« Whirlwind of awesomeness | Main | NYC Porn »
Almost media darling
February 04, 2006
Last week, I got a phone call from a major TV news network that was doing a story on sex work and Craigslist, and they were interested in interviewing me. The problem was that they really wanted to interview me about my personal experience, and that is not going to happen – not because it’s a huge secret, but it is really not their story to tell, it is mine. This is the interesting thing I’ve realized about media in the past year of press action, interviews and minor fiascoes: yes, media networks have access to a bigger audience than I do, and they can potentially deliver their audience to me – however, though its to a more limited audience, I am more than capable of telling my story all by my damn self. So yes, sometimes exposure is good – but sometimes I just don’t need what they have to give, and furthermore, I’ve realized that the press will persist in being interested in me, so I don’t have a fatalistic “now or never” view about press – I am going to be around, doing what I’m doing, for some time to come.
That said, when the news channel came to me with their idea, I counter-pitched my idea of them interviewing me as an expert and including information about $pread magazine – if I am going to be seen blathering about sex work by 4 million people, I need it to benefit me. Though they offered to disguise my identity, I decided that I really didn’t want that – I would show my face (more visually interesting) but no way in hell would I talk about my personal pussy. This is the conundrum around sex worker activism – I tout the value of destigmatizing the work, but when it comes down to it, that means putting myself personally on the line, an immensely scary (and basically inadvisable) thing to do. So, it’s complex. Probably too complex for the mainstream media.
I thought I had gotten them interested in dealing with the story the way I wanted to, but I was clearly naïve about that. We set up everything – arranged for a car to whisk me away to their studios, told them I didn’t want anyone touching my hair but makeup touch ups were ok, frantically asked my friends what I should wear, and got advice from a good friend who works at the Daily Show about how to not look stupid on TV.
And then it got interesting – they called to clarify details about the piece, and got hostile about my unwillingness to spill my personal story. It was clear and should have been from the beginning that they weren’t really interested in ME, they were interested in casting for a role in a story that they already had set in stone. They knew what they wanted to say about sex work and the internet, and I was to be a prop. But I was being obstinate. They actually accused me of “having an agenda,” at which I laughed because, well, no shit. And a national news channel doesn’t have an agenda? Please.
So: fuck that. Yes, its shocking, I won’t bend over backwards to be on TV. Sure, the press for me and for $pread would have been great, but I’m not interested in playing into someone else’s little story about sex workers, rife with assumptions and bad consequences for me. I don’t care that much about being on TV, and even if they try to buddy up to get the story they want, major TV networks are not my friend. I had been psyching myself up to treat the correspondent something like an enemy combatant in the interview (uh, but no fisticuffs, unless she was a major bitch), but I ended up fighting my battle off screen and opting out.
Posted by Dacia at February 4, 2006 10:46 AM
Trackback Pings
TrackBack URL for this entry:
http://www.wakingvixen.com/cgi-bin/mt-tb.cgi/467
Comments
Hi Dacia,
I know what you mean about the media. I work in animal rights, and dealing with them is a two edged sword. On the one hand, it can mean big exposure. But ultimately, they have a lot of control of the spin. And if you put the wrong spin on the ball, it can land in a very different place than you intended it o. Media-manipulation is definitely a required skill for activists, and “knowing when to fold ‘em” is part of that skill.
-TOD
Posted by: The Old Doctor at February 4, 2006 11:05 AM
That was deftly handled, well done.
Posted by: Tropz at February 4, 2006 11:56 AM
Good for you.
You stride the earth as a sex-positive collosus in bad-ass boots and crazy tights.
Posted by: chelsea girl at February 4, 2006 12:01 PM
good for you!
Craig
Posted by: Craig Newmark at February 4, 2006 01:47 PM
Good call, Dacia. They control the editing room, so there would have been little chance of steering them from their Common But Stupid premises.
Uh, did Craig of Craig’s List really just comment on your post?
Posted by: Jefferson at February 4, 2006 02:09 PM
It would’ve been cool to be on a major TV network, but now, how cool is it to say you turned down a major TV network? (Answer: pretty damn hardcore cool.)
Posted by: Amber at February 4, 2006 07:49 PM
Ah, the lure of the spotlight. So enticing yet, so dangerous but of little value without approval of the final edit.
At this point it would be more damaging to be put into someone else’s box, to be compartmentalized just for the Warhol moment. Your observation about your longevity is very astute, you’ll increase it by choosing not to allow yourself to be portrayed as a role player in someone else’s story.
Then again, the other thing that is amazing is the confusion between what you are a ‘sex worker’ and your willingness to give up your privacy. Whil being a sex worker means dealing with people on a certain level I have to imaigne it doesn’t mean you want to give up all claims to intimacy.
Some people just don’t get the difference.
Posted by: mister_pj at February 4, 2006 11:30 PM
Oh, and I hate the fact I can never correct typos or dropped words whenever I make comments on a blog.
Posted by: mister_pj at February 4, 2006 11:33 PM
Rock on!
Nothing wrong with being a whore, but a media whore is a horse of a different color!
Posted by: Libertybelle at February 5, 2006 01:30 AM
I had to laugh when they accused you of having an agenda. The reporters/editors have a premise and a story. The best thing to do is find a like minded reporter and work with them to generate a story. Perhaps if this one news channel runs one you can get your reporter’s other TV channel interested in doing something from a different perspective. As was pointed out above, they have total control over the editing room. If you and the reporter don’t see eye-to-eye things will be shown out of context (or perhaps not at all). I’m no expert at dealing with the media!
Another thing — you talked about they wanted to make it personal — your story. I’ve have had a brush (many years ago) with the media and they said the same thing. I didn’t think of it much until I traveled to Washington DC to lobby. All the lobbiests told me to talk about my story. It is much more real and has a much stronger impact when the person talking has lived the story. I suspect it is the same for the news story. The expert witness approach is great, but it wno’t have the same emotional impact — which is what the reporter may have been going for. I don’t know how true this is, but if you keep your eyes open you’ll see it all the time (for whatever the reason).
Posted by: Gordon Watts at February 5, 2006 03:50 AM
