skip to main |
skip to sidebar
The REAL Belle de Jour has always been passionate, and the woman behind the famous moniker maintains that tradition, this time penning an important research paper on rape.
Last year, Belle step out from behind her famous pen name and revealed her identity. She is Dr. Brooke L. Magnanti, formerly of Bristol, England, a noted scientist whose specialist areas are developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and has worked at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health as part of a team that researched the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a high-class call girl for a London escort service. She has written an award-winning blog and several bestselling books based on her experiences as a high-end call-girl in the sex industry. Her writing also formed the basis of the TV series Secret Diary of a Call Girl on Showtime, starring Billie Piper in the title role of "Belle."
Recently, Brooke moved to Scotland, taking a hiatus from penning new entries for her award-winning blog (where she says simply, "Belle de Jour is the pen name of Brooke Magnanti, a UK-based writer and science researcher. Interests: whiskey, taphonomy, PGP encryption), in favor of concentrating on writing a new book, and a variety of articles.
The latest, presented below in its entirety (or read it directly at the article's website) is an important analysis, called a 'Green Paper,' of the correlation between the impact of public adult entertainment, specifically lap-dancing clubs, in the U.K. and rape statistics, which also has clear implications for the U.S., too.
No stranger to controversy, Brooke's conclusions are sure to raise eyebrows across the pond, as her careful research refutes the so-called "Lilith" study from 2003 that garnered widespread media attention in the U.K., which found a direct cause and effect relationship between the two in Camden Town, London.
"In spite of mathematical corrections to the statistics in the report, its original conclusions are still widely reported in both academic and mass media," Brooke writes.
In fact, Brooke proves in her meticulous analysis that the 2003 conclusions are wrong, writing, "...the original claim made in the Lilith report, that the number of reported rapes is rising due to lap dancing clubs, is not true."
Brooke says much more research into the true causes of rape are needed.
"The causes of rape and violent crime are not well understood, and there is much research and discussion devoted to understanding the causes of this crime so that it may be better controlled. It is possible that repeating limited and erroneous numbers can derail efforts to control violence and deflect attention and funding from alternative causal theories. It is because rape is such a serious crime that researchers must be at least as rigorous in their analysis as they would with other serious life events, and apply the same careful methodology as would be used in other areas of research," she writes.
Whatever Brooke decides to write, her voice is powerful and important, and should be carefully considered.
Without further ado, here is Brooke's research paper (including the British spellings):
The impact of adult entertainment on rape statistics in Camden: a reanalysis.
19 January 2011 http://belledejour‐uk.blogspot.com © Brooke Magnanti
The impact of adult entertainment on rape statistics in Camden: a re-analysis.
Brooke L Magnanti, PhD.
Abstract
A 2003 report on the impact of lap-dancing clubs on sexual assault in Camden, London had significant influence on the perception of the contribution of adult entertainment to crime statistics. In spite of mathematical corrections to the statistics in the report, its original conclusions are still widely reported in both academic and mass media. This paper presents a broader analysis of the impact of lap-dancing clubs by calculating accurate rates of incidence, analysing statistics from a longer time period, and comparing the results with crime rates in neighbouring boroughs of London. The rate of rape in Camden is lower than that in comparable boroughs, including ones with no such clubs. The overall trend for London boroughs, while higher than the national average, shows a decrease where national statistics are on the increase.
Introduction
The question of whether, and to what extent, the presence of adult entertainment businesses affects crime in the surrounding area is a topic of debate in many disciplines, including sexuality studies, urban planning, and criminology. It is also an issue that attracts considerable mass media attention, which in turn can frame the debate as considered by media and government.
In 2003, a report was released by Lilith Research and Development, a subsidiary project of Eaves Women’s Aid, a London women’s housing agency. The report examined the phenomenon of lap-dancing clubs in the north London borough of Camden and its effects on crime rates from the late 1990s onward. One conclusion that received considerable attention was the statement that following the introduction of lap-dancing clubs, rape in Camden rose by 50%. (Eden 2003).
In 2009, corrections to the statistics were reported in the Guardian stating that
the change between 1999 and 2002 was a somewhat lower increase of 33%
(Bell 2008). It still however implies evidence of a cause-and-effect relationship
between lap dancing clubs and rape. The uncorrected claims that rapes rose by 50% after lap dancing clubs opened and that Camden’s incidence of rape is three time the national average are still reported in national and international media (Hunt 2009, Guest 2010).
However, the original paper on which these claims are based suffers from numerous statistical problems in its analysis. The first is that the use of raw numbers rather than rate of occurrence does not accurately reflect the risk per
head of population in Camden. The second is that the paper failed to show a
trend long enough from which to draw meaningful conclusions. The third is that the study did not accurately put the results in context with trends elsewhere in London and in the UK as a whole, in order to test the theory that any change in crime rates was an effect specifically of the existence of lap dancing clubs.
This reanalysis seeks to correct those problems so a more accurate picture of
the effect of lap dancing on Camden may be discussed, and the new figures
enter into the public debate on adult entertainment and urban spaces.
1. Rate calculations
In reporting outcomes in a population over time, it is important to calculate in
incidence rate of outcomes in order to account for changes in the size of the
population and thereby produce statistics that can be sensibly compared. The
original paper, and subsequent corrections, did not do this.
The numbers on reported rapes were obtained directly from the Metropolitan
Police, though at least some of the numbers are freely available on the web. The numbers reported in the original paper have been checked against the
Metropolitan Police numbers to confirm they are correct.
Both the original numbers of rapes in the Lilith report, and the note in the
Guardian correcting an arithmetic error from the paper and subsequent reporting, did not calculate the incidence rate of reported rapes per head of population.
However, London is a rapidly growing city. Without the context of population
change, this renders fluctuations in the results impossible to interpret meaningfully.
The Lilith report focuses on the difference in rapes between 1999 and 2002.
However, in its first paragraph, the report states that lap dancing ‘arrived in
Britain in 1997 with the opening of Secrets in Hammersmith’. The reasoning why the statistics used in that report start 2 years later is unclear. In order to facilitate comparison with the original report, statistics calculated in this paper will also start from 1999.
