PDA

View Full Version : Way to not treat someone like a human, news.



ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:03 AM
I don't know if this news story has been posted and I don't care, because this is personal.
Somebody I know in the pro-domme biz, Jade, needs a prayer sent out to her. She does not know me very well, but she was super nice to me before a fashion show I was in (she was in the following fashion show for another line) and she has always been a really cool customer. One of her obsessive clients (also a customer at Passional, where I work) found her and her boyfriend together. He gunned him down and kidnapped Jade, taking her to his parents house. After a several hour standoff he killed himself. This is enough of a mess in itself, but the new york post and several other news agencies decided that it would be cool to not treat her like a human being, drag her name through the mud, USE HER REAL NAME IN NEWS STORIES, and just focus on "yeah this murder happened but SHE'S A DOMINATRIX". I am fucking livid at the media. Nobody deserves this treatment after seeing two people die, one being a loved one. Especially at the hands of a maniac like the dude who did it. I never liked him and I hope he's burning in his next life, that sonofabitch. Instead of letting her grieve, the media just keep tormenting her. Not to mention they twist things like saying "She's a former phd student" noo...she's still going for a phd. She's a smart woman, an awesome woman and if anything makes me want to work harder to fight for equal rights of queer sexuality, it is this.
Just think, would they do this if it were a government official? A kid down the block from you? S&M is not a goddamn crime. Please tell me it is and I will show you every man who gets turned on when he sees girls fight, when you realize slave leia was way more sexy because she was on a chain, when a guy just wants to "smack that ass"....
This is how the media treats humans.
http://www.nypost.com/photos/galleries/news/regionalnews/pp_20081204_jade_vixen/photo01.htm
http://abcnews.go.com/TheLaw/story?id=6395934
Send a prayer out to her and her family. Jade is a wonderful lady.
Please for the love of god in any further comments or discussion, do not use her real name.

LenNWallace
12-21-2008, 08:15 AM
Long live strange sex acts. We all know half the readers of the New York Post are most likely into putting yogurt up their ass and a Popsicle stick in their mouth to get off, anyway. Media retardation is sad, old news.

RebootedCorpse
12-21-2008, 08:16 AM
Hmmm. Sounds to me like she was pretty out front about her Domme stuff.
I'm really not seeing what the Post did wrong here other than their usual insensitive sensationalist treatment of tragedy.

EdNEMO
12-21-2008, 08:18 AM
That is pretty shitty. Sensationalist news BS. How is Jade making it?

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:19 AM
Yeah the usual insensitive treatment of tragedy just got particularly striking for me when it was someone I knew. Also, despite her being out front about her lifestyle, they really didn't have to make an article about the worst thing that ever happened to her a goddamn picture book.

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:19 AM
That is pretty shitty. Sensationalist news BS. How is Jade making it?

Not good. Trying to make a transition. She is almost certainly going to have to transfer schools after this.

LenNWallace
12-21-2008, 08:22 AM
Yeah the usual insensitive treatment of tragedy just got particularly striking for me when it was someone I knew. Also, despite her being out front about her lifestyle, they really didn't have to make an article about the worst thing that ever happened to her a goddamn picture book.
Well, she's hot... Any excuse to show boobs would sell more papers.

that bastard
12-21-2008, 08:27 AM
The New York Post is a rag, anyway. Worthless, sensationalist crap made for lining bird cages.

Unfortunately, though, when you choose that kind of line of work, you run into those kinds of people. That's awful.

RebootedCorpse
12-21-2008, 08:29 AM
Yeah the usual insensitive treatment of tragedy just got particularly striking for me when it was someone I knew. Also, despite her being out front about her lifestyle, they really didn't have to make an article about the worst thing that ever happened to her a goddamn picture book.

The Post really is an embarassment.

TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM
12-21-2008, 08:31 AM
That's ridiculous. Is the New York Post a trash mag? They start out the article saying that the boyfriend's "secret" got him killed...? Then they go on to say that they partied together at fetish parties, sometimes with him wearing lipstick, a garter belt, stockings and high heels and that there were photos of him posted on the web. They also got a quote from a neighbor saying they made no secret of the fetish stuff.

RickLM
12-21-2008, 08:32 AM
No doubt this will be a Law & Order episode, starring Tia Carrere.

Foolish Mortal
12-21-2008, 08:32 AM
I think a lot of news organizations forget that these are real people they're talking about and not fictionalized characters.

lonesomefool
12-21-2008, 08:34 AM
I'm sorry about your friend and this whole situation and the New York Post does suck, but I also dont see the big deal about using her real name. I agree it isnt very sensitive, but I can see where they are coming from cause, for better or for worse, a story about someone getting kidnapped/murder/suicide isnt as interesting in our desensitized culture unless it has something "juicy" or "anti-mainstream" like S&M.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 08:35 AM
Just think, would they do this if it were a government official? A kid down the block from you?

Are you kidding here?

Of course they would.

Because it's part of the story.

lonesomefool
12-21-2008, 08:35 AM
I think a lot of news organizations forget that these are real people they're talking about and not fictionalized characters.

Eh, we all guilty of that though on some scale. I mean think of the way sports fans call for coaches and players to lose their living on a weekly basis or how people treat some politicians.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 08:37 AM
I think a lot of news organizations forget that these are real people they're talking about and not fictionalized characters.

I'm still not really sure what they did to this woman that is so horrifying.

If she's not ashamed of her lifestyle, then there's no problem.

Thudpucker
12-21-2008, 08:38 AM
What's wrong with using her real name in news stories? Don't reporters always use victums real names when reporting on something like a murder?

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:38 AM
I'm sorry about your friend and this whole situation and the New York Post does suck, but I also dont see the big deal about using her real name. I agree it isnt very sensitive, but I can see where they are coming from cause, for better or for worse, a story about someone getting kidnapped/murder/suicide isnt as interesting in our desensitized culture unless it has something "juicy" or "anti-mainstream" like S&M.

the using her real name thing will be a problem for her when she tries to get a job, also she wasn't out to some members of her family. Most jobs do background searches on google and the like now and her real name had not been connected with any of her fetish photography work until now. It's going to really hurt her. And even if those consequences weren't there (and even if they found out anyway, it could have happened), was it necessary? They did not have to use her real name and she certainly didn't give it to them.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 08:39 AM
Fuck the New York Post.
They can eat my taint.
If I ever met any asshole who worked there, I'd slap them around with my AP stylebook.

Worst fucking journalists ever. I'm horrified by the idea that thos pricks might one day be my comtemporaries.

I do think it's the responsibility of the media to inform the public about what's going on.
I don't think they should have used the photos though. I fail to see any of the four ethical principles in any of them.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 08:40 AM
the using her real name thing will be a problem for her when she tries to get a job, also she wasn't out to some members of her family. Most jobs do background searches on google and the like now and her real name had not been connected with any of her fetish photography work until now. It's going to really hurt her. And even if those consequences weren't there (and even if they found out anyway, it could have happened), was it necessary? They did not have to use her real name and she certainly didn't give it to them.

And that's her fault.

An employer could have discovered this through many other ways.

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:43 AM
I'm still not really sure what they did to this woman that is so horrifying.

If she's not ashamed of her lifestyle, then there's no problem.

It's not the lifestyle getting outed that's a major issue with me, I understand that that could have happened anyway. It's just a matter of choice on the news teams part. They didn't have to do that. It's the sensationalizing of what happened. Of how they take focus away from this murder and go "yeah, her loved one was murdered but look at this weird thing she does!". It's just really unnecessary. Who posts sexy pictures of trauma victims? How messed up would you feel if your wife got murdered by an ex of yours and they posted sexy pictures of you and your ex together? They didn't have to do that. It's not even right or wrong, it's just mean.

