When should the media publicize an individual's sex life?

When should the media publicize an individual's sex life?

Yes, I'm going to get on my soapbox. If you're here for the tit pics or chat transcripts ... click on the links. The mission of Griff's Cybersex Blog includes covering the plight of people persecuted for their sex lives and to educate (the audience and me).

In two recent cases U.S. newspapers violated the standards of professional journalism. Both the New York Post and Houston Press decided to post stories that were titillating, but failed to advance the public's interests.

The New York Post published a story about a public school teacher, Melissa Petro, who had previously been a sex worker. The source for this scoop? Petro has written about her experience when discussing sex work. See Salon 's "The 'Hooker Teacher' tells all" by Melissa Petro.

Houston Press decided to play HOT or NOT with the female registered sex offenders from Texas' largest counties. See Daily Mail's "Newspaper sorry after its gallery of 'top 10 hottest female sex offenders' causes outrage"

.

Both the New York Post and Houston Press ran afoul the Society of Professional Journalists Code of Ethics. Yes, in theory, journalists are supposed to consider if their work is ethical.

Minimize Harm

Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

— Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.

— Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone’s privacy.

— Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.

What was the overriding public need to give high profile coverage to Petro's past work as a stripper and prostitute? Or is Petro's crime her current willingness to speak up for sex workers?

What was the overriding public need to give coverage to a small group of women who were convicted of sex crimes?

This was the first attempt at defense offered by the Houston Press.

I can understand how some people might react to this. On the other hand, it's a way of getting readers to look at the info, maybe get them to realize there are people out there like this and they all don't look like the obvious stereotypical pervert.

Bullshit. To be useful, a warning has to include specific information. Saying the convicted sex offenders don't look like people in mug shots isn't news you can use.

Both these stories also include a certain amount of sexism. If a guy paid his way through college as a flunky for a bookie, it wouldn't be news that later he worked as a teacher. And the sexist angle on the Houston Press story is just obvious.