exception (as I will always reiterate that context matters), are cues for me to stop listening, because I’ve better things to do than hop aboard the Bullshit Train for another trip round the Armchair Psych Ward.
Congratulations, you’ve got a non-argument. How about a little originality, for once?
Everybody’s a damn expert. I’m sick of it.
12:16 p.m.: Edited to put in alpha order.
Rob Peters, a reporter from Vancouver, says:
Some difficult truths have been brought to light by the personal blogging blitz of the last few years. One such revelation is that most of us aren’t as interesting as we think. Waking up every day and jotting down some deep thoughts about breakfast is a difficult way to sustain any kind of readership.
I could not disagree more. What blogging brings to light for me - and I know I’m not alone in this - is that people are infinitely interesting.
Not every single person is going to be interesting to every single other person. But that’s not news; that’s a fact of human existence, and why would we hold blogging to ridiculous, unrealistic standards that we don’t apply to other aspects of life?
And anyway, why is anyone still publishing this recycled tripe? Every 6 months or so, some know-it-all writes a piece on the “death” of blogging, or how it’s causing Very Bad Things to happen, or how it’s lost its innocence, or whatever other cliché they’ve dredged up for the moment. I guess maybe it’s a guaranteed will-publish if you’re having a dry spell?
On a personal note, I’m not having the best day - in fact, someone on a blog just saw fit to inform me that they “don’t appreciate anything about [me].” Do I blame blogging, though? Give me a break. I think you know the answer to that one.
That reminds me - a post on civil communication is in the works, too.
Last night, Jen and Tony were kind enough to give me the dubious gift of a copy of the latest issue of The Sunday Paper. The cover story is (in huge pink letters), “ATLANTA’S HOOKER SCHOOL.” Then in smaller letters, the subhead: “New Program Aims To Make Prostitution A Risky Business For Johns.” (Okay, so it’s not really a hooker school at all, is it, dumbasses? It’s a johns school. But that won’t grab readers by the throat the way “HOOKER SCHOOL” will.)
Now, for those of you who aren’t in Atlanta, The Sunday Paper is a pretty worthless rag. It always has sensationalistic, overblown headlines, especially in the cover stories (I remember one with a big explosion on the cover, and something like “Countdown to Armageddon” - and they were totally serious) and generally includes some of the worst writing I’ve seen in a print publication. They try to publish “controversial” stories with the most watered-down, trite mockery of point/counterpoint you can imagine. And here’s how I think they go about writing features: they have a template, and they drag and drop various talking points from a database, maybe some clip art as well (e.g., in this case: photo of fishnet-clad legs and high heels, standing in a dark alleyway; Julia Roberts 20 years ago), and click “Generate story.” Voila! Your next issue is complete.
I said that at the table last night, and Kim brought up a good point, that if she were still working at a newspaper and getting paid $8.00 an hour, she wouldn’t exactly pour her heart and soul into researching every story in-depth and writing a thought-provoking, well-rounded piece. Can’t say I blame her. And The Sunday Paper is a free weekly, so who knows what those writers are getting paid. This is a topic that isn’t discussed much in all the various rants about the mainstream media and why they suck so badly. So maybe new media and independent media (often the same thing, but not always) can fill the void? But that’s a tangent for another time.
I’m always torn on stories like this. One the one hand, they’re such pathetic, rehashed tripe, that it feels like a waste of time and energy to address them at all. But then I think, that kind of rationale might make sense in some other situations, but when it comes to sex workers’ rights advocacy, we are dealing with an issue that is literally (yes, literally!) life and death for many people, mostly women; and it’s an issue fraught with layers and layers of bullshit, where all of a sudden everybody thinks they’re a damn expert, and everybody loves to hear themselves talk except they can’t be bothered to listen to the people who are actually affected by all the laws and stigma and such; and the silence is rather deafening when it comes to calling bullshit.
So, I feel compelled to call bullshit, yet again. And I just hope that if people keep on calling it out whenever they see it, whether on 20/20 or in some piddly little hometown rag, maybe progress can slowly be made.
Kim actually read the article before me (I didn’t read it last night when we were at Manuel’s), and afterward, she said, “Yeah, you’re going to need your meds after reading this.”