The number of reported rapes as given by the Metropolitan Police includes rapes against both men and women, and this is the number reported in the original paper. Therefore for the purposes of calculating the rate of reported rapes per 100,000 population, the total male and female population of Camden has been used. The population count is as reported in the National Statistics adjusted midyear estimates. The rates are shown in Table 1.
Table 1: Rates of rapes per 100,000 population, Camden, London, 1999-2002
Year Reported-Rapes/Population Rate per 100,000/Percentage
1999-72/195,700/36.8
2000-88/202,800/43.4
2001-91/202,600/44.9
2002-96/205,700/46.7
Using the rate of rapes per 100,000 population, the change from 1999 to 2002 is an increase not of 50% (as originally reported and still repeated) or 33% (as in the later correction) but of 26.9%, or about half of what was in the original paper.
2. Longer-term trend analysis
Unfortunately because of the limited time period covered in the original report,
even with accurately calculated rates it is difficult to tell whether the increase was sustained, and therefore indicative of a trend. We know that between 1999 and 2000 the rate of reported rapes in Camden rose but because it is a relatively rare event, it can be expected that there will be high volatility in the number of reported rapes and that this will affect the rates. Therefore with numbers now available to represent the last decade, a more complete picture can be constructed. The results over a decade show a markedly different trend to what was originally reported – the rate does rise, but then subsequently falls again.
The results are shown in Table 2, and a graph of the rates in Figure 1.
Table 2: Rates of rapes per 100,000 and percentage annual change, Camden, 1999-2008
Year Reported rapes
Population Rate per 100,000
% change
1999-72/195,700 36.8 n/a
2000-88/202,800 43.4 + 17.9%
2001-91/202,600 44.9 + 3.5%
2002-96/205,700 46.7 + 3.9%
2003-71/207,700 34.2 - 26.8%
2004-52/212,800 24.4 - 28.5%
2005-68/218,400 31.1 + 27.4%
2006-67/221,500 30.2 - 2.8%
2007-70/223,900 31.3 + 3.4%
2008-41/226,500 18.1 - 42.1%
Figure 1: Trend of rape rates in Camden, London, 1999-2008
3. Local and national trend comparison
The original report compares Camden’s rape reports to the numbers from the
boroughs of Westminster and Islington. All of these boroughs contain lap dancing clubs. However it does not contain a comparison with a comparable borough with no such clubs.
In order to improve the assessment between boroughs we have retained a
comparison with Islington, but also added a non-lap dancing borough with a
similar demographic profile in order to minimise socioeconomic confounders.
Lambeth has a somewhat larger population than Camden and similar makeup in terms of ethnic origin. It contains no lap dancing clubs at all. Islington has a
somewhat smaller population than the other two boroughs and has two venues
licensed for fully nude lap dancing. Rape reporting statistics are also available for England and Wales as a whole, so these have been included for reference in Table 3, with the rates graphed in Figure 2.
Table 3: Rates of rape in Camden, Lambeth, Islington, and England & Wales (comb), 1999-2008
Year Rapes in Camden
Rate in Camden
Rapes in Lambeth
Rate in Lambeth
Rapes in Islington
Rate in Islington
Rapes England & Wales
Rate England & Wales
1999-72/36.8 128 48.0 75 42.7 7636 14.7
2000-88/43.4 156 57.8 94 52.8 8409 16.1
2001-91/44.9 163 59.6 72 40.1 8593 16.4
2002-96/46.7 172 63.2 109 60.5 9734 18.5
2003-71/34.2 166 61.3 135 74.4 12295 23.3
2004-52/24.4 126 46.3 97 53.4 13272 25.0
2005-68/31.1 146 53.2 93 50.4 14013 26.2
2006-67/30.2 139 50.2 76 41.0 14343 26.7
2007-70/31.3 127 45.5 89 47.6 13774 25.5
2008-41/18.1 99 35.2 68 36.1 12637 23.2
Figure 2: Trend of rape rates in Camden, Lambeth, Islington, and England & Wales (comb), 1999-2008
If a cause-and-effect relationship between the number of lap dancing clubs and the occurrence of rape existed, we would expect Lambeth to be lowest of the three because it has no clubs. By the same assumption we would expect
Islington to be higher because it has a couple, and Camden highest because it
has more than those other boroughs. The analysis however shows that Camden is consistently the lowest of the three. The results do not support a causal link between the number of lap dancing clubs in a borough and the risk of rape.
The trend for the three London boroughs shows that Lambeth (with no lap
dancing) and Islington (with only 2 clubs) both have rates that are higher than
Camden’s. It also demonstrates that all three have decreased over time, while
the trend in England and Wales over the same time period has been for a rise.
Apart from the early 2000s peak, Camden’s numbers are similar to the overall
rate for England and Wales, and are sometimes below it. In the original report it was claimed that Camden’s rapes were “three times the national average,” and this has been reported elsewhere. This new analysis shows that statement is not true at any point within the studied time period.
Discussion
Rape is widely accepted to be a vastly under-reported crime. The calculations do not reveal whether rapes were under-reported for the area in any particular year, nor what the causes of that might be. What it does demonstrate is that the original claim made in the Lilith report, that the number of reported rapes is rising due to lap dancing clubs, is not true.
The causes of rape and violent crime are not well understood, and there is much research and discussion devoted to understanding the causes of this crime so that it may be better controlled. It is possible that repeating limited and erroneous numbers can derail efforts to control violence and deflect attention and funding from alternative causal theories. It is because rape is such a serious crime that researchers must be at least as rigorous in their analysis as they would with other serious life events, and apply the same careful methodology as would be used in other areas of research.
Other research supports the conclusion of no demonstrable causal link between adult entertainment and rape. A meta-analysis of 110 studies looking at the impact of strip clubs and other adult businesses found that the studies in favour of abolishing exotic dancing suffer from flaws in research methodology. Of the papers that did not contain fatal flaws, there was no correlation between any adult-oriented business and any negative effect (Bryant, Linz and Shafer 2001).
Ethnographic work also supports the conclusion that there is no direct
relationship between adult entertainment and crime (Hanna 2005).
Nevertheless it is a widely held assumption that endemic exposure to adult
images and entertainment makes rape more likely to occur. Even if there was
conclusive evidence for this, why would the rapes necessarily occur in Camden?
