Home
Archive
Columnists
Video
Blogs
Discuss
About
Search
Donate
Advertise
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Advertisement
Register to Vote: Rock the Vote, powered by Working Assets Wireless
Advertisement
  • AlterNetYour turn

Support AlterNet
Do you value the information you're getting from AlterNet? Please show your support with a tax-deductible donation.


Feedback
Tell us how we're doing.

Sex and Relationships

The Child Porn Hoax

By Susie Bright, SusieBright.com. Posted October 2, 2007.


There's a difference between the real world of child abuse -- a story that apparently has no legs-- and Child-Porn!™ that is constructed by unethical politicians.
Advertisement

Once upon a time, there was a very serious reporter for a very serious newspaper, who decided to investigate one of society's scourges: the child pornography ring.

Two years after his exposés riveted the nation, it turned out the reporter had gone off the deep end. He'd paid his main source, become a webmaster at the very porn site he was investigating, lied and bullied anyone who questioned him, and had all but ostracized himself out of a reporting career.

But it wasn't just him. The witch-hunters, bogeyman blamers, and moral-panic enablers -- were everywhere. Our little reporter might have landed in deep shit, but the hysteria he milked became bigger than ever before.

Call him one of the most bizarre media offenders in the past two years of fear-mongering: Former New York Times and Portfolio reporter Kurt Eichenwald. He wrote two front-page stories on the subject of sex that won't be forgotten soon: Through His Webcam, a Boy Joins a Sordid Online World, and its followup, Child Sex Sites on the Run.

From the get-go, both stories were creepy: the softcore sexy descriptions, the "blame the internet" righteousness, the homophobic ick factor, and the unexplained implication that Eichenwald had looked at piles of this material himself, when by current law, he wouldn't have that right, no matter how well-intentioned his purpose!

Why did Kurt portray himself as an elite one-man rescue mission, and why was he so lurid in his crusade?

It didn't smell right.

Eichenwald's stories appeared just weeks after the Times editors confessed that their admired reporter, Judith Miller, was guilty of fraudulent writing about the war in Iraq -- promoting the specter of "weapons of mass destruction." Miller got canned, everyone's face was red for five minutes -- and then Eichenwald's "Cam Whore" story made its debut.

Kurt's source was the soon-to-be-notorious Justin Berry. Berry poured his heart out about his internet porn life, and was pictured in all his aspects. The photo essay opened with a headshot of a slim young man, oddly sultry. At the end of the story, Justin appeared in choir robes, singing gospel.

The mainstream press was in awe. One Houston reporter called it "remarkable".

At the ripe age of 13, Justin began attracting online pedophiles by performing on his webcam and  subsequently made hundreds of thousands of dollars over the next several years by performing online. In researching the story, Eichenwald met Justin and persuaded him to get off of drugs, to shut down the online business, and provide to the government names and credit card information on about 1,500 people who paid him to perform on his webcam.This is one of those stories that stays with you for a long time.

Boy, I'll say.

Reporter Kurt broke through the usual reporter's detachment to reveal that he'd reached out to this victim, helped him kick drugs, engineered an immunity deal, and worked to turn his life around so he could reach out to other kids in trouble. They went on Oprah together!

The smell was getting worse.

After Kurt's articles ran, Debbie Nathan, a reporter who's covered these subjects before, wrote an article for Salon about the ethical dilemmas for reporters and social scientists who want to get at the truth of "child porn" accusations. She asked why Kurt was allowed to look and analyze at this sort of media when no one else is allowed to, besides the cops.

Kurt blew a gasket. He contacted Salon, threatened to sue their ass off if they didn't take the story down, and demanded they issue a retraction/apology. Two of them, actually.

They acquiesced immediately.

Eichenwald then wrote a little note to Nathan:

It is already clear to me that you are the most unethical and sleazy "journalist" I have ever encountered, one who feels content misrepresenting her intentions and efforts and never asking a relevant question relating to a piece she is writing. What I cannot determine is if your inability to read and understand the words presented to you is the result of incompetence, stupidity, malevolence, or a combination of the three.

Digg!

See more stories tagged with: child sexual abuse, pornography, child porn, susie bright, new york times

Susie Bright is an author, editor, and journalist known for her original and pioneering work in sexual politics and erotic expression. She writes about sex and politics every day at her blog.

Liked this story? Get top stories in your inbox each week from Sex and Relationships! Sign up now »


Advertisement

 

Comments Turn comments off sitewide Give us feedback »
Comments closed.
The comments for this story have been closed. Thank you to everyone who participated.
View:
one quibble
Posted by: hotar on Oct 2, 2007 4:45 AM   
Current rating: 2    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
SB wrote:

"Eichenwald provided the highbrow "child-loving" product, the erotic imagery that allowed upper-middle-class, educated readers to indulge their cultural sexual fantasies about underage people while telling themselves they were just interested in "real social problems," "saving children," etc."