The article starts off talking about how “hookers” are portrayed on film (because that’s so relevant), and how it’s in stark contrast to “the truth.” (Yeah, the truth which includes sex workers being talked about but not talked with, and called “hookers.”) From there it’s just a matter of marking off the various Bingo squares. It includes the phrase “selling their bodies” and refers to them being “victims of abuse.” (No sources are cited, of course, but why bother? I mean we all just know this is true.) And oh of course there’s that whole thing about how “john’s schools” don’t work, but why get sidetracked with that annoying little piece of information?
They do include a quote or two from Carol Leigh (a.k.a. Scarlot Harlot) representing SWOP, which is more than most articles of this type do. But I’m not giving them a cookie. No, they don’t get a gold star for doing what should be the bare minimum in anything purporting to call itself a journalistic endeavor.
One thing that I really hate about bullshit articles like this is that they reinforce the idea in so many people’s minds that “sex worker” == “street prostitute.” Hell, that’s what I thought until I was 18 or 19. In fact, street workers account for only 10%-20% of all prostitutes/escorts/courtesans (not using the term “sex workers” here since that term encompasses many other types of work).
And once again, they don’t give a shit about actually helping sex workers, or any of it. (I know The Sunday Paper certainly didn’t come right out and say, “We care about sex workers!” but with all the victim language and talk about the “johns,” that’s what the superficial message clearly is - even if it falls miserably flat with its condescending, pearl-clutching tone.) They make bank on perpetuating the very stereotypes and stigma they dramatically wring their hands about in articles such as these. It’s so transparent it’s pathetic. Sex workers aren’t people after all… they’re just an easy way to move some papers!
From Chris Hall at Sex in the Public Square (be sure to read the full post). Chris is a wonderful writer.
The real tragedy of [Palfrey's] death, from where I’m standing, is not anything extraordinary about her story, but how common and familiar it is, to the point of being cliché. If the story of Deborah Jean Palfrey had been laid out in a novel or play or screenplay, I would be angry at having my time wasted by a writer who was unable or unwilling to rise above cheap hackery that was old and worn out in the days of the Victorian penny dreadfuls. But Palfrey was a real person, and it makes me sick and angry to think how often the lives of people who should live peaceful, untroubled lives are forced into old patterns.
When I heard that Palfrey had hung herself, one of the first things that I thought of was the story of Ida Craddock. Craddock was a freethinker and feminist who wrote several sexual education manuals and pamphlets in the late 19th century. She was hounded and pursued for over a decade by the moralists of the day, in particular the infamous Anthony Comstock. In 1902, she was finally convicted for sending obscene materials through the mail and sentenced to five years in prison. Craddock was 45 years old at the time of her conviction and didn’t think that she could survive her sentence; the night before she was supposed to report for incarceration, she slit her wrists. Comstock showed no signs of regretting her suicide; in fact, he commonly bragged that he had driven as many as 15 people to suicide in his crusade for public morality.
One hundred and six years later, I want Ida Craddock’s story to seem quaint and old-fashioned, like an aged relic of less enlightened times. But Deborah Jean Palfrey is dead, hung from the neck by a nylon rope; her former employee, Brandy Britton, went the same way. David Vitter is still in the Senate. So it goes.
In the eye of the media, Palfrey’s death was regarded almost without a blasé fascination, as if the urge for a woman who transgressed to hang herself in her mother’s shed was as natural and unavoidable as birds migrating. And it seems unbelievable that one hundred and six years after Ida Craddock, we have to work so hard to justify not only the course that she chose to make for her life, but that we also have to fight to make others see that her death was a stupid waste, and not the inevitable end to a badly-written melodrama.
What we do, all the blogging and writing and organizing sometimes can seem futile, especially with stories like Palfrey’s. The one thing that we can be grateful for, in a somewhat grim way, is that Palfrey had to do more than merely write about sex before she was hounded and shamed into her grave. That, at least, is something that we’ve accomplished in the one hundred years since Ida Craddock opened her veins with a straight razor. But it’s not enough.
And I’m crying, again.
Yeah, I’ve mentioned before that I can be pretty emotional, and cry at inopportune times. But this week, I think it’s appropriate.
Via Melissa on Twitter, I just found out that Deborah Jeane Palfrey (a.k.a. the “DC Madam”) has committed suicide.
Fuck. Fuck. Shit.