The area containing the clubs is a small corner of a much larger borough
bordering other parts of London. It is well-connected with public transport going in and out of the area. In addition, one might expect such a well-known
entertainment venue has customers travelling from elsewhere in the country to
see it. There is no evidence, even if literature supported an exposure aetiology of rape, that the crimes would necessarily be committed in Camden. Such possible confounding factors are not addressed in the original study.
The paper also strongly implies that the rapes are stranger rapes. A Home Office report analysing relationships between victims and offenders notes that for rapes, strangers are the perpetrators in only 17% of UK cases (Walby and Allen 2004). 75% of reported rapes occur either in the victim’s home or in the perpetrator’s (Myhill and Allen 2002). Even if lap dancing businesses were shown to contribute to stranger rape, this alone could not explain large changes in the statistics of reported rapes overall.
In much writing on sexual assault there seems to be a belief that rape stems from an inability of men to understand communication that is indirect; that they are unable to parse any rejection other than a firmly stated 'no'. Not only has this idea led to defendants in rape cases claiming they didn’t know someone said no, it is also not supported by research.
Men and women may weigh the value of verbal and nonverbal cues differently, but show little difference in the end when categorising situations as rape (Lim and Roloff 1999). For all the firmly held stereotypes, men know that no means no. Men who rape don’t do so by accident; ordinary men without tendencies to rape do not do so inadvertently or because they went to a lap dancing club.
Brooke Magnanti is the author of several memoirs, including The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl. She has worked extensively in research of forensic science, population trends and biostatistics.
The impact of adult entertainment on rape statistics in Camden: a reanalysis.
19 January 2011 http://belledejour‐uk.blogspot.com © Brooke Magnanti
Works Cited
Bell, R, 2008. I was seen as an object, not a person. The Guardian. 19 March p18.
Bryant, P Linz, D and Shafer, B, 2001. Government regulation of adult
businesses through zoning and anti-nudity ordinances: Debunking the legal myth of negative secondary effects. Communication Law and Policy 6(2): pp 355-91.
Eden, I, 2003. Lilith Report Lap dancing and strip-tease in the borough of
Camden. [online] Available at: http://www.childtrafficking.com/Docs/poppy_03_lap_dancing_0109.pdf [Accessed 28 December 2010].
Guest, K. Lap dancing is seedy – but it's hard to say why. The Independent,
[online] Available at: http://www.independent.co.uk/opinion/commentators/katyguest-lap-dancing-is-seedy-ndash-but-its-hard-to-say-why-2064794.html [Accessed 28 December 2010].
Hanna, J L, 2005. Exotic Dance Adult Entertainment: A Guide for Planners and Policy Makers. Journal of Planning Literature 20(2): pp 116-134.
Hunt, T, 2009. Betting shops and strip clubs stand as monuments to New Labour morality. The Guardian, [online] Available at: http://www.guardian.co.uk/commentisfree/2009/aug/06/labour-moral-marketgambling-society [Accessed 28 December 2010].
Lim, G Y and Roloff, M E, 1999. Attributing sexual consent. Journal of Applied Communication Research 27(1): pp 1-13.
Myhill, A and J Allen, 2002. Rape and sexual assault of women: findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office Research Study 159.
Walby, S and J Allen, 2004. Domestic violence, sexual assault and stalking:
Findings from the British Crime Survey. London: Home Office Research Study 276."
Brooke's books include: Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, 2009; Belle’s Best Bits, 2009; The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009.
Each one is well-worth reading – trust me! You can find all of her books at the U.K.’s largest independent bookseller, Waterstones.
Also check out Brooke's op-ed articles on a variety of topics including reforming libel law in Britain.
— The Curator
MTV is back in the controversy business.
The show is called “Skins,” an adaptation of the original UK show. It almost comes across as a slick and surreal 'reality series,' but with fast-paced scenes, quick camera cuts and unusually dismal colors.
OK, it has actors, cameras and a script — but make no mistake: This is an abstraction of real life, a complete and utter fantasy — the kind of fantasy that used to be grist for a psychiatrist’s mill, and has already caused controversy for pushing the sexual envelope, some say, waaaay too far.
While the religious right, predictably, shouts that it should be censored, my concern is the message it sends teens about sex, drugs and women in particular. I watched a sampling of the first episode and here's what I thought:
— Boys aged 14 and up were generally only thinking about sex, or thinking about any way possible to have sex, were having sex, then were thinking about how to have more sex, etc.
— Teen girls were one-dimensional, apparently there merely to service the boys [see above.]
— There is NO genuine sex education here.
— Teens were often happily drugged out of their minds, while having sex, etc.
— Teen years here are reduced to sex, drugs, without any attempt to provide the characters with motivation to discover who they are.
— This is an utterly bleak world, devoid of real emotions and actual 'life.'
In an era when the media continues to report kids are having sex at younger and younger ages, it appears this show reinforces that message. It also is very, very close to being misogynistic, without any concern — or perhaps even more troubling — any realization by its producer's of this glaring flaw.
Look, I'm very progressive for my age (54) and hold a very sex-positive philosophy about life. But, I think teens having sex at young ages should not be portrayed in a cavalier fashion, or accepted as the new norm. Kids need to have significant, non-judgmental guidance (gasp!) before they take this big step. If they can't get it from their parents, then they need to talk to a trained sex educator.
In addition, boys should not be pressured to have sex as young teens, or applauded in seeing teen girls as only and totally as their next lay!
I also remain quite horrified at how girls, young women and women are depicted in TV and films. The intense focus on surface beauty, and overt, increasing pressure for women to be thinner and thinner (or get costmetic surgery — even when they're teens!) for the sole purpose that they can be sexually appealing to males is disgusting. Teen girls should be encouraged to explore who they are and what they want out of life, as should boys.
Sex is one of the best gifts of being alive. Every person, of either gender, should make the most of it provided they are emotionally and physically prepared, and both parties consent in expressing themselves in this way. No person, of any age, should be pressured or judged by their choice to have, or to not have sex.
Teen years are about a lot more than just having sex and fitting into skinny jeans. Sadly for me, this show is shallow, as it trivializes and demeans teens of both genders and generally cheapens life's potential.
Without apology, “Skins” presents an alternate world where oversexed kids get high and get laid, where school is an accessory to their fabulous nightlife, and all the grown-ups are blathering idiots who have no idea.
