Different kinds of blogs

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.

Wired column is up!

I arrived here in Boston (for WAM!2008) a few hours ago, and am chilling in the hotel room, trying to catch up on email, and waiting for Dacia to arrive. I’ll try to do as much blogging as possible this weekend - I still need to blog about last night’s APC panel, although you can already see some of my commentary in my tweets - but for now, I just want to link to Regina Lynn’s latest Sex Drive column in Wired. She interviewed me, Dacia, and Melissa. Here’s an excerpt:

“Lots of people were at South by Southwest [when the Spitzer story broke] and didn’t have time to check e-mail every five minutes,” says Amber Rhea, organizer of the upcoming Sex 2.0 conference in Atlanta. “It didn’t matter. They used Twitter, text messaging — they did interviews with hardly any advance notice.”

Rhea says that for the first time, there’s a critical mass of people putting forth a concerted effort to make sure the media can’t ignore sex workers. Building on a foundation built by former sex workers of the past 30 or so years, many of whom went public with books, articles and speaking engagements after they retired, modern sex workers have the message — and the means to get it out.

Mobile connectivity makes it possible to channel the collective wisdom of a broad, geographically diverse group directly to a smaller number of public faces, almost instantly. Sex workers across the country could share their thoughts on the subject without outing themselves, while those who could put their real names and faces forward in the media could speak with a strong peer-support network.

Be sure to read the whole thing!

Exploitation

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.

links for 2008-03-15

“High class”

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.

Eliot Spitzer Scandal Highlights That Current Policies Around Sex Work and Trafficking Are Not Effective

STATEMENT For Immediate Release:

Contact: Sapna Patel, SWP, 646/602.5626, spatel@urbanjustice.org

Friday, March 14, 2008

Juhu Thukral, SWP, 646/602.5690, jthukral@urbanjustice.org

ELIOT SPITZER SCANDAL HIGHLIGHTS THAT CURRENT POLICIES AROUND SEX WORK AND TRAFFICKING ARE NOT EFFECTIVE

(New York City, March 14, 2008) - Eliot Spitzer resigned from his position as Governor of New York after being implicated in a prostitution scandal. The irony is that Mr. Spitzer’s office helped pass Anti-Trafficking Legislation in New York and specifically pushed through controversial provisions that we opposed, one enhancing penalties for clients of all prostitutes, and another that made trafficking into all sectors other than prostitution a lesser crime. As advocates for the protection, safety and human rights of sex workers and trafficked persons, we are not interested in Eliot Spitzer’s personal life. However, his resignation provides an opportunity to reflect on the counterproductive and moralistic policies that he supported as Governor.

To focus solely on the salacious scandal created by Mr. Spitzer’s alleged actions without attention to the realities and needs of sex workers does nothing to provide solutions for sex workers. Sex workers are individuals whose reasons for engaging in sex work - and leaving it - are personal, economic and social - as complex as anyone’s reasons for involvement in any type of work. The current scandal brings to light the variety of sex work people engage in and the reality that, although many may find themselves in the industry due to lack of economic opportunity, not all are forced or coerced.

The inaccurate conflation of prostitution and trafficking encourage policy makers to create laws that in reality provide no real solutions for safety and protection for sex workers or that comprehensively address the issue of human trafficking. Mr. Spitzer’s alleged involvement in this scandal further evidences that “end demand” policies that emphasize criminal punishment of the clients and shaming simply do not work. As seen in this situation, seemingly no efforts have been made to address the needs of the sex worker involved in this scandal. A narrow focus on demand in the context of sex work represents a dangerous move toward policies which, under the guise of protecting sex workers, is another way of undermining sex workers’ independence and causing more harm to them. Enhancing penalties for clients of sex workers will not “eliminate the demand” and end trafficking but instead makes sex workers more afraid, more stigmatized and less safe. The fact that someone with as much to lose as Eliot Spitzer would still visit sex workers speaks volumes about the efficacy of such strategies.

Sex workers’ voices are largely absent from discussions of the policies that affect them. Laws and regulations on sex workers’ health and safety are generally made without their input and often overlook or even deny their human rights. It is ironic that sex workers’ human rights are often jeopardized by the very policies intended to help them. Policies based on the assumption that sex work is inherently dehumanizing can never recognize or improve the reality of sex workers’ lives.

Policymakers must revisit perceptions and policies towards sex work in the U.S. and instead of narrowly focusing on ineffective criminal justice strategies to protect sex workers and eliminate trafficking, they must redirect resources to social services that provide real solutions, realistic economic opportunities, and protections against violence and exploitation. Addressing basic human needs for education, equal opportunity and a realistic array of economic options would help to ensure that no one who enters sex work does so because of trickery or coercion.