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 08:44 AM
And that's her fault.

An employer could have discovered this through many other ways.

true, I pointed out before in the statement after the one you highlighted that it totally could have happened anyway.
But they didn't need to do that. They didn't need to make it easier.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 08:47 AM
true, I pointed out before in the statement after the one you highlighted that it totally could have happened anyway.
But they didn't need to do that. They didn't need to make it easier.

They had zero reason not to.

This woman chose to do what she did. If she didn't want people to know she did it, she shouldn't have done it.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 08:48 AM
true, I pointed out before in the statement after the one you highlighted that it totally could have happened anyway.
But they didn't need to do that. They didn't need to make it easier.

I'm perfectly fine with them using her name, but it should have been her professional name. I can see using her real name though, in order to be more truthful, but the nut graf and lede of that story are completely sensationalized. But they did endorse John McTaint, so what do you expect.

ShortStack
12-21-2008, 09:02 AM
They had zero reason not to.

This woman chose to do what she did. If she didn't want people to know she did it, she shouldn't have done it.

Jade never did anything wrong. Ever. I'm speaking mostly from a point of compassion. Did the news organizations have every right to do what they did? Of course they did. They have the right to look down on consensual S&M as something weird and sensational and distort it. If someone does something, that they don't want to be extremely publicly known, then they can go ahead and make it extremely publicly known. That's essentially their job.
But that doesn't change the fact that they hurt a lot of people. Whether or not we have the 'right' to feel hurt can be up for debate, but what they did feels wrong to me. I can't change how I feel about this, nor can I argue it. It can be dissected in logical debate, but you know, it's not going to change the amount of grief she and everyone around her are feeling right now, and while the news may not be doing anything wrong they certainly aren't helping anything get better.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 09:08 AM
Jade never did anything wrong. Ever. I'm speaking mostly from a point of compassion. Did the news organizations have every right to do what they did? Of course they did. They have the right to look down on consensual S&M as something weird and sensational and distort it. If someone does something, that they don't want to be extremely publicly known, then they can go ahead and make it extremely publicly known. That's essentially their job.
But that doesn't change the fact that they hurt a lot of people. Whether or not we have the 'right' to feel hurt can be up for debate, but what they did feels wrong to me. I can't change how I feel about this, nor can I argue it. It can be dissected in logical debate, but you know, it's not going to change the amount of grief she and everyone around her are feeling right now, and while the news may not be doing anything wrong they certainly aren't helping anything get better.

The Post is really shitty.
Journalists are supposed to take a neutral stance, not make judgement values. That's what the editorial page is for. Journalists are supposed to just report the news. The nut graf of the story is that a jealous man murdered one man and kidnapped a woman before taking his own life. They all happen to be connected because of a shared interest. No need to use those pictures. It doesn't serve the public good, no utilitarian principle behind them, not showing the effects of this, and it doesn't give emotional resonance to the story.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 09:18 AM
Jade never did anything wrong. Ever. I'm speaking mostly from a point of compassion. Did the news organizations have every right to do what they did? Of course they did. They have the right to look down on consensual S&M as something weird and sensational and distort it. If someone does something, that they don't want to be extremely publicly known, then they can go ahead and make it extremely publicly known. That's essentially their job.
But that doesn't change the fact that they hurt a lot of people. Whether or not we have the 'right' to feel hurt can be up for debate, but what they did feels wrong to me. I can't change how I feel about this, nor can I argue it. It can be dissected in logical debate, but you know, it's not going to change the amount of grief she and everyone around her are feeling right now, and while the news may not be doing anything wrong they certainly aren't helping anything get better.

Where did they do that?

lonesomefool
12-21-2008, 09:36 AM
the using her real name thing will be a problem for her when she tries to get a job, also she wasn't out to some members of her family. Most jobs do background searches on google and the like now and her real name had not been connected with any of her fetish photography work until now. It's going to really hurt her. And even if those consequences weren't there (and even if they found out anyway, it could have happened), was it necessary? They did not have to use her real name and she certainly didn't give it to them.

