Sex In The Public Square - CLOSED: Live-blog response to Melissa Farley, Bob Herbert and the Mainstream Media bias against sex work - Comments

Not really – just a much-needed response

Iamcuriousblue — Mon, 17 Sep 2007 18:41:12 -0700

The way I see it, the nature of Farley's research has a direct bearing on the issues. And if that research is going to be used to craft public policy and put laws into place that we're all supose to live by, then I think that in a democratic society, people have a right to quite ruthlessly question the nature of the claims that are being used to justify such policies and laws. Farley makes some sweeping claims as a result of her research, far more sweeping than most other researchers who done research on prostituion. The natural question then, is whether her research results are really as active as she claims they are. Especially given Farley's degree of access to the media and policymakers, which is far greater than other researchers have had.

A focus on the issues

Elizabeth — Sun, 16 Sep 2007 06:50:02 -0700

I think a focus on the issues is exactly what is being called for here.

For example, one issue is that the mainstream media very often relies on flawed research or very narrowly defined research questions to then make broad claims about an entire population. When that happens, it is important for critical voices to speak up.

Another issue in the case of sex work in particular is that there is a great deal of variation in working conditions, autonomy, risk, and so on across the "industry." To take the situation of some of the most vulnerable sex workers and then use their stories to support overreaching claims about how exploitive and dangerous "all prostitution" or even "all sex work" is, is irresponsible at best and conscious deception at worst.

It is true that Melissa Farley's work will certainly be directly criticized during the proposed blog-in. That is precisely because well respected journalists and columnists, like Bob Herbert, have relied heavily on it without revealing to their readers any of its weaknesses. Readers need to know as much about her research as possible if they're going to be using it to formulate or support their opinions.

So is this a smear campaign? It doesn't sound like one so far, and I'd bet given the intelligence of the people at Desiree Alliance that it won't turn into one. It is a broadening of the discourse around sex work to include a range of voices and a critical perspective on the mainstream media and its sources.

Smear campaign?

CrampsHurt — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 20:06:40 -0700

Doesn't this sound like a plan for an online smear campaign? "Let's all get together and smear this person's reputation because we don't like what she says."

Can't we just focus on the issues and leave the smearing out of it?

CLOSED: Live-blog response to Melissa Farley, Bob Herbert and the Mainstream Media bias against sex work

Elizabeth — Sat, 15 Sep 2007 16:49:10 -0700

You know we've been challenging the Bob Herbert/Melissa Farley stories here, so I'm glad to be able to tell you about a "blog-in " over at Bound, Not Gagged where sex workers and their allies can respond to the mainstream media's reliance on distorted research on prostitution, its conflation of sex work and human trafficking, and it's reflexively anti-sex work bias. Thanks to Iamcuriousblue, of the Blog for Pro-porn Activism, who let us know about this in the comments on my Bob Herbert post.

Call to Action!!! ***Please circulate widely***

Who: Desiree Alliance and Friends

What: Live-blog response to Farley

When: September 17, 2007 Beginning at 3pm PST 6pm EST and going all night

Where: http://www.BoundNotGagged.com