I am sitting here at my desk at work, fighting back tears.
No, I didn’t know her. But I’m grieving, because I have some humanity in me, unlike the media and judicial system and court of public opinion that tore her life apart.
Earlier today I was contemplating finishing a long-stored-in-draft-mode post about my fear/issues surrounding death. I think I’ll put it off for a while longer now, but this just shows… I mean… I don’t even know how to say it, but just, she’s gone now.
What will it take, people? How many more women have to die before sex workers are actually considered human? How much longer will we excuse - or, more accurately, applaud - exploitation by the media of women who “step out of line” in some way? How much longer will we keep denying that the sexual double standard isn’t just an annoyance, it actually kills?
People’s - oh who am I kidding, women’s; it’s not like any of the men involved have experienced anything even remotely comparable - lives have been ruined because of this case. And now the woman at the forefront of it is dead.
Her blood is on the hands of lawmakers and the media, and no I don’t even care if I sound like the religious guy (Pat Robertson?) who was blaming 9/11 on teh ghey… IT IS TRUE in this situation.
Fuck you. Fuck all of you who want to pick apart sex workers’ lives, dehumanize them, get the juicy details for a good story, then throw them out like yesterday’s trash when the story goes stale.
Deborah Jeane Palfrey is dead, and I think I’m just going to have to ignore all MSM (and a lot of new media as well) because if I see any salacious “tell-all” stories in light of this, I am going to go ballistic.
Bound, Not Gagged was started in the wake of the original breaking of the “DC Madam scandal”… and that is where I will be turning for information and updates. And I think now is a fitting time to revisit the words on their page, “Why a Blog for Sex Workers?”
When sex work is in the press, the coverage most always brings to the surface more issues than a single organization’s statement can address. As advocates, it would be impossible to make a statement that truly reflects the voices of this dynamic and diverse community.
BoundnotGagged is a space for these voices to be heard. It is a place for sex workers to respond to the way that they’re portrayed in the media, the way that sexist laws are used to undermine women’s rights and their feelings about the ethical dilemma of exposing a client list. The issues are deep and broad. The stories are powerful and frustrating.
BoundnotGagged is our way of responding to the injustice and hypocrisy that keeps sex workers’ voices muted and faces hidden. Sex workers may be in hiding, but they refuse to be silent.
Also, here are some excellent interviews with which to remember Palfrey:
And now I have to continue going on about my day as if everything is okay.
Rest in peace, Ms. Palfrey.
ETA: Noteworthy excerpt from Radical Vixen’s interview with Palfrey (as printed in $pread magazine):
Some of the attorneys that I have had and that are no longer in my life or will not be soon have said things to me like, “Jeane, don’t you just go to prison for 8 months? You’ll be out in 8 months. It’s going to take at least 8 months to fight it. I thought this person was the biggest buffoon- and he’s an attorney. Only a buffoon would say [to] give up your liberty for 8 months. I wouldn’t give up my liberty for 8 minutes. I’ve had people say, “Don’t say anything, don’t give any press conferences, don’t speak up, just be quiet, don’t aggravate the situation.” Don’t aggravate the situation? You’ve got to be kidding me. These people can come after me, destroy me, take every shot they possibly can at me, and I’m supposed to just sit back and be quiet and dutiful and well mannered?
That’s why I’m doing this interview with you. These people who are telling me, “Just take it,” these people scare me to death. I just don’t understand them.
ETA, pt. 2: What Dacia said:
These men spent a few weeks being raked across hot coals and being the targets of gentle ribbing from colleagues. There were cries of “hypocrite!” echoing all across the American media, but just beneath that is a resigned shrug: boys will be boys.
But if boys will be boys, whores will be punished. Deborah Jean Palfrey went to trial. And now she’s dead.
It saddens and angers me that this is Palfrey’s end, that she saw no easy way out other than suicide, and that women have to pay such a high price for their sexual and economic sins (especially when the two are combined), when men get slaps on the wrist.
ETA, pt. 3: See also, Anthony:
I would like to say that I’m surprised…but I’m not…because this is the ultimate (if to the extreme) means to which our sex-negative society deals with women who challenge the status quo when it comes to our hypocritical sexual mores. It’s much easier to drive the woman to suicide or simply murder her than it is to take a realistic look at how our laws and social mores against consensual adult sex (for free or for pay) do far more destruction and degradation than the actual sex acts and services that are bought and sold.
