The Child Porn Journalism Scandal

Just when you thought it was safe to leave the Prude-Freak Sex Panics alone for a moment, it's time to take a thorough look at some pre-election reporting by The New York Times' Kurt Eichenwald.

In Bed with Susie Bright 266: The Child Porn Journalism Scandal

Audio Sample Here.

You may remember from my story on the The CamWhore Chronicles (Episode #233), that I found much of Eichenwald's reporting about child pornography to be insincere and tabloidish.

Whenever I see his byline on a story, I get chills about the First Amendment, not child molestation. I have a hard time understanding how a journalist could put his own calling into so much peril, or how he can characterize young people in trouble with such  pulpy, titillating prose. The guy needs to spend a year doing grunt work at the local feminist battered women and children's shelter... something to sensitize him, for chrissakes!

Kurt's recent story— Child Sex Sites on the Run raised even more questions about how he's  accessing child pornography Web sites, when it's against the law for ANYONE to do so—whatever their intentions.

Beyond that, what does his reporting mean in the real world where most  kids being abused and exploited are at the tech-free hands of immediate family members?

The first alarm over Eichenwald's kid-porn-series blew up with researcher and writer Debbie Nathan, who broke the ritual-sex-abuse panic investigations  of the 1980's. I'm sure you remember some of those whoppers!

Nathan read Eichenwald's story and was gobsmacked. She wrote a reply for Salon called, provocatively, "Why I Need to See Child Porn."  It began:

New York Times reporter Kurt Eichenwald looked at a lot of kiddie-porn Web sites recently while researching the front-page article he published last weekend about "child model" erotica.

The kind of looking he did can get a journalist arrested, but Eichenwald isn't
very worried. He told me as much in a series of e-mails. His lack of concern irks me, because when I stumbled on similar material earlier this year during my own research, I was terrified I'd be busted simply for doing my job as a member of the media. For a couple of days after my accidental viewing experience I was sleepless with fear. After that I still didn't rest well for a while.

But my second stage of insomnia came from anger. It infuriates me that the government prohibits reporters and other legitimate investigators from doing front-line research into child pornography. I'm not talking about obsessive coverage of John Mark Karr and JonBenet Ramsey, which was the spur for Eichenwald's piece. The reporting I'm talking about involves testing government claims about how prevalent child porn really is, and what makes an image pornographic in the first place. To get answers, investigators must look at illegal material - lots of it.

Those investigators must also be independent of the government. Otherwise the government can use our fear and loathing of kiddie porn to make false political claims. And to terrorize people like me.

 

Just when everyone was about to say, "Right on, Debbie, Right on, Salon!" for investigating the "investigation," Salon's editors got a hopping-mad call from Eichenwald, who said if they didn't pull Nathan's story and apologize, he would tear them a new asshole on a court bench.

Amazingly, they acquiesced, and ran this retraction, plus a second apology to boot! Go read the readers' letters, and you'll get even more confused. Salon's readers are largely educated, liberal people who were the perfect audience for this discussion. We all know how child welfare and sexuality issues have been perversely abused by politicians in recent years— it's fertile ground for argument!

Nathan, as you can imagine, was outraged by Salon's retraction. The Columbia Journalism Review weighed in. Judith Levine wrote a letter to the public editor of the Times.

I'm sorry for all the copious links, but this is a hell of a story.

What was my first reaction to Kurt's exposé? I was terrified, and sickened. Partly, because of my reaction to some of the scumbags he unearthed... it's not for the faint of heart. Strangely, he seems to have no clue that this is a worldwide story of human slavery, supported by economic policies that enable it all the way down the line. No, Kurt prefers the "hopeless freak" approach to understanding human bondage. Too bad it's not that fucking easy!

Even more scary, is my fear that Eichenwald's approach puts sincere people— victims, survivors, and activists who want to make a difference— in MORE jeopardy, not less. He writes titillation fests, and who pays the price? His intentions are in the wrong gear. His work puts every reporter who wants to say something real about this issue in fear of their First Amendment protection.

It seems to me, that unless Eichenwald sat with a member of the Justice Dept. holding his hand and showing him creepy selections from locked drawers, there was no way K.E. could investigate this legally or safely.  And that's not right. Either he is the Dangerously Naive DoGooder of the Year, or he is part of the problem! And given the Sick Fuck Monstrosity of the Bush Justice Dept., what does THAT say about their credibility? How many of THEM have been indicted for child sex crimes themselves? I've lost count. Whose blood wouldn't run cold in both directions at these headlines?

If you have the time to look into this, it's worth it. I'd say it's about a half hour or so of reading the main points. Or listen to my audio show and get your ears filled!

Comments

[Rich]

This is what happens when we stray too far from the First Amendment. While I'd be the first to defend the children against exploitation, the way authorities have gone about it by trying to make everything illegal is not designed to help those children. It's designed to repress sex, which is the ultimate cause of the problem.

Maybe if Eichenwald gets caught in the trap, it will make the Times weigh in on the matter in court.

[C.S. Lewiston]

I wonder, has the we-have-to-be-just-like-Fox-News-or-we're-gonna-die syndrome finally spread to the "Newspaper of Record"?

And when did Salon lose its vertebra? Could the Pentagon Papers have ever seen the light of day back in '71 if the Times and Boston Globe had had Salon's timid attitude?

[B.]

Most "exposes" (I've seen anyway) on about anything that needs to be exposed seem more like commercials for the very thing they are tittering about.

We can have other people's cake and eat it too, we can be against something and greedily consume it's naratives and imagery at the same time. No need to change that channel yon viewer, you can do two screens in the same booth right at home, be sure to bring popcorn.

In Churches and on blogs and boards all over the net, "homosexualitah" (among other things) is hot-talked up to a peak of angst-acy till all collapse in exhaustion and confirm that they will meet to have another roll tommorow, for the cause of course...

It isn't just double think, it seems deeper maybe or I could be wrong...maybe it's a thousand miles wide and an inch deep. I guess it's some people's way of toying with the extremely forbidden without admitting to even yourself that you are mentally toying with the extremely forbidden.

Usually though when you see people talk about something alot, its because they want to talk about that thing alot. There's alot of demand for these kind of articles but no demand for something like a simple assesment of the problem.

I have this nightmare that our future is to become harmless replicas of ourselves suitable for collecting; but I guess you gotta do this to "reality" first and work your way in.

B.

[Steve]

I'm listening to 1984 on audio book. It makes me shudder about once per minute.