The Sex Workers Project at the Urban Justice Center provides legal services, legal training, documentation, and policy advocacy for sex workers in New York City. For more information, please visit our website at: http://www.sexworkersproject.org

###

(Via $pread blog.)

links for 2008-03-14

Continued awesomeness

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.

Check it out.

Interestingly (or not), a lot of regular “media critic” sites have been deafeningly silent on this whole thing.

links for 2008-03-13

Quote of the day (or at least the morning)

From Kerry Howley, senior editor at Reason magazine:

Everyone seems to assume that legalizing sex work will reinforce all sorts of ugly cultural phenomena women struggle against all the time. Writes one commenter at Feministing, “I’m politically liberal, openly feminist, and opposed to sex work precisely” because of “patriarchy” and “heterosexuality issues.”

I find this incoherent precisely because I share all the poster’s intuitions about problematic cultural norms. Of course sexism restricts autonomy in all sorts of ways that deserve consideration when discussing the prevalence of prostitution or the choice to enter sex work. Of course it’s deplorable that sexually adventurous young women are constantly told they are “degrading themselves” by seeking out various experiences, that every bit of enjoyment eats away at some secret store of purity. This whole tradition-the idea that women need be preserved in glass so as not to “ruin” themselves, lest they diminish their sexual value by “giving it away”-restricts the lived autonomy of women in ways I can’t even begin to articulate. None of the slut-shaming makes sense unless you assume women live to give themselves to men in their purest possible form.

If you find all of these cultural pathologies unfortunate, what is the public policy you should prefer? It seems to me that it is not the policy that deems it a crime against the American people to open your legs. Anti-prostitution laws add a layer of legal sanction to all of our worst intuitions about the treatment of sexually independent women; they strengthen and validate the idea that women who bed men with any frequency are sick, marginal, pariahs.

I’m not surprised, but I’m still angry

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.”

links for 2008-03-12

Credibility, authenticity, ethical standards…

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)

Twitter updates for 2008-03-11

  • At home. Sore and bruised after a particularly strenuous pole class. I know I’ll be feeling it tomorrow. #
  • @griftdrift & @sarawara - I had gifts for you but Rusty accidentally threw them in the trash. So, here’s the thought instead. #
  • So apparently a fellow blogger doesn’t think I should be a stripper, because I’m smart. Ha! #
  • Mainstream media, you are so goddamn predictable. http://urltea.com/2wel (Oh wait, I thought *bloggers* were irresponsible…) #
  • Got an email asking to be on a radio show to talk about "sex and the internet." Gotta find out what this show actually is, first. #
  • @ejflavors - Just be advised, some ppl there will probably make fun of you for being from the South. They did to us, anyway. #
  • Ppl in NYC area, listen to @audaciaray on the WNYC Brian Lehrer show @ 11:40 EST! (@audaciaray: Good luck!!) #
  • @sarawara - You could’ve just gone to Rite-Aid! http://urltea.com/2wjb #
  • It’s stupid that there are already 2009 model year cars #
  • Listen to @audaciaray on the Brian Lehrer show http://www.wnyc.org/shows/bl/episodes/2008/03/11 #
  • Dammit, I can’t listen to the Brian Lehrer show bc my headphone jack is messed up. Gotta put in a Desktop Services request. :P #
  • If you want *good* coverage of the Spitzer thing, you should follow the coverage on boundnotgagged.com #
  • Who the fuck are these Associated Content ppl and why do they keep sending me unsolicited press releases w/ no unsubscribe option? #
  • @audaciaray - Kudos to you for handling this media onslaught so well. #
  • @griftdrift - You’ve got the accent for it #
  • NY sex worker organizations respond to Spitzer scandal: http://urltea.com/2wn9 #
  • Thinking of not volunteering at WAM after all. They have a huge waiting list, and surely I can afford the $165 registration. #
  • At 6pm we’re going to a city of decatur focus group on affordable housing #

Powered by Twitter Tools.

WHAT ABOUT KRISTEN? New York Sex Worker Organizations Respond to Spitzer Scandal

Via Bound, Not Gagged. Please feel free to repost.

####

FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE

Contacts
Shakti Ziller, Sex Workers Action New York (SWANK), swank@riseup.net 877-776-2004 x 2
Audacia Ray, 718.554.1714
Sarah Bleviss, Sex Workers Outreach Project NYC (SWOP-NYC), swop.nyc@gmail.com
Prostitutes of New York (PONY), pony@panix.com
Desiree Alliance, http://www.desireealliance.org/

WHAT ABOUT KRISTEN? New York Sex Worker Organizations Respond to Spitzer Scandal

New York, NY - In the last few days, G