I have to take issue with the above. I don't HAVE any fantasies about "underage people", but I probably would've read the articles out of curiosity. Sure, perhaps a craving for the shock value; the underworld is fascinating to the ordinary, above-ground citizen. But prurient interest? Come off it, Susie, you went a step too far there.

However, I definitely agree that Eichenwald went way beyond the bounds of what's appropriate for a journalist, and one does indeed have to question his motives. Money? Fame? I'm somewhat doubtful that he merely wanted to "rescue" young Mr. Berry.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: one quibble Posted by: edraven
» RE: one quibble Posted by: hotar
» RE: one quibble Posted by: edraven
» RE: one quibble Posted by: Bambi
» RE: one quibble Posted by: edraven
"Prurient interest" is no longer just about sex
Posted by: hagwind on Oct 2, 2007 5:56 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Great article, especially the interview with Debbie Nathan. I didn't know about U.S. Code 2252, or even how insane the laws have become about child porn. And it does my jaded heart good to know that there are journalists out there who not only practice journalistic ethics but know -- and can articulate eloquently -- why they are important. I don't believe it's possible for a journalist to be completely detached from any story s/he's covering: as soon as you start asking questions and reporting the answers, you're changing the story in uncontrollable ways. But Eichenwald's involvement was so clearly helping to create and shape the story, and it seems he totally lost sight of what he as a journalist was supposed to be doing.

This "prurient interest" thing seems to have gone way beyond pornography, and way beyond sex. I look at the various writers who have been outed for making stuff up and passing it off as "true" -- violent childhoods and extravagant adventures with drugs and sex seem to be de rigueur -- and I wonder why the editors and publishers (of books as well as newspaper and magazine articles) are so keen on this stuff. Evidently it sells, which means "we" are buying it. I don't know what that means, or what myriad effects it has on "us" -- I'm very nervous about how easy it is in this society to produce mass hysteria with a few stock phrases: Child porn! Weapons of mass destruction! Terrorism! Conditioned responses can be hazardous to our social and political health. Disconnecting the hot buttons should be a top priority for us both as individuals and as activists.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Why are pictures/videos different from actions? Age-of-consent in
Posted by: albrechtkrausse on Oct 2, 2007 6:57 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
many States is less than 18. Yet, laws about pornography state that under-18 photos are 'child porn'. So you can 'do it' but not 'film it'? In fact in most States you could even marry below the age of 18. Some countries, of course, have an even much lower age-of-consent but have adopted the US 'child porn' laws. This might be on purpose (the prevalence of the internet, VCRs, etc would make the film live on forever and come back to haunt the participants) but I doubt it. I also wonder if the Courts would accept this discrepancy?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» Makes sense to me, actually. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
» RE: Makes sense to me, actually. Posted by: albrechtkrausse
Sarcastic or What?
Posted by: pdxstudent on Oct 2, 2007 8:13 AM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
How did this slip in there---what is it supposed to mean?

"And both of them, originally, were rather innocent, if one were to remove the ridiculous government restrictions that surrounded what each of them did."

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: Sarcastic or What? Posted by: drmflorida
» Pretentious Too Posted by: pdxstudent
Kiddie porn is MISused by the pols and telco to KILL the Internet.
Posted by: maxpayne on Oct 2, 2007 8:28 AM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Notice that most policies that promise to crack down on kiddie porn NEVER really do so. It's all about killing the Internet, the final frontier of freedom.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

so frustrating
Posted by: DaBear on Oct 2, 2007 12:58 PM   
Current rating: 5    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Thanks SB for the piece. Important stuff... just really depressing and frustrating after recently re-reading Judith Levine's Harmful to Minors: The Perils of Protecting Children from Sex, and being aware of how tough it was to get that book even published--because it speaks volumes of factual truth to the power of culturally embedded ignorance. Everyone (at least those in power) wants the fear-narrative (mainly about sex, kids, public policy, etc) they assume is true to be in fact reality. But when someone has the temerity to point out that their fear-narrative(s) is irrational and the facts demand, as a matter of human integrity, for frack's sake, that the fear-narrative be dropped, everyone just comes totally unhinged... in light of Debbie Nathan's experience with Salon's silencing and suppression of her antidote to irrational fear-narratives, one wonders where the hell we go from here.... holy smokin' tea leaves, Batman, we're so very badly f*cked. And I gotta raise healthy kids in this cesspool of 'Merkaan stoopid?! WTF!

