Sunday, March 23, 2008
Eliot Spitzer Call Girl Scandal
First of all, I should say that this is more of my opinion than an ethical dilemma. Regarding the whole Eliot Spitzer call girl scandal, it angers me that Spitzer is suffering so much and Ashley, aka "Kristin", is reaping all the benefits. The media has been all over her Myspace page, finding pictures, tracking down videos, and basically doing whatever they can to get visuals of her. In a way, it's almost glorifying her for being a call girl. She is already getting rich from everyone buying her song off her Myspace music page, when really I think she should be suffering the same shame as Spitzer. Do you think it's the media's right and privilege to publish these photos and bring even more "fame" to Ashley? Or do you think the media has nothing to do with the way Ashley is being perceived by the American public?
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Good question to raise for discussion. There are at least 18 photos of Ashley Alexandra Dupre posted on gawker.com. Mainstream media, both print and electronic, also posted photos taken from such social networking sites as MySpace music, Facebook etc. The Associated Press used the rationale of "newsworthiness" for showing images of Dupre. A critique of the Dupre photo usage can be found at http://www.pdnonline.com/pdn/newswire/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1003725145
I agree with the AP rationale so long as photos just show her, and used as head and shoulders, i.e. "mug shots." I don't think the photos showed in tabloids such as the New York Post were as newsworthy and were questionable in taste. In fact the Post showed some images that later had to be blurred to protect the identities of people not necessarily connected to the Spitzer incident. The New York Times showed her image, credited MySpace.com and linked to her MySpace page. The Times was first in getting an on-the-record interview with Dupre, which may have given them confidence to show her image and publish a link to her MySpace page. The paper's public editor recently cited "intense public interest" in knowing more about Dupre.
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/ashley_alexandra_dupre/index.html?8qa&scp=1-spot&sq=ashley+alexandra+dupre&st=nyt
http://topics.nytimes.com/top/reference/timestopics/people/d/ashley_alexandra_dupre/index.html?8qa&scp=1-spot&sq=ashley+alexandra+dupre&st=nyt
But posting personal photos from such social networking sites will continue to be a problem for the media.
The BBC is now debating the touchy area of restricting its staff from doing just that.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/theeditors/2008/01/private_or_public_pictures.html
http://www.bbc.co.uk/blogs/bbcinternet/2008/03/bbc_guidance_on_social_network.html
It isn't right for her to be reaping these benefits this way, but it always happens this way. People love scandals and everyone of course wants to see pictures of the girl responsible for ruining Spitzer's career, life, etc.
I agree with your opinion though.
This is in response to Kaitlin's post on a call girl ruining the career of a public figure such as the high-profile governor of New York state. Doesn't the governor have to take responsibility for hiring an escort service to engage in an extramarital tryst while on a business trip? As a consequence of his decision, it seems he directed intense public scrutiny of his "private matter." As for the call girl, from what I have read in press accounts, she was a willing employee of an escort service and was randomly assigned to Spitzer because she was available. She also seemed to enjoy spending her income on expensive jewelry, her fledgling music career, and trips to St. Tropez. In today's MySpace, Facebook, and You Tube Internet culture, her website received more than 7 million views after it was thrust into the glare of public curiousity about "Client No. 9" and "Kristen." Bottom line: The way I see it, Spitzer risked and ruined his own career by hiring a high-priced escort service.
Post a Comment