Guess what? I’m quoted in the L.A. Times again. This time in an article called, “Health Officials Concerned About Extreme Sex Acts in Porn.” But guess what else? I was never interviewed about the concerns of health officials.

Don’t get me wrong, I’ve spoken a few times with some L.A. Times reporters. And Ms. Caitlyn Liu, one of the article’s writers, is one I’ve spoken to at least twice, maybe three times. And I’m pretty sure I said to Ms. Liu what the article said I said. I just didn’t say it in a conversation where the concerns of health officials, or the concerns of anyone else (other than Ms. Liu), were ever raised.

And I’m pretty sure the Bill Margold quote used in the article wasn’t a quote he gave in response to questions regarding the concerns of health officials. Why do I think that? Because the L.A. Times used Bill's “porn has devolved” stuff in its article and I know I've heard that out of Bill's mouth before. In fact, I’m pretty sure Bill’s comments on the “de-evolution of porn” are from Bill’s very thick and weighty "Book of Official, Standard, and Often-Used Margoldisms." (I have no idea which Volume.)

This brings me to why I’m writing about this bit of journalistic quote-sampling.

It seems to me that print journalists must keep files filled with “print bites.”

"Print bites" are like "sound bites" only they’re to be used in print media rather than broadcast news media. We all know what "sound bites" are, right? They’re those bits of videotape of all kinds of different people saying all kinds of different things that can be accessed and used in the production of all kinds of different TV news stories. Well, just like broadcast journalists, it seems print journalists also can access and use what I’m calling “print bites” in the production of all kinds of different print news stories.

My quote in the Times was this: "Nine times out of 10, I'm called upon to shoot a freak show," added James DiGiorgio, a longtime director and cameraman. "It's garbage. I can't even believe people buy it. What does that say about the consumer?"

Notice how it says I “added” what it says I said. That means my quote was one where I added something to either: something else I said, or something someone else said. So, although I’m pretty sure I did say that, I’m questioning the context in which I said it.

But the L.A. Times reporters leave no doubt to the context. They said I “added” this comment to something else.

And what was it that I added my words to? Well, I’ll tell you. According to these reporters, I “added” what I said to something Bill Margold said.

According to the Times, I “added” what I “added” after Bill Margold said, “The industry has devolved … a devolution back into this primordial ooze," said Bill Margold, an industry veteran for more than 30 years, who now serves as a counselor at Protecting Adult Welfare, a nonprofit support group for performers. "It's like 'Fear Factor' gone X," he said.

To the unsuspecting L.A. Times reader, it would seem that Ms. Liu, and her associate and co-writer, conducted some sort of group interview with Bill Margold, some others who are quoted, and myself. But to the savvy reader, it should now be clear that wasn’t the case. And it should also be clear (Why? Because I’m telling you how this went down, or rather, how it didn’t go down) that my quote and probably the quotes of others were not in response to questions regarding the concerns of health officials.

Maybe I’m being petty and overly scrutinizing this article. But I gotta tell you… this taking-out-of-context shit doesn’t set well with me.

By the way, I distinctly remember the conversation I had with Ms. Liu wherein I said what she reported I "added." And it certainly wasn’t about health officials, or the HIV crisis, or anything remotely connected to what is going on these days with the porn biz and health and safety issues on sets. And while I'm sure I said what I said while I "added" to something else I said (that probably wasn't "print bite" worthy), the conversation in question wherein I made the "Nine times out of 10..." quote was during a phone conversation with Ms. Liu in which she was asking me if I knew the identity of Khan Tusion.

You see, Ms. Liu wants to out Khan. She had heard about him and the kind of content he produces. She had also heard that he is a very successful and well-known businessman, a respected and upstanding member of the San Fernando Valley community, and a guy with ties to local government. But she had also heard that he’s a fucking deviant pervert who delights in producing the most extreme acts of videotaped misogyny for commercial gain. So what Ms. Liu wants to do is expose Khan to the community, to his friends and family, and to his business associates.

I think they call what Ms. Liu is doing with her Khan Tusion inquiries "investigative journalism."

And just so ya know, I could give a shit less if she reveals the guy who is Khan Tusion. If Khan (or anyone else) wants to play in “the playpen of the dammed,” (© Bill Margold), he can take the heat (or bask in the glory) of being publicly labeled a smut-makin’ Carney just like the rest of us.

If Mr. Tusion has a problem with that, I say he ought’a pack his porn shit and go home.

And as for the L.A. Times and Ms. Liu-- I'd be fascinated to know what other "print bites" I may have given her that will be taken out of context and prove worthy of some future publication.



"