The ringleader of this small circle of hormone-infused yoots is Tony (James Newman), a callow and handsome stud in the tradition of Chuck Bass on “Gossip Girl” and Sebastian in “Cruel Intentions.” His main squeeze, Michelle (Rachel Thevenard), is brilliant and desirable and well aware that she’s both.
They keep company with an ethnically diverse crowd of party hounds, including a crazy girl who takes pills so often she can sleep off a hangover, a mouth-breathing porn addict who is the show’s token virgin, and a Muslim boy who is a very, very bad Muslim.
The first episode is spent, perhaps inevitably, trying to get the virgin laid. Also, Tony auditions for the choir at the Edith Damp all-girls school (and there are more double entendres where that came from). There he is ogled by about 400 sets of eyes.
Bryan Elsley, who created “Skins” with his son Jamie Brittain, is writing the American version with help from “real teens” (so says MTV), and these moments of authenticity are all that separate the unreal teens of this show from the adults, who are mostly caricatures of adults.
Because I have never seen the original UK show, I am reprinting a great column by Latoya Peterson from today's UK Guardian. Read it below, or directly at the newspaper's website.
MTV's US remake lobotomised Skins
Themes of class politics and societal status that set Skins apart are sadly – but not surprisingly – lacking in MTV's US remake
MTV Skins premiered this week in the US. [Note: Above photograph courtesy of MTV]
By Latoya Peterson
Drugs, drinking and debauchery are receiving a new spin, thanks to MTV's remake of the popular British teen drama Skins. While MTV's reboot feels like a paint-by-numbers remake, there is one key element missing: the honest discussion of class and societal status.
MTV is known for highlighting teen extremes – shows like Jersey Shore and Teen Mom brush shoulders with explorations of wealthier lives, like The Hills, My Super Sweet 16 and Cribs. The super-rich are considered a breed apart – but everyone else falls into the "middle class".
Class is a difficult topic to bridge, particularly in a nation like the US – a country built on promise, mobility and the American Dream, attainable through hard work and struggle. The idea that one's social status may be determined not by hard work but by circumstances of birth and a few lucky breaks is almost untenable to American viewers. To this end, it is remarkable that Skins was imported over from England at all: class issues inform a lot of the characters' background and perception, which is difficult to translate for American audiences.
The excessive use of profanity, often coded as lower-class speech is highly present in the pilot, when Tony's father goes off at him about the stereo. The US version is censored, and his father is remarkably cooler, channelling anger at the action, but not the child (at least, until Tony locks him out of the bathroom).
"Common" is used as an insult, clearly understood in the context of south England – in the US version, the characters have to make a comment about "their kind of people" to distinguish class differences and provide a reason for them to feel uncomfortable at rich-girl Tabitha's party. Back in the UK, the focus is on showing, not telling: Sid hesitates at the door after he is admonished to take off his shoes – the camera reveals mismatched socks with a gaping hole in the toe. The teen's obvious discomfort belies a discomfort familiar to anyone attempting to mute their class background – but the American version doesn't bother with this.
Noting that American society has barely even developed the language to discuss class, the Media Education Foundation's illuminating 2005 documentary, Class Dismissed: How TV Frames the Working Class, focused on three main ways to measure class in an increasingly fluid society:
— Economic class: income and accumulated wealth
— Political class: the power to influence the public and political process
— Cultural class: education, taste, lifestyle
Stateside, any conversations about class focus specifically on income, and occasionally into wealth. The idea of cultural class, while mined often for jokes at the expense of those who do not conform, is not often bridged. But the devil is in the details in Skins: while Tony gets a tongue-lashing from the French teacher at a posh girl's school for being crass, it's the smaller moments of interaction that count. The teens' quiet imitation of their wealthier peers, and their somewhat panicky state about doing or saying the wrong thing, set a different tone to the British party crash. While much of the behaviour in the US version can be considered run-of-the-mill rudeness, the infusion of class-based discomfort offers the UK version a surprising amount of depth.
The MTV remake flirted with greatness: originally, Skins was supposed to be set and shot in the city of Baltimore, Maryland. A hotbed of post-industrial decline, the city would have been a heady choice – the city boasts white working-class enclaves as well as black working-class neighbourhoods and hundreds of different ethnic and racial territories bracketed by the wealthier Baltimore County. Originally, producers eyed Baltimore's diversity as a reason to shoot the series; the gritty urban landscape would have allowed Skins' treatment of class issues to shine.
Alas, the show is set an unnamed Eastern seaboard town; after the producers pulled out of Baltimore, they elected to film in Toronto, which stands in for all types of cities in television. If Skins had been set in Baltimore, it would have inherited a long tradition of quirky snapshots of American life. It would have had the space to grow into a series that wasn't afraid to tangle with the bleakness of life of those with more experience scoring drugs than competing for test scores. But instead, Skins was completely lobotomised: Tony lost his trademark bedspread, his father lost his profanity, American viewers lost Maxxie, and teenagers found their shot at a realistic view of class politics left on the cutting room floor.
Viewer's shouldn't be surprised: while Skins is supposed to present a raw view of the teen experience, class, like nudity, is considered too risqué for MTV.
[Note: Latoya Peterson is the editrix of Racialicious.com, a site that explores the intersection of race and pop culture. She writes for Bitch Magazine, The American Prospect, and Cerise when she isn't trying to make the most of her Gamefly membership.]
— The Curator
When a well-respected national newspaper gets it really, really wrong, can it ever be excused?
No.
Can it ever be explained?
Perhaps.
This post is in response to horrible reporting by several of the U.K.’s premiere newspapers this week, who badly mis-reported an account regarding the rise in 11-year-old girls using birth control pills – for medical reasons not for contraception!
Print journalists are a special breed of writer, some would argue, a special breed of human being. It is their job, both ethically and professionally, to digest a large amount of information and then turn it over as quickly as possible into an understandable narrative. Then, often without taking a breath, they must do it all over again, and again, and again, ad infinitum.
I trained really hard to do that job. I had wanted to be a print journalist since I was a kid. I believed, and still believe, that the news media is the last guardian of our democracy, ensuring that the public is not abused by its government. I believe that world history has shown that without a free, and vigorous press, there can be no freedom.