It sucks for her, I agree, but I think the bigger issue was her willing to pose for photographs that could easily turn up on the net. It's one thing to be involved in the scene and try to keep your nose down to ground and try to keep it somewhat of a secret, it's another to be going around and posing for pictures.

I dont know, I just find this to be a sad, but interesting issue, if only because I see a shit load of college kids my age posting filthy pictures on Myspace and Facebook and have always thought it was stupid of them to do so for the job search reason alone. That's why I am so conservative on sites like that in terms of the conversations and things I have on there. Just being smart.

lonesomefool
12-21-2008, 09:38 AM
Where did they do that?

I think the line about one of the guys wearing lipstick and being led around the room in a garter belt and stockings, while not obvious, is tossed in there with the intent of making fun of the S&M world at least a little bit.

Mark4myself
12-21-2008, 10:19 AM
This is wrong in so many ways and I'm shocked a few people don't feel the same way. The story is NOT that she is a dominatrix. The story is that a deranged man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her before ending his life. That is a pretty sensational story on its own. Printing her real name in my opinion is akin to printing the full name of a rape victim. The media is supposed to use discretion when it comes to victims. They have an obligation to protect the victims since they are precisely that, victims. Anyone who does not understand that needs to take a course in Journalism 101.

Instead of reporting the news they have created their own story. This breaks the journalistic creed that they report the news, not make it. The story is the abduction and murder/suicide. Her profession is not the main thrust of the story. But with newsprint media on its dying legs I guess the Post is not above destroying someone's life in order to raise circulation. This is journalism from the gutters and an affront to anyone that likes to call themselves journalists. They have added to the victimization of this woman.

My heart goes out to her. If anyone on here were the victim of such a crime, the fact you may swing on the weekends, may have experimented in college, smoke pot on your free time, etc. is not relevant. The only part of her lifestyle that relates to the case is that she met him through her line of work. That does not necessitate releasing her real name and sensationalizing her lifestyle over the tragedy that just happened to throw her life into freefall just in time for the holidays. Is the story that she was a dominatrix or that a sick fuck of a human being killed someone she loved, held her captive, before ending his own life? Hasn't she endured enough on that alone without you deciding you are mightier than thou and are free to rummage through the remnants of her shattered life. We all have skeletons in our closets and in a time of tragedy the last thing we need is for every single one of them to be shouted from every street corner for all to hear. So before you say "Right on" sit back and consider how you'd feel if you were in her position. I doubt many of you would be so supportive of their need to sensationalize her life to sell a few more papers.

RebootedCorpse
12-21-2008, 10:26 AM
This is wrong in so many ways and I'm shocked a few people don't feel the same way. The story is NOT that she is a dominatrix. The story is that a deranged man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her before ending his life. That is a pretty sensational story on its own. Printing her real name in my opinion is akin to printing the full name of a rape victim. The media is supposed to use discretion when it comes to victims. They have an obligation to protect the victims since they are precisely that, victims. Anyone who does not understand that needs to take a course in Journalism 101.

Instead of reporting the news they have created their own story. This breaks the journalistic creed that they report the news, not make it. The story is the abduction and murder/suicide. Her profession is not the main thrust of the story. But with newsprint media on its dying legs I guess the Post is not above destroying someone's life in order to raise circulation. This is journalism from the gutters and an affront to anyone that likes to call themselves journalists. They have added to the victimization of this woman.

