I received an unexpected phone call this morning. It was from Los Angeles Times reporter Caitlyn Liu. Quickly, Ms. Liu got to the point: She had read my entry regarding the article she co-wrote for LAT regarding the concerns of health officials--concerns about extreme sex acts in porn—and took umbrage with a few of the things I had to say about her reporting.

In particular, Ms. Liu was none too happy with my opinion that my quote, though accurate, was taken out of context. She agreed that our conversation (in which the quote was gleaned) began with her inquiries about Khan Tusion’s identity. But she reminded me that we had also discussed extreme sex acts in porn (a discussion that is easily entered into when talking about a sick fuck like Khan Tusion) and that I had offered some personal opinions about said acts.

For instance, she reminded me that I had labeled some of these acts “disgusting” and “garbage” and “freak show shit.” I admitted all this was true. I do think some of what is passed off as adult entertainment these days is disturbing, quite disgusting, total garbage, and perverse freak show shit. And I also think its dangerous; from both health and legal perspectives.

The basis, therefore, of Ms. Liu’s indignation was that, while we might not have been specifically discussing concerns expressed by actual health officials, we were discussing extreme acts in porn that are of concern; at least to Ms. Liu, (admitedly) to myself, and to others.

And you know what? That's all true.

During our conversation, I called Ms. Liu on the word “added” which she (or her co-writer or her editor) used when, in the article, it said that I “added” my quote to another quote (by Bill Margold). I explained that, in my opinion, the word “added” made it seem like I was adding my words to Bill’s words as if Bill and I were being jointly and simultaneously interviewed on the subject.

Ms. Liu assured me the word "added" was never intended to appear as if it were a joint interview and that it was purely an editorial use of the word. In retrospect, I’ve decided I was probably making much ado about nothing… or more accurately, much ado over semantics (which I have a habit of sometimes doing.)

We spoke for nearly and hour (on a range of porn-related subjects) and throughout our conversation I was impressed with Ms. Liu’s integrity. As a result of all she had to say I’ve re-thought my thinking regarding her reporting. And although I still maintain there are media people who imbue their reporting with an anti-porn bias--painting us with muddied colors--and who are not above taking quotes out of context (and worse), I don’t believe Ms. Liu is amongst them.

Ms. Liu has convinced this cynical and jaded porn hack that she has personally endeavored to accurately and fairly report on what’s going on in the jizz biz these days… and I don’t convince too easily.




"