(That’s right, GenderBorgians, I said “acts” and “services”. not “bodies”; women who do sex work are not comparable to slaves, and they still own their own bodies, regardless of whether you like what they do with them.)
Like the Duke University rape accuser who gets slimed and virtually raped over and over again in the media because she dared to even make the claim that she was raped (and NO, MRA jackals and all other “White pity” fools, this is NOT permission to send me your half-baked comments on that case, either).
Like the rape crisis center owner who decided that a woman like Renegade Evolution should be denied the right to even counsel women who have suffered from abuse….merely because she might defile the center with her clients.
Like the cops in LA who mocked and laughed at and dehumanized an arrested street hooker into wetting her pants because they could only see her as an “object” to be used and manipulated for their benefit. (But I guess that since they were trying to get prostitution off the streets, that makes it OK for some so-called radicalfeminists, right???)
Like every Goddess-damn porn starlet, sex worker, adult model, and merely overtly sexual woman who has to face the full stigma of “slut-baiting” for simply not being as “pure” or “chaste” or “decent” for the public taste. Not even a young adolescent like Hannah Montana is immune from the anti-sex gaze; lest even sweet virginhood is defiled by her actress character flashing a bra for her boyfriend.
And all this done in the name of “protecting women and children”, no less.
…and the inimitable Susie:
I know how pissed you were. This was an act of revenge, and I know who you’re determined to haunt.
You were righteously furious at all the men who “walked away.”
That included the esteemed gents on your client list: Louisiana fundamentalist, Senator David Vitter. Abstinence Ambassador Randall Tobias, who squashed AIDS funds all over the world. “Shock and Awe” war profiteer, Harlan Ullman.
And that was just the expendable layer. None of them were charged with anything; all are living quite comfortably, in particular because they have no conscience whatsoever.
Jenny and Ren have been asking, so I should actually answer!
I think it went really well. It was actually more of a “pre-interview” though… the guy said they were trying to figure out the best way to cover Sex 2.0. Their program airs on Saturday, and he asked about doing live mini-interviews from the conference over Skype, but I had to be honest and told him our internet connection probably wouldn’t be all that reliable. He said they might try to book an NPR studio in Atlanta on Friday and do a pre-recorded interview, but that his team was going to have a meeting first and he’d be in touch.
So far I haven’t heard anything else; but either way, I think it was a good experience for me - even though (or maybe because) I was totally nervous the whole time and trying to make myself not be nervous.
Jenny said, “You do this kind of thing all the time!” and I had to laugh… yeah, I do podcasts all the time. This just seems a little different! ;)
Dacia asked if I was nervous talking to media, or if I was just nervous because it was the freakin’ BBC. Definitely the latter!
Anyway, it was interesting, exciting, and nerve-racking, and who knows, maybe there will be more interviews like this in my future. We’ll see!
I first read this amazing, powerful, inspirational post by Jill Brenneman a few weeks ago, but I rediscovered it this morning while combing through my feed reader.
It’s hard to find a portion to quote, because the it’s imperative that you read it in its entirety. Here is an excerpt, but please, read the whole thing.
But we are fighting for social justice, we are fighting against oppression, we are fighting for human, civil and labor rights for reasons and those are often being missed by the media or the messages are being hijacked by the prohibitionists and their misguided conflagrations and stereotypes. Prohibitionist researchers who were never sex workers and know little about them other than their 2 hour interviews with loaded questions slanted for desired results. I’ve been to the big prohibitionist conferences and the biggest topics tend to be the number of stars of the hotel rating, how disappointing the eggs were at the continental breakfast or that their hotel suites had bad color schemes. I’ve been to their conferences and been given the list of prohibited words, phrases and ideologies that will be stricken from the record if used and/or lead to expulsion from the conference. These are some of the reasons I left that movement in 2002. I’ve never seen that kind of garbage at sex worker rights meetings conferences, events, even if those same events are nothing more than a meeting at an unheated, poorly lit space that some other org is letting us borrow, with no meal service other than what we bring for ourselves, but we are there because we are working on issues, social change and fighting oppression. Not because we are being funded by the USDOJ to stay in Washington DC Hotels after having to suffer the “indignity” of flying in coach because the Government wouldn’t agree to pay first class as some of the suffering prohibitionists did in 2002.