My heart goes out to her. If anyone on here were the victim of such a crime, the fact you may swing on the weekends, may have experimented in college, smoke pot on your free time, etc. is not relevant. The only part of her lifestyle that relates to the case is that she met him through her line of work. That does not necessitate releasing her real name and sensationalizing her lifestyle over the tragedy that just happened to throw her life into freefall just in time for the holidays. Is the story that she was a dominatrix or that a sick fuck of a human being killed someone she loved, held her captive, before ending his own life? Hasn't she endured enough on that alone without you deciding you are mightier than thou and are free to rummage through the remnants of her shattered life. We all have skeletons in our closets and in a time of tragedy the last thing we need is for every single one of them to be shouted from every street corner for all to hear. So before you say "Right on" sit back and consider how you'd feel if you were in her position. I doubt many of you would be so supportive of their need to sensationalize her life to sell a few more papers.

Rape victims and children are the exception. Crime victims are ALWAYS named.
This woman was not a rape victim and she talked on the record extensively about the ordeal.
There's zero reason not to name her.
Yeah, the story is bullshit sensationalism, but the problems are not with the names being used.

Albert
12-21-2008, 10:26 AM
Fuck the New York Post.
They can eat my taint.
If I ever met any asshole who worked there, I'd slap them around with my AP stylebook.

Worst fucking journalists ever. I'm horrified by the idea that thos pricks might one day be my comtemporaries.

I do think it's the responsibility of the media to inform the public about what's going on.
I don't think they should have used the photos though. I fail to see any of the four ethical principles in any of them.


I'm perfectly fine with them using her name, but it should have been her professional name. I can see using her real name though, in order to be more truthful, but the nut graf and lede of that story are completely sensationalized. But they did endorse John McTaint, so what do you expect.


The Post is really shitty.
Journalists are supposed to take a neutral stance, not make judgement values. That's what the editorial page is for. Journalists are supposed to just report the news. The nut graf of the story is that a jealous man murdered one man and kidnapped a woman before taking his own life. They all happen to be connected because of a shared interest. No need to use those pictures. It doesn't serve the public good, no utilitarian principle behind them, not showing the effects of this, and it doesn't give emotional resonance to the story.

Sounds like someone's in J-school!

Ryudo
12-21-2008, 10:30 AM
There's nothing wrong with the ABC story.

Mark4myself
12-21-2008, 10:52 AM
Rape victims and children are the exception. Crime victims are ALWAYS named.
This woman was not a rape victim and she talked on the record extensively about the ordeal.
There's zero reason not to name her.
Yeah, the story is bullshit sensationalism, but the problems are not with the names being used.

I can rationalize the name being used as long as the sensationalizing of her lifestyle is not done. That is where the problem falls into things with me. A mention that she is a dominatrix and that is what possibly led to this occurring is one thing, but what they did is make the story about her lifestyle and trumpeted her name for all to hear. The problem is not in publishing her name as the victim but in victimizing her on top of that. If you are going to devolve to that then at least show you have something left to your soul and use her professional name and not her real name. That is all I meant by that. They have every right to use her name but I personally feel they overstepped the bounds of common decency in making the story about her lifestyle rather than the sick fuck who traumatized her. In doing that they could have just as easily used her professional name if it was her profession they were more interested in.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 10:55 AM
I can rationalize the name being used as long as the sensationalizing of her lifestyle is not done. That is where the problem falls into things with me. A mention that she is a dominatrix and that is what possibly led to this occurring is one thing, but what they did is make the story about her lifestyle and trumpeted her name for all to hear. The problem is not in publishing her name as the victim but in victimizing her on top of that. If you are going to devolve to that then at least show you have something left to your soul and use her professional name and not her real name. That is all I meant by that. They have every right to use her name but I personally feel they overstepped the bounds of common decency in making the story about her lifestyle rather than the sick fuck who traumatized her. In doing that they could have just as easily used her professional name if it was her profession they were more interested in.

The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

Marcdachamp
12-21-2008, 11:01 AM
Ugh. That's really terrible.

She's gorgeous, by the way.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 11:04 AM
Sounds like someone's in J-school!

Yes I am actually.
Indiana University.
You write for a newspaper, right? What school did you go to?

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 11:07 AM
The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

Perhaps he meant that she was literally a victim of crime, rather than being a victim from her association with S&M.

