- And this blank page where my fingers move
- Pennsylvania Hunger Games Diet: Cash for Corporations, Cuts for Kids
- The Incredible Shrinking Mayor
- Multi-tasking with the 1% … killing the schools AND making the poor pay for their funeral.
- Council Can Give the SRC the Money to NOT Privatize the System
- Predatory Payday Lending Bill Flies Out of Cramped PA House Committee
- Let the Games Begin: PA Senate Announces Details of Budget Proposal
- Good News on PA Revenue But Don’t Count Your Blessings Just Yet
- Defeat Corbett
- Set off without a Paddle: Unpacking the School District’s Disaster Capitalism
Four (Unanswered) Questions for the Daily News about Stu's Sex Tourism
Submitted by Dan U-A on Fri, 12/23/2011 - 1:12pm.
(For background, see this post from me, and Helen's column from yesterday.)
Yesterday, the Daily News ran Helen's wonderful op-ed on the horrible Stu Bykofsky sex tourism column.
But, even after Helen's column, there are some unanswered questions that need to be answered by the Daily News as to how this all happened, and what they plan to do about it. Last week the paper might have been able to shrug this off, and be happy with the increased page views they probably saw due to the controversy. But, now that one of their own has been forced into retirement for alleged sexual crimes against children, I don't think this can really go unanswered.
With that in mind, I wrote to Larry Platt, and asked him the questions that I think the Daily News should answer (and, I am sure there are more). He has not responded. If he does, I will post his answers in full.
The email:
From: Dan Urevick-Ackelsberg
Date: Thu, Dec 22, 2011 at 11:15 AM
Subject: Questions about Stu Bykofsky Column
To: Larry Platt
Cc: Helen GymLarry:
I (sincerely) apologize for asking this while the Daily News is taking the hit of the Bill Conlin morass, and, I find it encouraging that the paper is now also actively investigating Conlin and pursuing the story. But, I am writing mainly to follow up to Helen Gym's op-ed from this morning about Stu Bykofsky's column from last week.
While the timing might make this more painful for the paper, it seems that questions about the Bykofsky column are even more important this week than they were when the column ran. I am going to write something for our little blog, piggybacking on Helen's piece, but, I would like to ask the Daily News a few questions first (with the understanding that I will publish these in full on our blog). If there is someone more appropriate to ask, please forward this on to them.
The questions:
First, given the paper's experience over the last few days, would the Bykofsky column run if it were submitted today? If not, will the Daily News issue any statement about the efficacy of that column actually running? Obviously, running the piece by Helen is an important step, and shows some willingness to deal with this issue, but, this is not the same as the paper itself responding.
Second, Stu's column dances around whether he did or did not have sex with a Thai prostitute. In the submission process of this column, was Stu directly asked this by an editor? If this conversation did occur, was the column changed as a result of this discussion?
Third, will the Daily News issue corrections for the column? Obviously, the paper cannot run a 'correction' for the racist views of its columnist. But, the column did simply have factual errors. For example, Stu's assertion that 'there are no pimps in Thailand' is false, and refuted by any number of reports from Human Rights Watch, the United Nations and others which document that many prostitutes in Thailand are children, and in conditions resembling slavery (or, simply, slavery). It goes without saying that these children are not in slavery without someone... keeping them enslaved. Similarly, "each woman is an independent contractor" is false, for many of the same reasons, and this too could be easily refuted. If these corrections have been issued, and I missed them, please let me know.
Finally, and more fundamentally for the Daily News, is any view whatsoever appropriate for publication by its columnists? Stu's column danced around whether he did, or did not, in fact have sex with a Thai prostitute, and then referred to Asian women with bizarrely outmoded racial stereotypes. Is there any limit to what the Daily News would not publish along these lines? For example, would the Daily News run an entire column discussing how cheap Jews are?