I’ve never known a more passionate, tolerant, empathetic, and authentic group of people than I have met in the sex worker rights movement. There is a great amount of humanity in our movement. Let’s make sure media sees that. Yes I suffered in the sex industry and as a child. But I want to choose my own path, my own career choices, and determine the propriety of my own experiences not have them reframed as some prohibitionist based projects would do for me. We don’t need to be rescued, we need fucking rights and the people who best know this are the sex workers themselves, not the politicians, not the researchers, not the media.
Imagine my surprise this morning, during breakfast at Radial, when I saw an article in Creative Loafing(!) about the under-21 stripping ordinance.* Imagine my downright shock when I read the article and discovered that it was not sensationalistic, full of stupid jokes and bad puns, dripping with value judgments, or any of the other countless traits that too often characterize mainstream media coverage of anything related to sex work.
I would’ve liked to hear more from Danielle Barbee and other dancers. But since the article focused on the lawsuit, the plaintiffs probably couldn’t (or, were wise not to) speak to the press directly.
The article also made me feel frustrated and a little angry at the lack of a cohesive sex workers’ rights movement in Atlanta. Those of us who were at Charis on Dec. 17th should be “plugged in” to the same support network as Barbee et al. Caitlin set up a listserv but so far I’m the only one who’s emailed anything to it… my hopes for a bad-ass march through midtown this December are fading, unfortunately.
But more on that another time. Ahem.
Memo to MSM (and especially to Andisheh): it is possible to write a straightforward article about sex work issues. You have no excuse for fucking up so badly 99.9% of the time.
* The ordinance was mentioned during our Dec. 17th event, but I hadn’t heard anything about its status since then.
Update: Check out Dacia’s outline/notes on the session here.
Cross-posted from Bound, Not Gagged:
As an active sexworker, longtime sex worker rights activist, and member of SWOP and this board, I urge anyone and everyone who viewed Diane Sawyer’s “Prostitution in America” on 20/20 last night to write to ABC in one of two ways (or both):
1. Seen something? Heard Something? Know something? Please let us know — by being the reporter yourself. If you have facts or information to add to the story, fill out the form below and we’ll get in touch with you. You have a 2000 word limit to add your own story about your reality as a sex worker. Make sure to link back to either boundnotgagged.com or your local SWOP chapter.
2. You can also leave a comment about the story on the ABC site. Again, make sure to link back to either boundnotgagged.com or your local SWOP chapter.
Blog comments on this board can be found here.
Commenter “Could Be Your Sister” on Bound, Not Gagged:
There are a number of things that I simply do not discuss openly because of my activism for sex workers rights.
If I say I was never sexually abused or never worked the streets or never had a drug problem, then I automatically become some exception.
If I am an abuse survivor or did street-work or ever used drugs, then I instantly prove their theories.
It’s too often a no-win situation, where my truth is not welcome.
(Yes, I give them a ton of pingbacks… because they deserve ‘em! People, if you’re not reading BNG, you really need to start.)
The media (and hell, society in general) just doesn’t get it.
Audacia Ray, former sex worker and editor of the sex worker magazine $pread, has pointed out that the public doesn’t even seem to understand what exploitation really means. The woman who did sex work for Spitzer has had her picture and personal history splattered all over the media in an incredibly insulting way. Nobody seems to realize she’s being degraded far more now than she ever was when Spitzer was her client. And she’s not getting any retirement savings out of it, either.
And, funnily enough, I haven’t noticed a whole lot of “media critics” talking about this point. It’s been mostly… *crickets*.
Guess what, the definition of exploitation is not “a type of sex that makes me uncomfortable.”
I have more to say about the Alternet article (which, interestingly, had its title changed sometime between last night and this morning) because there are a few points where I disagree with Annalee, and a few points I just want to expand on. But I’ll get to that later.
Elizabeth agrees with me, anyway.
My real anger, though, actually comes from Dominus’s acceptance of the term “high class.” I know that is the term that much of the press has been using to describe the escort service in question. But to accept its use and to apply it to people is appalling.
“High class” is a value judgement and a way of obscuring the real stratification of wealth, power and privilege in the United States. Why not talk about the upper class, the elite, or the working class or the middle class, which are much more meaningfully descriptive?