I think we can agree that the ABC story isn't the sensationalized, it's fairly balanced if bland,run-of-the-mill, reporting.

TRILL, THE CARBON BASED LIFEFORM
12-21-2008, 11:08 AM
The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.
We all do things we're not ashamed of, but don't want everyone to know about. Maybe you're a compulsive sharer, I don't know, but be human.

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 11:09 AM
Perhaps he meant that she was literally a victim of crime, rather than being a victim from her association with S&M.

I think we can agree that the ABC story isn't the sensationalized, it's fairly balanced if bland,run-of-the-mill, reporting.

But if that's the case, the coverage does nothing to change that.

That crime happened whether anybody knew about it or not.

Joe Kalicki
12-21-2008, 11:13 AM
Ultimately, her profession is directly responsible for the crime.

It's how she met the murderer, for one, and it's a definately the type of job that would make someone so inclined feel a connection to you that you don't feel for them.

Sex and emotions are all tied together, and if sex is your career than you have to be careful of the emotions attached.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 11:29 AM
But if that's the case, the coverage does nothing to change that.

That crime happened whether anybody knew about it or not.

It's probably because I hate the Post, but their coverage seems to miss the point completely and seems to focus on the wrong thing. Her being a dominatrix is an important fact of the story, but it's not the main one.

The fact that she is a dominatrix and her relationship with the others in the story is relevant and should be in the nut graf.

All the other stuff should be near the end of the story, something these fucktards at the Post might grasp if they had paid attention in Writing, Reporting And Editing when the inverted pyramid style was discussed.

Mark4myself
12-21-2008, 11:33 AM
The coverage only makes her a victim if you assume that being associated with S&M is an inherently negative thing.

If that's the case, then you're the one judging this woman. You're the one making her a victim.

Personally I could care less what she does with her free time. If she's into S&M, more power to her. The last thing I would do is judge anyone else.

I don't know why but when she's referred to as "Victim's Whip-Mistress Girlfriend" I sense the New York Post is not applauding her after hours choices.

In summation this is what the New York Post "reported"
She is a moonlighting dominatrix who "gasp" went to not just fetish clubs but rather (keyword) KINKY fetish clubs where Ottaviano (oh he's the killer but that's not really important) would be led around sometimes possibly wearing makeup, garters, stockings, and high heels. Can you even imagine? And this "white shoe" lawyer (I think his name is Kreig or something like that) had a (shhh) secret leather-loving lifestyle which ended up leading to his downfall. Ahhh...isn't that always the case. Oh and because its absolutely pertinent to really understanding the story of what happened we should point out that she specializes in tickling, nipply play, and sissy slut training for hours. We only add that to clarify why this man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her. No other reason. It's because we respect her life choices and in no way mean to dehumanize the victim here. She also is a college drop out who boasts about her extensive fetish wardrobe. She just could not stop talking about that when we talked to her about this tragedy. Just corets this and stockings that. And of course this would not be a true journalistic piece without her measurements which are 32D-22-32 all on a 5'4" frame. Her clients for her "services" included all kinds such as men, women, and even transgender people. WOWWEE! And this would not be New York Post if we didn't delve even deeper and discover that while she is okay with But even though she's OK with a laundry list of kinky activities like forced feminization, medical play and genital torture there are some things that even she won't do. Age play, nudity, face-sitting, "intimate activity of any sort" and anything that hurts animals are definite no-no's in her book.

But surely I"M the one guilty of passing judgement on her since the New York Post showed such professionalism and did not go out of its way to list her measurements and likes/dislikes and kinks/fetishes while reporting on why a madman killed her boyfriend and held her captive before ending his own life. My bad!

Fake Pat
12-21-2008, 11:37 AM
Personally I could care less what she does with her free time. If she's into S&M, more power to her. The last thing I would do is judge anyone else.

I don't know why but when she's referred to as "Victim's Whip-Mistress Girlfriend" I sense the New York Post is not applauding her after hours choices.