I was on school newspapers from middle school to university, got my journalism degree, completed an internship, then became a “cub” reporter on a small daily newspaper. I was a Walter Cronkite-inspired journalist – I wanted to be one of the good gals, riding to democracy’s rescue at any cost.
When I started in the business, most newspapers of even medium circulation had an “ombudsman” on staff. That person, who was also a trained journalist, had autonomy and was not controlled by the news ‘side’ of the business.
The ombudsmen (generally a man back then) spent their days investigating complaints by readers who accused the paper of making errors on stories, or of playing favorites and not being neutral on a particular issue, often political. In short, ensuring that the newspaper maintained its integrity in protecting the public interest.
By the time I became a veteran print journalist, almost all newspapers had eliminated the ombudsmen, deciding instead to investigate errors on their own – disregarding the obvious conflict of interest inherent in that decision.
Back then, the news side of the newspaper was truly separate from the advertising side, and they worked hard to keep it that way. Reporters were expected to get the news wherever they found it, and not worry about being censored to protect advertisers (or anyone else) from the potential fall-out of those stories.
Journalists were NOT entertainers, and news was...well, news: What was happening in the local, state and national levels, along with appropriate analysis to help readers make real sense of it all. Reporters were expected to gather the facts accurately, to analyze fairly, and to print it as soon as possible.
When I was a journalist, ‘Breaking News’ was not Linsey Lohan going to jail!
I was taught that to ensure accuracy every story should be fact-checked by the reporter, and the editors would challenge journalists once they brought the account back to the paper. If the information was provided by a “source,” it had to be verified by at least two other sources, three if the reporter could do it in time.
Imagine a simple story, a single-car accident. Now imagine the number of separate facts that has to be gathered to report it. Not just the who, what, when, where, why and how, but an almost infinite amount of other stuff to describe what had happened. Even the location of the wreck: Road, Street, Circle, Boulevard, Highway, Freeway, or etc.? So, even the simplest story has literally hundreds of facts, each one of those that can easily be mis-reported.
I gave a lecture once and asked the audience how many of them had ever had their names printed in a newspaper for any reason. Of those who had, I asked how many of them had their names spelled wrong. Easily 90 percent raised their hands!
Now imagine a really complex story. How many separate facts might there be? Thousands. Thousands of opportunities to blow it, to screw up one or more of these in just one story.
Next, consider a journalist who must digest, and report on a lengthy published survey, or worse yet, a scientific document that has a lot of industry-specific jargon. Imagine that same reporter may not have a science background, but that the staffing requirements of the newspaper has forced them to tackle the story.
OK. So, they have to read the hundreds of those pages cold, figure out what all of it means, then write it up. Now, imagine that reporter getting all those facts down correctly, and analyzed in the pressure cookers of deadline and media competition.
Deadlines were and are very real. Each story has an assigned deadline, generally established by the location the story would have in that day’s edition. For example, a lesser story that appeared in the back pages would have a sooner deadline because those pages would come off the press first. Front page stories had the latest deadlines possible to allow them to be updated up until the paper was “put to bed.”
Reporters were required to “write-through” their stories throughout the night, updating their accounts with any new information or to “flesh it out” by adding texture and more details to the last possible second.
Media competition was and is very real. Getting the stories first, beating the other news agencies, was drummed into our heads as much as getting those stories right. I knew of one national newspaper that would routinely send two of their own reporters to cover the same story to deliberately create competition between their own people!
When I became a journalist, there was no Internet, no cell phones, no electronic communication other than a land-line telephone in the home, or public pay phones on the street. Newspapers literally hit the street, either delivered in the morning, or sold by hawkers on the street.
Broadcast journalists didn’t even try to compete then, because they only had to fill 90 seconds of air-time for the most important story of the day. Often, they just waited for the newspapers to come out, then followed them on the noon and nighttime local news.
When I abruptly left the industry everything had changed. The Internet had spread like a genuine virus, news ink and actual paper costs had gone up more than 800 percent in one year, and blogging was well underway.
Instead of a 12-hour news cycle, it was suddenly now a 24-hour news cycle. Most newspapers were caught flat-footed, ill-equipped to play and compete in this new techno world.
They struggled to put their newspapers on websites. Instead of reporters, they hired computer technicians, and threw money at the whole thing, often haphazardly.
Traditionalists in many ways, a lot of newspaper and magazine managements thought the Internet wouldn’t last, or that it wouldn’t draw their readers like moths to a flame. They were wrong, wrong, wrong, so they panicked. Many staid publications stumbled and fell, never to recover, resulting in the largest number of bankruptcies in newspaper-magazine history.
Competition now came from every possible direction. Bloggers, and those who use Twitter don’t have to be trained writers, and their facts don’t have to be checked, since no one is looking over their shoulders. Newspaper advertisers pulled out for their own financial reasons, and began using their dollars on TV, cable stations or the Internet instead.
Newspapers fired veteran journalists from their sinking ships, then changed a lot of basic rules. Now, reporters turned their attention from news to entertainment and sensationalism, pressured to woo readers back into the literal fold any way they could. Now, pet stories compete with political stories on the front pages of respected newspapers.
New reporters either didn’t have the experience to fact-check as thoroughly, or they weren’t mentored by veteran journalists and editors. They floundered, and as that happened more and more frequently, newspapers stopped being bastions of accuracy and integrity, and gradually became just part of the overwhelming communication, quasi-information grist.
I’d always wanted to be a print journalist. Always. I left the industry I’d believed in, loved with my whole professional soul, and worked so hard at for so long. Now, I try my damndest only to look back when required – ironically, via my own blog!
— The Curator
I watched in horror yesterday as a combination of “bad science, scaremongering rhetoric and poor journalism” led to a hurtful conclusion that a greater number of girls in the UK are becoming sexually active because more and more of them are using oral contraceptives.
This initial story was picked up then widely reported throughout the UK causing a furor of near epic proportions. It was horrific because the account was DEAD WRONG! One of the few voices of reason, Dr. Petra Boynton, spent most of the day debunking the account on TV, radio, on the Internet via Twitter, and then with a wonderfully composed column posted on her blog.
I am a retired journalist. To watch it all unfold made me really sad, then really, really mad. Journalists have a responsibility – a public duty, actually – to report accurate information, especially when it involves children’s health or behavioral issues. The media in the UK failed abysmally, but the same thing can, and has, happened here.