Read her whole post; her analysis is spot-on, as usual.
BNG keeps crankin’ out the good stuff. As such, I keep giving them a crap-ton of pingbacks.
Most recently, there’s this post from existentialhedonist, entitled The media, gender, and representation:
I think the media’s obsession with Kristen’s childhood ties directly into the prohibitionists’ habit of using the term “girls” when referring to sex workers who are between 18 and 28. It seems to be a form of infantilizing women when they exercise their sexual and economic autonomy. It reminds me of the Swedish model, and it makes me want to wretch.
How about talking about her strength in overcoming a challenging youth to grow up and land a job that paid her for one hour more than most of her critics will see in a month? How about talking about her strength in the face of this onslaught of media attention and scrutiny? How she hasn’t cowered off into some corner- how she has kept her myspace page up, and how so many of the comments there are full of love and support in the face of this?
Kristen deserves to be seen for the amazing and strong woman she is. The obsession with her childhood is simply a cheap ploy to diminish the inherent fortitude of a person who faces challenges head on and rises above and beyond to become a creative entrepreneur beholden to nobody but herself. This is the hallmark of successful sex workers everywhere, and something that must be quashed by society lest more of us become such entrepreneurs.
I think it is important for the media and people like Farley to portray us as broken and weak people. It is ironic that some of them actually do this in the name of “feminism.” The truth is that the “abused girl” thing has to be played up to create a smokescreen to hide the reality: sex workers like Kristen don’t need you or anyone else to validate them. That is power. And that is dangerous.
Interestingly (or not), a lot of regular “media critic” sites have been deafeningly silent on this whole thing.
I’m feeling emotionally exhausted, and I haven’t done even a tiny fraction of what Dacia, Ren, Amanda, all the BNG folks, and more have been handling with grace for the past two days. I can’t imagine the constant interviews, last-minutes radio spots with angry callers, TV crews showing up at your apartment… well, okay, I can imagine it, and the thought leaves me feeling drained!
And now, we see that the NY Times has exposed the escort previously known as Kristen.
Real smart move there, credible, authentic, trustworthy, high-and-mighty MSM.
All the news that’s fit to print, right? You fucking assholes.
Look, it’s not that I’m surprised. I’m not surprised in the least; this is what sells papers, air time, ad space… duh. And yet MSM people continue to look us in the face and declare that it’s bloggers who are unconcerned with actual discussion, presenting facts, equal time… how can they say that with a straight face?? Meanwhile this shit could actually destroy this young woman’s life. You know that, right, NY Times? But you don’t give a shit. You want to break a good story. You won’t give a second thought to this actual person whose life you have put in real danger. You’ll forget about her by next week.
And like I said, I’m not surprised. All media outlets want to break a good story… sensational is good… I get it. You don’t have to tell me. They don’t care… no shock there.
But I wish it weren’t this way. Maybe this is the nasty side of capitalism (which I generally think isn’t so bad)? Or maybe it has nothing to do with capitalism - it’s just the way media works. I’m inclined to go with the latter, but as an eternal optimist (often at my peril), I have to believe that it doesn’t have to work that way. It can change. Everything can.
Right?
Edit: Or, as Amanda succinctly put it, “Notice how there doesn’t seem to be a single ethical quibble in outing this young woman who obviously has another career in the works.”
In the past two days, the media has been increasingly clamoring to talk to sex workers and sex workers’ rights activists (who are often one in the same). Late last night there was an influx of media requests, but I had to go to sleep.
Take a gander at some of the requests Dacia received, for example.
A sampling from my inbox and phone queries today:
From Fox News:
“I am trying to find someone to explain how credit card payments work with escort services. Specifically, how do you make sure the name of the escort service does not show up on a credit card bill. If anyone can explain that I would be very grateful.”“Good Morning America is looking for anyone who has ever worked in high-end prostitution as a madam or sex worker for their coverage of the Gov. Spitzer scandal. Their preference is def someone along the lines of Heidi Fleiss (have interviewed tons of times and don’t want to call on again).”
From an Italian news channel:
“I need a prostitute to describe what it is like to meet with men, how she selects them, what they do in the meeting.”And this:
“We need someone familiar with the political, social, legal and economic issues that affect sex workers to comment on this story. Someone who advocates for sex workers is preferred.”Oh wait, I made that last one up. Because it doesn’t exist.