In summation this is what the New York Post "reported"
She is a moonlighting dominatrix who "gasp" went to not just fetish clubs but rather (keyword) KINKY fetish clubs where Ottaviano (oh he's the killer but that's not really important) would be led around sometimes possibly wearing makeup, garters, stockings, and high heels. Can you even imagine? And this "white shoe" lawyer (I think his name is Kreig or something like that) had a (shhh) secret leather-loving lifestyle which ended up leading to his downfall. Ahhh...isn't that always the case. Oh and because its absolutely pertinent to really understanding the story of what happened we should point out that she specializes in tickling, nipply play, and sissy slut training for hours. We only add that to clarify why this man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her. No other reason. It's because we respect her life choices and in no way mean to dehumanize the victim here. She also is a college drop out who boasts about her extensive fetish wardrobe. She just could not stop talking about that when we talked to her about this tragedy. Just corets this and stockings that. And of course this would not be a true journalistic piece without her measurements which are 32D-22-32 all on a 5'4" frame. Her clients for her "services" included all kinds such as men, women, and even transgender people. WOWWEE! And this would not be New York Post if we didn't delve even deeper and discover that while she is okay with But even though she's OK with a laundry list of kinky activities like forced feminization, medical play and genital torture there are some things that even she won't do. Age play, nudity, face-sitting, "intimate activity of any sort" and anything that hurts animals are definite no-no's in her book.

But surely I"M the one guilty of passing judgement on her since the New York Post showed such professionalism and did not go out of its way to list her measurements and likes/dislikes and kinks/fetishes while reporting on why a madman killed her boyfriend and held her captive before ending his own life. My bad!

Unless the Post fabricated any of that, there is no reason to blame them for it.

This woman chose to put that information out there. Nobody can ever be blamed for telling the truth.

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 11:44 AM
Unless the Post fabricated any of that, there is no reason to blame them for it.

This woman chose to put that information out there. Nobody can ever be blamed for telling the truth.

I fault them for being shitty journalists.
I realize it's very hard not to show some bias, but they surely can't be that stupid to realize that some of the choices of adjective and adverbs have loaded meaning and don't give the piece the neutral slant a news article is supposed to have.

Mark4myself
12-21-2008, 12:13 PM
Unless the Post fabricated any of that, there is no reason to blame them for it.

This woman chose to put that information out there. Nobody can ever be blamed for telling the truth.

Really? So her measurements and the fact she is into nipple play are all pertinent to the story? That's funny I don't remember the news world reporting Princess Diana's measurements and the fact she was into roleplaying and spanking when she died. Then again maybe I just wasn't reading the New York Post on that day.

It's not whether its true or not, it's a question of relevance. The story is about a man who killed another, commited a kidnapping, and then killed himself. I fail to see where her cup size and wardrobe factors into the story. Oh that's right, because they don't.

Telling the truth does not make you in the right if you're telling a truth that doesn't need to be told. You don't tell Grandma she's a disgusting old hag even if its true because of something called common sense and common decency. Neither of them are to be found in the pages of the New York Post and apparently they mean absolutely nothing to you. "As long as she really is a D cup then I'm content with my copy of the New York Post". I hope no one you love or know ever finds themselves being exploited in the wake of tragedy like she is.

HeartlessNinny
12-21-2008, 12:21 PM
This is wrong in so many ways and I'm shocked a few people don't feel the same way. The story is NOT that she is a dominatrix. The story is that a deranged man murdered her boyfriend and abducted her before ending his life. That is a pretty sensational story on its own. Printing her real name in my opinion is akin to printing the full name of a rape victim. The media is supposed to use discretion when it comes to victims. They have an obligation to protect the victims since they are precisely that, victims. Anyone who does not understand that needs to take a course in Journalism 101.