These type of events should be wake-up calls to all news providers that they need to ensure their journalists and reporters have enough background to know how to interpret statistics, and to critically assess scientific opinions.
It is high time that sensational headlines trump information and facts. The news industry needs to take a step back, take a deep breath, and look to its past when its mission was clearly understood: Maintaining the public’s trust is more important than profit.
I have reprinted Dr. Boynton’s post, along with her links, in its entirety below, or if you prefer, read it directly at her fabulous blog:
11 years old, on the pill and sexually active? The media loses the news again
By Dr Petra
Published: 2 August, 2010
Parents across the UK are understandably being made anxious by news reports today suggesting:
— Rise in 11 year olds on the pill (Sunday Times)
— One thousand girls on Pill at 11: Huge rise in contraceptive prescription for pre-teens without parents knowing (Daily Mail)
— Huge rise in 11-year-olds on the pill (Telegraph)
The UK appears afflicted by ‘soaring’ numbers of sexually active girls, who lie to parents, enabled by GPs.
Is it accurate?
No.
Here’s why.
Where did the story come from?
These reports are based on figures from the General Practice Research Database (GPRD), indicating 1000 11-12 year olds annually are prescribed hormonal contraceptives (usually the pill or injection).
This was picked up by firstly the Sunday Times then spread to other newspapers, websites and broadcast media. As we’ll see journalists did not show due diligence in investigating the story.
Are 11 year old girls using hormonal contraceptives?
Yes. But despite the media hype there are many medical reasons why young girls might be prescribed hormonal contraceptives including:
— Heavy periods (resulting in excessive bleeding, vomiting, diarrhoea)
— Acne
— Endometriosis
— Polycystic Ovary Syndrome (PCOS)
— Irregular periods
— Amenorrhea (no periods due to extreme weight loss, anorexia, or side effects of radiation/chemotherapy)
Taking hormonal contraception is, for many girls, a means of ensuring they don’t miss school. It reduces symptoms that could be painful, distressing and single them out for bullying. When the pill is prescribed for medical reasons usually it is parents, in discussion with their daughters, who initiate contact the GP.
Of course hormonal contraception also prevents pregnancy. But being on the pill is not an indicator of having underage sex.
Approximately 26% of young girls have sex before the age of 16 Most are around 14-15. Fewer very young girls have sex and those who do are more likely to be coerced, regret the experience, struggle with access to healthcare and education, and lack family support. They are also far less likely to use any form of contraception. [More information on underage sex here]
What did the GPRD data say about different uses of hormonal contraception?
Unfortunately the data from the GPRD does not break down reasons for prescribing hormonal contraception to young women, so we cannot conclude precisely why they are using it. This hasn’t stopped media speculation it’s primarily for pregnancy prevention, wrongly suggesting all young girls on the pill are sexually active lolitas.
The media says teens don’t need parental consent to talk to a doctor. Is that true?
It is true practitioners do not have to tell parents if a young person consults with them (about any issue), guidance such as Gillick Competence and Fraser Guidelines (specifically for contraception). These set out the circumstances under which young people can get help without parental consent, and when parents or social services need to be involved. All of which happens with the awareness of a young person.
Generally practitioners want a parent or carer to be involved in supporting a young person. So providing health advice on any topic without a parent being involved tends to only happen in specific circumstances (explained in the links above). Before giving any advice practitioners are keen to establish the young person’s situation and find out what options they see themselves as having.
Aside from access to healthcare being a basic human right for any child or teen, there are sometimes very good reasons why a young person needs to talk about sensitive issues to their doctor. This may be when they live within a very strict home, or where their parents are absent or neglect them, or where they are subjected to abuse by their parents (or by others but are not protected by their parents).
So did the media make this story up?
Clearly ‘11 and 12 year old girls prescribed hormonal contraception with parents consent to prevent health problems’ doesn’t have the same salacious ring as ‘sexually active 11 year old girls’. The uncritical coverage does not refer to evidence based practice nor particularly includes reproductive health practitioners. Instead it relies heavily on the Christian Medical Association who have an anti sex education (and anti pre marital sex) agenda.
It wasn’t that the media lied about this story, certainly teens are using the pill for medical purposes and to prevent pregnancy. But this is not new. Doctors have been prescribing hormonal contraception to treat numerous complaints for decades. Just because it’s news to the media doesn’t mean it is not standard clinical practice.
Is sex education to blame?
Several news reports suggested the phenomena of young women using hormonal contraception was down to sex education – or would be made worse if sex education was implemented for young people. Indeed coverage on this was very confused on the actual or possible role of sex education in all this.
Currently sex education is not statutory across the UK and standards of delivery vary widely. Ofsted has recently produced a damning report on the state of UK sex education, while NICE is currently consulting on improving sex and relationships education in the UK. [More on what young people want from sex education here]
It seems much of the press coverage on the GPRD data is aimed at discrediting Ofsted and NICE’s suggestions that sex education be improved and appropriately tailored relationships education could begin with children aged 5.
Why was this coverage so poor?
There is an ongoing crusade by elements of the media to be anti young people, particularly young girls, and against all forms of sex education. And as we’ve already heard scandalous headlines about teenage nymphos sound a lot more exciting than a small subgroup of girls having the pill mainly for medical reasons.
However there are several other important reasons why the coverage was so bad.
Reproductive health is always framed as a two sided, moral debate
As you’ll see from the stories linked at the start of this post the media sets these stories up as moral debates where there are distinct baddies (doctors, trampy teens and anyone offering sex education) and goodies (Christian/Family groups, parents). The media focus is not to explore reasons why young women might use hormonal contraception, but to demonise young women generally and the medical profession alongside them.
Broadcast media tends to take this a step further inviting live debate between practitioners and moral authorities, and most of the calls I took from journalists today were seeking to pitch me into battle – cast in the unwinnable role of the ‘pro sex bogeywoman’ (as @badhedgehog observantly noted on Twitter).
Unsurprisingly this atmosphere does not allow clear information to be shared that might reassure parents or young people. Nor does it challenge poor media coverage, leaving the public still believing that loads of 11 year olds are a. on the pill and b. all promiscuous.
Many journalists have a poor understanding of reproductive health
Discussing this story with journalists provided a fascinating, if frustrating, insight into how many of them simply lack the basic sex education that would enable them to evaluate reproductive health data.
