The Times Will Have to Read Sex Workers’ Rate Card More Carefully Next Time

stripper.jpg

Though Faith O’Donnell and Sally Anderson are pseudonyms for two of the three sex industry types profiled this month by the New York Times after the Eliot Spitzer sex scandal, the paper does want to set the record straight about ‘em: They are not “high-priced call girls,” as was reported; nor do they engage in “the 21st-century version of the oldest profession.” Correcting the March 16 piece, yesterday the Times noted that one of its reporters – they don’t say whether it’s either Cara Buckley or Andrew Jacobs – never asked the women, explicitly, whether they traded sex for cash. After the article ran, they reminded the paper the term “sex workers,” which they used, can refer to strippers, not just whores. The Times had just assumed they meant “prostitutes.”

Mar 31, 2008 · Link · 1 Response
Related Posts

• 05.12.08: (Comments: 0)
• 05.12.08: So You Should Expect to Read About Rupert Murdoch and Wendi Deng's Marital Woes in the Journal? (Comments: 0)
• 05.09.08: (Comments: 0)
• 05.09.08: The More Things Change, the More they Stay the Same (Comments: 1)
• 05.08.08: (Comments: 0)

Comments (1)

No. 1 This be the Blog says:

“they don’t say whether it’s either Cara Buckley or Andrew Jacobs”

Sure they do — the ed. note refers to the reporter as “he,” and Cara Buckley presumably isn’t a he. Also, the revised version of the article doesn’t carry Jacobs’ byline or any of the information about O’Donnell or Anderson. I wrote more about this at my own blog.

Posted: Mar 31, 2008 at 5:40 pm
Leave a Comment

It's easier to leave comments when you register for an account. It's quick.

Already have an account? Then log in!

Scroll Posts