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

She has written about this before
Posted by: realmuzik on Oct 2, 2007 7:48 PM   
Current rating: 4    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Susie Bright once was a Q&A columnist for BUST where she expressed these same viewpoints. As much as I adore her books and writings about sex in our lives and culture, I draw the line on this topic and vehemently disagree. I have a friend who's ex-fiance molested her 14-year-old daughter this past summer. As to whether or not porn played a role in this situation is unclear. But the reality is that crimes against children acted upon them based on sick fantasies happen every day and PERMANENTLY SCAR them for the rest of their lives. Even more realistically, us taxpayers have to foot the bills for the constant care and therapies of their PERMANENTLY SCARRED well-beings. Many are so scarred for life they must depend on the government to help them live daily. Furthermore, we are also footing the bills to keep the perpetrators in jail for sentences shorter than those of first-time drug offenders--in no time they are turned loose to harm others--and harm they do.

Do not get me wrong. I vehemently defend the First Amendment rights of consenting adults to fantasize, watch, read, and do they please within the confines of other, fellow adults. But when it comes to children this is wrong and wrong because that such crimes against them PERMANENTLY WARP their understandings of sex as part of the healthy, discretionary lifestyles Bright consistently champions (and what SHOULD be taught in sex-ed classes, not the abstinence is the only way b.s.). I also defend that this is not a hypocritical viewpoint. What I am implying is that what is good for consenting, responsible adults is NOT good for children, or even some irresponsible adults.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

» RE: She has written about this before Posted by: yoursfaithfully
» The cult of the child Posted by: ssegallmd
lugoteehalt
Posted by: lugoteehalt on Oct 4, 2007 8:12 AM   
Current rating: 1    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
We switch on TV or open a newspaper - nothing but criminals and paedofiles.

Anti-semitic country switches on TV or open newspaper - Jews and blacks. [Incidentally nazis bad exemplar; forget them.]

Are these by any chance related?

By making the population worry about Jews the whole time you can get them (by various means) to act against their own interests and in the interests of the organised groups or rings that really run the place. The essence of social control.

Your wooly paedofile is a Jew substitute. This basic point must be made on each and every occasion.

Here an occasion seems to have been missed.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

Fragments of truth - Games in Distraction, English sux0r
Posted by: trick on Oct 6, 2007 8:26 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Haven't you missed the point though?

It's not so much of an opinion piece on a cultural issue nor an outcry to denounce or support a view... there's really no totalitarian emphasis there.

Disliking Bright's opinions, views and other elements within the article is open game... But it doesn't eliminate certain facts that have transpired in regards to this issue and more directly the cases associated with Mr. Eichenwald.

Fragments of JB

The above link seems to have some relevance in response to this as well as the overall subject so pardon me if I choose not to debate or attempt to clarify a position that would likely not be well received.

But in the discussion of these events we cannot forget those who have been affected by the outcome of it nor can we say that in the turn of these facts that just because those who were associated with the topic have been convicted are in fact guilty, when this information is more fresh than what was known then.


The reality is we're all scarred by some element of our childhood past. The embarrassing pictures are just as scarring to some of us as the contents of this topic. Victims have responsibilities and I apologize for how this sounds but quite frankly we have a business of making "victims," and the business of victims is doing quite well ... from the paid speakers (perhaps more socially palatable as a personal donation or "gift") to a pseudo glamour event akin to American Idol with who has the worst story.... the same way we have reacted in many other areas of life.

They're icons more than people, an argument of heaven vs hell, angels and demons. Good and evil.

Now mind you, I am a bit biased here, I don't really believe in either. I believe there's a bit of a median. We carry our wounds with us, sometimes like a badge of honor, but we shouldn't exploit that fact nor can we should we allow even on our behalf for people to just take our "word" for it. We have to earn our stripes as we walk through life, we have to prove who we are without a promotional campaign that advertises us like a disgusting blend of soda, that tastes like crap but has come a long way from the original or as a child when we no longer are.

Do you take responsibility for your life or are still holding your knee to your chest, crying from the first time it got scraped?

That ends my social spilge but this wasn't the only case of Eichenwald's screw-ups, through out his career he has made some questionable choices in journalism. Say, Texaco?

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

don't get it
Posted by: SusanMcGee on Oct 9, 2007 10:37 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Don't get this article at all.
Child pornography exists. It's wrong. Any portrayal of a child being used sexually means a child was used sexually. That's an abomination. It's disgusting. It cannot happen.
This has NOTHING to do with healthy eroticism, wonderful fantasy, etc.
Healthy sexually active, pro sex, pro body adults do NOT have sexual fantasies about children NOR do they look at child pornography.
Period.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]

A troubled man
Posted by: jchores on Oct 29, 2007 10:19 PM   
Current rating: Not yet rated    [1 = poor; 5 = excellent]
Eichenwald obviously has an obsession with young men, as to whether his interest lies above or below the age of consent, only he knows. What we do know, however, is that he seems to be an emotionally troubled man.

[« Reply to this comment] [Post a new comment »] [Rate this comment: 1 - 2 - 3 - 4 - 5]