Ren received similar requests.
I thought maybe it might be an opportunity to bring some light to issues such as sex workers rights and the hypocrisy shown by fellows like Spitzer. However, that is not what the media is interested in. That’s not what they want. They want to know how one goes about hiring a “high-end” escort, how prevelant is it, what goes on, do the working girls care if the men are married? What else do they spend money on when with the woman? They want the scandal, the titilation, the naughty little thrill….but nothing too dirty. Nothing about the women on the streets. They don’t want to hear about the truly unseemly side of the biz. They want to hear about the men…the rich and powerful men who spend the money on “high-end” girls. They want to hear how the men will fly in to see a girl, or fly her in, spends thousands on her and on the dinners and events and everything else. They want to know how he likes it. Sure enough, men do this sort of thing. I’ve been paid 2000$ to spend an evening with a New Jersey business man at a boxing match then do a strip show for him. No actual sex involved. He bought an expensive dinner and a bottle of Dom to go with it, and tipped me an extra 600$. Why? Because he could, and in this case, he did not even have to worry about the actual act of sex for money. This is one such story in my experience, and one such story in the countless experiences of women like me. And that’s the stories the media wants. They don’t care how we feel about legalization, or rights, or men like Spitzer building careers and policy on us, let alone about the women working on the streets. Those politics and dirty tales don’t sell.
Last June, at the Atlanta Press Club panel on new media, several audience members, but in particular Susan Capeluto(sp?) from Georgia Public Broadcasting, were practically jumping out of their seats talking about how bloggers lack “credibility” and “journalistic integrity” and are (this was the real “WTF” moment) obsessed with Britney Spears and Lindsey Lohan.
Wait, what?
Have these people turned on any national TV news program lately?
Fox News has “The Daily Britney,” for fuck’s sake. CNN and MSNBC cover Britney, Lindsey, and other celebrities’ antics like it’s going out of style.
Are there blogs that cover this stuff? Sure. There are blogs that cover pretty much anything you can think of. But saying “bloggers” when what you really mean is Perez Hilton, Pink Is The New Blog, and Gawker is like simply saying “television” to refer to cable news channels.
I hear these lines, as if rehearsed, again and again from mainstream media folks and I just have to wonder what planet they’re on.
Mainstream media, are you willing to actually LISTEN and become worthy of the adjectives you say bloggers don’t deserve but you do?
So, media folk, show us your stuff. Spend more time on our needs and wishes in the media- portray us honestly and not just sensationally, take us seriously when we speak, and we’ll be much more willing to talk to you.
(link)
In growing numbers, there are sex workers and allies of sex workers who have a critical and political take on how our bodies and our labor are legislated. Not to mention, we are well aware of and constantly struggling with the ways our stories and our work are grossly exploited by the mainstream media in an attempt to get a juicy story. You want to talk about exploitation of women, media? Look at your own goddamn questions, the exposure you ask us to engage in, the personal questions you want us to answer. Look at the sexy container you put us in, all sultry bad girl secret story, no room for brains with the boobs. We don’t want to tell you our naughty secrets. What’s in it for us? You won’t give us the space and air time to talk about issues that matter to us, we won’t give you the dirt.
Sex workers aren’t represented in the media because the media does not create space for us to talk intelligently about the issues that face us. Like I said in my post last night, we are being cast into roles, roles that are nearly impossible to break. We’re afraid of being abused and manhandled by a media that has no interest in our well being, only in our cunts and the details of how we got to be so bad.
Mainstream media, if you’re so concerned about the exploitation of sex workers - stop perpetuating the exploitation with your own tools.
(link)
Via thoughts of an erotic laborer:
A third assumption made in the media that I find especially troubling is the unchallenged double standard between prosecuting prostitutes, and letting clients walk. So on the one hand, they are saying that Spitzer did something beyond the pale of morality, that calls into question his ability to be part of a family unit, and on the other they are saying that what he did generally doesn’t even merit prosecution. No big deal. Unless you happen to be a prostitute, in which case you deserve to go to jail.
Being Amber Rhea is somewhat incredulously powered by WordPress
READ ME: Disclaimer