Update: CNN decides to blame pornographers, not women

What you’re about to read may shock you: The CNN segment Jess wrote about yesterday wasn’t as bad as I thought it would be. Here’s the transcript from the show, which was about porn websites that coerce young women into stripping and doing various other things for the camera.

CHERNOFF [reporter]: Jill says she was drunk and that pressure from the crowd and the cameraman pushed her to do things she normally would never have done.
JILL: I couldn’t stand up for myself and say, you know what, no, I’m not going to do this. There is no way that I could stop because I was so scared of what they would do if I stopped.

Sounds pretty slutty to me!

[Internet "photographer" Micah] COY: No one is forcing anyone in any situations. It is entirely up to the person — at their discretion.
CHERNOFF: And, Coy argues, there is no undue pressure from men at the parties.
COY: Serious problems arise when you have two people naked and a bunch of people drunk around them and you have everyone’s emotions are going, you have a lot of hormones flying around. It can easily turn into a mob mentality and that was something I never wanted to have happen.

Coy doesn’t mention that it’s two women who are naked, surrounded by drunk men. I’d say that changes the dynamic somewhat.

CHERNOFF: But your site is full of that. It is full of people egging them on. All of that.
COY: There is a finesse about it, I guess.

I’ll say. But CNN isn’t really one to talk about “finessing” a story… seeing as how they chose to market their segment girls-gone-wild style, rather than as a warning about an increasingly common type of sexual predation. Even though the actual show wasn’t nearly as offensive as the promos, it’s still not excusable.

Join the Conversation

  • stu

    Is anyone interested in drafting a letter or petition to send to campus presidents and deans demanding they address this situation by not allowing these organizations on campuses or not allowing organizations (such as fraternities) to have a role in campus life. For private universities this would be easy, for public there would be some free speech issues. However, the great risk this poses to students on campus warrants restricting this. I think if we can get momentum going by having a few signors at universities it might have enough momentum to do something. Just a thought. Anyone think this idea is a) good, b) would work, or c) something they want to be involved in.

  • puckalish

    you know, this is kind of tangential, but i think it’s pretty amazing that ‘free speech’ has protected predatory pornographers, verbal abusers, hate groups, fraternities and the like while it hasn’t afforded the same protection to folks like dr mutulu shakur, assata shakur, oscar lopez rivera, haydee beltran torres, mumia abu jamal, angela davis, little bobbie hutton, george jackson, nelson mandela…
    i mean, folks try to speak up for life, for rights, for love of self and family and get took out by cointelpro, the fbi, etc.
    folks speak up for taking advantage of women, for “white pride”, for the “scientific” bases for racism… and get support…
    what’s the meaning?

  • http://redstatefeminist.blogspot.com txfeminist

    word, puck.