While I do have respect for Diane Sawyer (think how many times she must put up with ignorant, uninformed, and outright sexist comments & questions about women in media), and I DID NOT see the broadcast, it seems the basic premise of Gracie & Rose's blog is true: "The stigma of sex, especially as it is in this country, clouds the thinking of most people; we just didn't expect the clouds to render Diane Sawyer free of her journalistic integrity; indeed, of any rational thought."  As a sometime journalist myself, I do respect the profession.  I readily admit that often, due to deadlines, we go with our first inclination on a story.  Most people, I would fairly well assume, when asked "what is prostitution like?" would offer up the cliches of "abused, drug addicted, exploited...."  And the men (and women- hey it COULD happen) who frequent these providers remain disregarded, as if the customer doesn't have any place in the story.  How many of the customers are poor, drug addicted, abused themselves?  How many are NOT?  As a journalist I always ask myself the hard questions, try to think of the exceptions, not just the rule.  So it very well might be that most prostitutes ARE drug addicts, poor, abused, they are NOT the end of the story.  And, even if these women are fairly representative of the profession, so what?  The argument against legalizing their work is almost always along the lines of "oh those poor exploited women, we're protecting them"- from what? As if keeping their work illegal DOESN'T keep them exploited, abused, unhealthy? 

Now in a response to a Elizabeth's response to my response to Lisa's blog, I said that the one time I actually paid for physical sex was NOT pleasant and that I would hesitate to do it again, this, in no way, means I think the work should remain illegal.  I think it should be completely legal, taxed, regulated, and, in some cases, for some people, promoted!  I can see where, when, & why a professional sex worker, especially one unhinged from the illegality of the work, could be a positive endeavor for a person willing to pay for the service.  

I think Diane Sawyer missed a GREAT opportunity to look at women (and men) who ENJOY their work, do not fit the stereotypes, and then to use her analytical skills to ask about legalizing.  And, yes, she still could have reported on the poor, abused, drug addicted.  It's called "balance" and "objectivity" and digging for a unique angle on a oft-reported-on story.  Hell, think of all the money, human lives, and political bullshit that could have been saved if more American journalists asked the hard questions, looked at alternative sources, in the run up to Bush's OBVIOUSLY flawed decision to invade Iraq.  Shitty journalism equals shitty politics, period.