Instead of reporting the news they have created their own story. This breaks the journalistic creed that they report the news, not make it. The story is the abduction and murder/suicide. Her profession is not the main thrust of the story. But with newsprint media on its dying legs I guess the Post is not above destroying someone's life in order to raise circulation. This is journalism from the gutters and an affront to anyone that likes to call themselves journalists. They have added to the victimization of this woman.

My heart goes out to her. If anyone on here were the victim of such a crime, the fact you may swing on the weekends, may have experimented in college, smoke pot on your free time, etc. is not relevant. The only part of her lifestyle that relates to the case is that she met him through her line of work. That does not necessitate releasing her real name and sensationalizing her lifestyle over the tragedy that just happened to throw her life into freefall just in time for the holidays. Is the story that she was a dominatrix or that a sick fuck of a human being killed someone she loved, held her captive, before ending his own life? Hasn't she endured enough on that alone without you deciding you are mightier than thou and are free to rummage through the remnants of her shattered life. We all have skeletons in our closets and in a time of tragedy the last thing we need is for every single one of them to be shouted from every street corner for all to hear. So before you say "Right on" sit back and consider how you'd feel if you were in her position. I doubt many of you would be so supportive of their need to sensationalize her life to sell a few more papers.

I agree with you here man. It's pretty shitty to fuck with someone's life, just for the sake of a story. And not even a good story at that... I feel bad for her too.

Ryan Elliott
12-21-2008, 01:47 PM
We all do things we're not ashamed of, but don't want everyone to know about. Maybe you're a compulsive sharer, I don't know, but be human.


This.

EdNEMO
12-21-2008, 06:06 PM
I worked in an S&M bar. It's not my thing, but honestly, the biggest difference between then and the girls that go to regular bars, is that the girls at the S&M bars know the people around them better.

When I bounced at the 80s bar, I had to constantly stop nice guys taking home the extremely drunk girl who wanted to go home with them. I had to find the girl's friends and make sure that someone was there to be responsible for them. At the S&M bar, everyone knew each other and if there was a stranger there, they weren't getting anywhere until they were WELL known.

I think it sucks that she got into this situation and because almost all journalism is based on shock factor. They know that all of the Ozzie and Harriet's out there are going to eat that news up. They don't care that they are painting a target on this girl's back.

When a guy that was in the local Richmond scene got arrested (and convicted) for killing a girl. The press came down to interview me and a bunch of others because it would shock all the straights. They wanted to interview me because I threw the guy out and banned him from the club due to him being abusive to his girlfriend. I of course refused. Others got interviewed though. And pretty soon the ex-girlfriend had a group of reporters on her front lawn. That'll make going to school and moving on with your life easier!

(akaRyanHoffman)
12-21-2008, 06:15 PM
That's ridiculous. Is the New York Post a trash mag? They start out the article saying that the boyfriend's "secret" got him killed...? Then they go on to say that they partied together at fetish parties, sometimes with him wearing lipstick, a garter belt, stockings and high heels and that there were photos of him posted on the web. They also got a quote from a neighbor saying they made no secret of the fetish stuff.

You know one that really gives it away as a trash mag? Instead of an article they give a slide show with captions.

Yek!

SgtPepper
12-21-2008, 06:22 PM
You know one that really gives it away as a trash mag? Instead of an article they give a slide show with captions.

Yek!

They also can't caption the slides properly. I'm a barely functioning, semi-moronic, sophomore in college, yet I can label a slide better than them. I mean it's not that hard, especially if they used soundslides or something similar.

Christian Beranek
12-21-2008, 06:28 PM
Yeah the usual insensitive treatment of tragedy just got particularly striking for me when it was someone I knew. Also, despite her being out front about her lifestyle, they really didn't have to make an article about the worst thing that ever happened to her a goddamn picture book.

This is bullshit, Hannah, but that's how the media is. They stay in business by profiting off the suffering of others, taking any sensationalistic element they can find and magnifying it.

I hope your friend can recover from this.

Let me know if you need to talk.