During the course of today I’ve spoken to 15 journalists, mostly working for radio and TV news stations, and 13 of which have been male.
Through these conversations I discovered none of the journalists knew hormonal contraception had medical uses. All of them assumed hormonal contraception was simply used to prevent pregnancy. And because of this assumption it hadn’t occurred to them to find out what else hormonal contraceptives might be used for.
They also were confused over what hormonal contraception was, in several cases not realising the pill was only one form. Most seemed to believe hormonal contraception just meant ‘the pill’. One journalist thought the injection couldn’t be a form of hormonal contraception because it wasn’t ‘a pill’, while another believed the contraceptive injection was ‘worse’ than the pill as it ‘lasted longer’ and made girls ‘more likely to have sex’.
Most of the journalists couldn’t work out why a young woman might opt for a hormonal contraceptive in injection form. They interpreted opting for an injection as easier for some than remembering to take a pill regularly as further evidence of fecklessness. This reinforced for them the stereotype of sexually lax behaviour they associated contraception use with.
Even those who accepted hormonal contraception could have additional uses still returned to the idea the main reason young people were using it was to have sex. Or believed if they were given hormonal contraception it would automatically lead to sex soon after. Or make girls more likely to act in loose ways.
Persuading them parents are mostly involved in decisions of hormonal contraception use with young girls proved pretty difficult. One journalist said ‘you’d go as far as saying a girl should go on the pill if she has heavy and painful period?’. Well, yes if that’s what she and her doctor agreed would help her. This particular journalist then asked me if I could come on air and say the first bit (parents should put their daughters on the pill) but not the second bit (explaining why they’d want to do this). Obviously I refused but you can see how even when presented with evidence to show a story is wrong journalists won’t move away from a particular angle.
Sadly while most journalists I spoke to did seem interested to learn about the medical reasons for using hormonal contraception and finding out more about it, once it became clear I wasn’t willing to participate in a ‘debate’ about whether young girls are sexually active or not, they were not interested in discussing things further. (It could be the journalists I spoke to aren’t representative of the media generally or were trying to make a particular debate point with their questioning, but my interpretation was most genuinely seemed ill informed about reproductive health)
Healthcare agencies, particularly in reproductive health, did not speak up
The whole case has highlighted for me the need for agencies promoting sexual and reproductive health to offer basic training for journalists. There is obviously a great need for many journalists to have information about how to understand clinical data, but also having an awareness of sexual and reproductive health to help them interpret this information.
Sadly the majority of organisations dealing with reproductive health (including NHS Choices, Nursing Times and the Department of Health) remained silent during the day – even when requested directly through twitter and email to get involved. This is sadly a common pattern where organisations miss key opportunities to deliver health information.
While this may be partly due to the way the media frames stories like this and practitioners don’t want to be cast as the bad guy, if enough people spoke out we could achieve so much.
As much as I have criticised the media here it is worth noting there were also many other responsible broadcasters and writers who did want to cover the story but they were struggling to find anyone to talk to them.
We cannot complain about poor media coverage if, as health practitioners and educators, we do not offer our services to ensure accurate information is shared.
How should the media have treated this story?
This really is a non story, but if the media had wanted to report it accurately they should have looked at the reasons why the contraceptive was prescribed, whether parents had consented to their daughter using hormonal contraception, and indicated proportionally how many young people were prescribed the pill for pregnancy prevention without parental consent. Indicating the numbers of 11-12 year olds on the pill as compared to the wider population in this age group would put this in perspective in terms of prevalence. And they should have written this in a way to highlight how to safeguard young people most at risk. Who we know mostly do not seek out medical help and are often also unable to get help within their families.
The take home message is?
Sadly bad science, scaremongering rhetoric and poor journalism makes it difficult for parents and young people to get accurate information. This may result in making young people more excluded from the health care they need.
Unfortunately if we do not challenge it we will continue to leave parents terrified and young people disempowered.
This piece appeared in a shorter form for The Times Science today as Too much too young: most 11-year-olds aren’t on the pill for sex.
With grateful thanks to everyone on Twitter today who challenged this story, shared information about young people’s rights, and generally kept me going when I was getting fed up shouting about it!
~~~~~~~~~~~
And, just who is the wonderful Dr. Petra Boynton?
She is a lecturer in International Health Services Research at a London university where she teaches doctors, nurses and other health professionals at postgraduate level.
She regularly presents at conferences in the UK and internationally, and completes research and training within the area of sex and relationships health.
She has a BA in Social Psychology (Sussex University), and a PhD is in Applied Human Psychology (Aston University). Her PhD focused on the effects of sexually explicit material.
She has lectured at a number of UK universities, specializing in evidence based healthcare, and understanding research methodologies (both qualitative and quantitative).
Her research has covered topics within the area of sexual health; including the effects of pornography; women involved in street prostitution; policy and practice in sex education; evaluating advice giving in the media; sexual functioning; and modernizing sexual health services.
I wish to personally thank the good doctor for working tirelessly to ensure this important public health issue was reported accurately, and for giving the news media a well-deserved kick in the pants!
— The Curator
Famed British erotic author Belle de Jour made her TV debut last night as herself: Dr. Brooke Magnanti.
Brooke, 34, appeared on Sky Arts The Book Show in the UK, and was questioned by The Book Show host, Mariella Frostrup. (Note: The interview will be replayed at various times, but can only be seen in the UK and not in the U.S.)
“In her first ever television interview since revealing her true identity, former call-girl Brooke Magnanti (Belle de Jour) confesses all,” The Book Show touted on its website.
For those of you who are unfamiliar with her, Belle de Jour had been the nom de plume of a celebrated erotic author, and award-winning blogger, who was also a London call girl for two years.
On Nov. 15, Belle revealed her true identity through a voluntary interview with the London Sunday Times. Brooke’s specialist areas are developmental neurotoxicology and cancer epidemiology. She has a PhD in informatics, epidemiology and forensic science and is now working at the Bristol Initiative for Research of Child Health. She is currently part of a team researching the potential effects on babies of their mothers' exposure to toxic chemicals.
But, from 2003 to late 2004, Brooke worked as a prostitute via a London escort agency; she started blogging as Belle de Jour — after the Buñuel film starring Catherine Deneuve as a well-to-do housewife who has sex for money because she’s bored — shortly into her career as a call girl, after an incident she thought funny enough to write down.