Thanks in advance for your consideration. It goes without saying, but, one reason this kind of piece angers so many of us is that we greatly value the role of an active, vibrant local paper, generally, and of an institution like the Daily News
generallyspecifically. So, when it publishes something this offensive and destructive, it sets off all kinds of alarms. As I said, I will put any answers in writing in full, and can wait until tomorrow if that is helpful.Best,
Dan
No response so far...
In the meantime, lets remember what officials from the Daily News said in the wake of the Conlin accusations:
“I can’t even begin to express the shock, sadness and outrage I feel by what Bill Conlin is alleged to have done,” said Daily News editor Larry Platt Tuesday.
“I am sickened by these allegations,” added Gregory J. Osberg, CEO of Philadelphia Media Network, which owns both the Inquirer and the Daily News.
“We have always taken tremendous pride in the ethical and moral standards we operate from at Philadelphia Media Network.”
Moral standards? Sorry, that will continue to ring hollow when the Daily News publishes factually incorrect, racial stereotype laced, amoral columns that meander through the pros and cons of having sex with children.
A child does not magically lose her humanity because she lives in Thailand. It is time for the Daily News to start explaining how this type of thing is acceptable journalism.
»
- Dan U-A's blog
- Login or register to post comments
moral standards? at the daily news?
that's close to an oxymoron. just look at any christine flowers column. or the crap they let giordano spew. most of their work is easily debunked misinformation: if the role of a newspaper is to inform the readers, the DN often publishes people whose goal is the exact opposite.
Another question is "who approved Bykofsky's article, and what is that person's rationale as to why it passed muster?" Stu's gotta be held accountable, but he's not the one who makes the final judgement on whether to publish a column. That's the editor's job.
This is the key followup
Asking these questions is the most important step. Looking forward to hear how Mr. Platt responds.
FYI
Philly Clout (bob warner) is on twitter today saying that "Stu's attackers on his Thai col. would carry more weight if they were honest in their retelling of the col."
To me, this seems deliberately obtuse -playing the old "I'm not going to dignify that with an answer" game. I've already responded a few times on twitter, but it needs a concerted smackdown.
I'm pretty sure
I'm pretty sure Clout is Gar Joseph, the city editor (also the photo for Clout is definitely not Bob Warner). Gar posted that tweet just after Dan linked to this post on Twitter.
For background, Gar was gracious enough to talk to me about his editing of Stu's column. I was mostly trying to understand the editing process of Stu's column before I wrote my op-ed. So yeah, it's a little ridiculous to bicker about inferences that were made on our side when I made clear that a central complaint was that it was Stu himself who was making the outrageous inferences. Plus hugely ironic that the editor would berate "Stu's attackers" for dishonesty when the Byko column was rife with factual inaccuracy and moral dishonesty about sexual exploitation.
i stand corrected
but the point still stands. they're being disingenuous.
Don't forget this response to Stu Bykofsky!
It took weeks, but finally a Stu Bykofsky supporter, and legalize prostitution, um excuse me, pro womens sexual rights supporter, emerges from the depths of our city. Seriously, Bykofsky defenders, this is the best you can muster?
Same old, same old
I wonder if our species will ever evolve to the point where issues like this can be discussed without the necessity of suggesting moral depravity among those we disagree with.
If Gym sincerely cares ...blah...blah....
If?
But the question that strikes me as I write this comment - for the purpose of pointing out the preposterous use of conditional language in Featherman's letter - is whether or not objections to Bykofsky's piece (including my comment on an earlier thread) had the same implied or perhaps overt assertions of moral depravity. If so, can those implications really be justified?
I certainly know that a suggestion that there's even a possibility that Helen doesn't care about "adult men and women involved in prostitution" (I find it interesting that Featherman felt it necessary to add the qualifier of adult - unfortunately, his logic sets it up so that conditions that would be unacceptable for someone 17 years, 364 days old would become acceptable by the passage of one day) is insulting and absurd.
Does that mean that the criticism of Bykofsky's piece should have been more careful also?