She charged £300 ($530) an hour for her services, of which she got £200. The average appointment lasted two hours; she saw clients two or three times a week, “sometimes less, sometimes a great deal more,” she has said.
As Belle de Jour, Brooke, of Bristol, England, has written four books and an award-winning blog about her work in the sex industry. The media furor triggered by her decision to disclosed her true identity continues across the UK.
Asked by Mariella Frostrup what was the scariest part of “coming out” to international attention, Brooke responded, “I might lose my job. Everything just took off.”
The publicity was so intense that requests for interviews poured into Brooke’s employer, not just to her publisher and agent.
“I said yes to everything,” requests for interviews, etc. “A lot of other employers might not have been comfortable” with all of the publicity. “I’m quite lucky in that regard,” Brooke said.
Brooke told Frostrup how she had decided to write her erotic blog. She described going to a photo shoot after first working for the escort service. The sexy photographs taken of her in lingerie would later be posted by the agency on its website, so clients could see who was available to request.
Brooke said it wasn’t being photographed that got her attention, but the photographer who, “Might have been something out of a dominatrix-submission fantasy.”
“Hilarious,” Brooke chuckled remembering it. “I couldn’t really tell my friends.”
Brooke said she already been blogging as herself, posting musings on science, so she knew how the process worked.
“I thought it (photographer) might be a funny story for people to read,” Brooke said.
The rest, as they say, is erotic blogging history.
Frostrup was interested in a comment Brooke had made that her alter ego wasn’t really her.
“I turn on an aspect of my personalty,” a lot of jobs are like that, Brooke noted.
“It’s not that Belle isn’t me,” Brooke explained. “It’s an aspect of my personality. Belle is the more confident part of me.”
Brooke said Belle is not that part of her that when she opens the door she wonders, “Do I think I look all right? Belle has to walk in and feel she looks all right.”
“I had to make sure that I connected with that before walking into an appointment,” Brooke said, because clients really reacted to body language. “I had to make sure I was putting that part of myself, the confident bit across.”
Asked if she had any regrets, Brooke replied, “I don’t, actually. I know that sounds very strange.”
“Obviously, there have been drawbacks,” Brooke said, then was thoughtful. “But, my life has changed so much. Where I am, what I’m doing, the relationship I’m in...all of that wouldn’t have come about,” but for the book.
“Really, everything came about because of the book...as a result of the circumstances surrounding the book,” she said. “My experiences.”
Brooke is very aware that her experiences in the sex industry may not be the norm. She was never injured, and enjoyed the work.
“Can’t regret what’s gone on in the past,” she said. “I’m lucky in that regard. My experience, let’s not mince words, I was very luck. I was very well handled...I managed to get out before it became the bulk of my lifestyle. It served its purpose, as any short-term work would do.”
The most interesting response, to me, occurred when Frostrup asked Brooke if she missed the life, being on the game.
Brooke was thoughtful for several seconds before answering.
“I miss the moment when you walk into the hotel, and you instantly click on, and you recognize where you are. Sort of feeling – I’m about to do a job, and I’m about to do it well. I get that same sort of satisfaction from the job I do now.”
After which, both women laughed. “Are you aware that you’re unusual?” Frostrup asked.
“Yes,” Brooke answered quietly, smiling. She said the last job she’d held before moving to London was scrubbing out toilets in Scotland. “This was a step up from that.”
Brooke said that over the years, she’s received a lot of emails from young women asking if they should go into the business.
“You have to know about yourself. If you have to ask it – probably no,” Brooke said.
(FYI: Other program guests appearing in individual segments in Episode 7 were: UK TV funny man David Mitchell, this year’s Booker Prize winner Hilary Mantel and Irish author Eoin Colfer. The Book Show airs in the UK at 7 p.m. every Thursday on Sky Arts 1.)
Even though I hadn’t known Belle’s name until she disclosed it, I have always known her. She has become a dear friend through her writing. She has written about her sexual adventures and misadventures while having worked in the sex industry, but so very much more. In truth, Brooke has always written about life.
What sets her writing apart is not merely the topics, and the point of view, but the way she writes. She has a unique style, an unforgettable voice. Equal parts humor, wit, wisdom and shining, literate brilliance, there is unflinching truth within her writing. All the time, somehow managing to be incredibly entertaining.
In addition, she is a sex-positive woman who likes men! I don’t mean just in bed, but as a species. Can you imagine? In this day and age of constant man bashing by so-called feminists, it’s refreshing to read a different approach.
In her new book, Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, Brooke discusses sex, among other topics. In a recent interview with the Irish Independent, she told journalist Declan Cashin that all of us – women in particular – should be having more sex, for pleasure, with more partners.
Brooke happily calls herself "a slag," because she rails against the shame that still seems to surround the act, "that we're all built to do."
"Some people respond more to physical expressions of love, and I am certainly one of those. There seems to be a widespread assumption that the slow death of imagination and frequency of love-making is simply something that must be expected in relationships. I don't accept that. But in the end quality always trumps quantity (though as Stalin wryly noted, 'quantity has a quality all its own'),” Brooke told the newspaper.
Brooke is also quick to “rubbish” notions of 'The One' – clinging to a belief that there's just one person out there for all of us, Cashin wrote.
"Everyone's entitled to their opinion, but I don't buy it at all," Brooke declares.
"Bottom line: I guess I could be tempted to say my current man is 'A One' – somebody I love enough to do the work it takes for us to stay together. But pretending there is literally no-one else in history who could have fulfilled that role? Wow, maths education standards really have slipped!
"Not only is it unlikely, it's impossible. In much the same way the lottery is a tax on people who don't understand statistics, 'The One' is an emotional tax on the same," Brooke told Cashin.
Belle de Jour’s Guide to Men, published by Orion Books, hit store shelves in the United Kingdom on Oct. 1. Not yet available in the US, it is widely available across the pond at UK bookstores, or via Amazon’s UK division.
When you’re there, be sure and check out Belle’s other books: The Intimate Adventures of a London Call Girl, September 2005; The Further Adventures of a London Call Girl, May 2007; and Playing the Game, June 2009. Not a ringer in the bunch – trust me!
— The Curator
