Why Should Their Clothing Matter?

Thomas Fuller wrote a piece for the New York Times the other day reporting on occupational safety hearings for the adult film industry in California.

At least I think that’s what it was supposed to be about. That’s what I’d consider a hard news topic, and I can’t recall ever reading about people’s clothing, or hair color, or style of walking in other hard news stories.

Fuller wrote about Jessy Dubai’s “form-fitting beige dress” and her “sashay” past the board in stiletto heels. He mentioned Brad Armstrong’s three-piece suit, and Savannah Fox’s “black jacket and orange-tinted hair.”

But he didn’t mention Adam Carl Cohen’s clothing, or Dave Thomas’ hair color, or talk about the way David Harrison walked. He didn’t even bother to point out that the board members were fully dressed.

Why?

What possible excuse could there be to talk about one group’s clothing and mannerisms, but not the other group’s? It’s almost as if the reporter was trying to marginalize one group. One might be curious as to why someone like Fuller would cover something like this. According to the Times website, “Thomas Fuller is the Southeast Asia Correspondent for The New York Times based in Bangkok.”

Oakland is a long way from Bangkok. Then again, he just announced over Twitter than he’s becoming the San Francisco Bureau Chief.

One would like to think it’s rare to see such a blatant case of news reporting bias these days, and it’s beyond disappointing that it would come from the Times. A Google News search for “California pornographic film industry Cal OSHA” led to a number of articles from NPR, The Guardian, Honolulu’s Star-Advertiser, SF Weekly, The Daily Beast, KRON-4 in San Francisco, Syracuse.com, Los Angeles Daily News, The Daily Mail, and the New York Post. None of those articles mentioned anyone’s appearance.

It sounds at first read like poor reporting on someone’s part. But I surveyed half a dozen of Fuller’s articles to get some sense of his writing, and he’s a great reporter. This is not his normal writing style. Prior to this story, he was writing about political leaders in Myanmar, Thailand, North Korea and so forth. Those are not places that you can write dismissively of people without consequences, and Fuller didn’t. What I skimmed looked insightful, cogent, and well-written. I didn’t see anything in what I read that came close to the trivializing tone in this article. I tried to contact him for comment, but he hadn’t responded by the time I posted this.

Lorelei Lee wrote a scathing rebuke to Fuller at Medium.com, where she rightfully called him out on his “dismissal of our humanity.”

I’m not writing to you simply because I am angered by the mistakes of one reporter. I’m writing to you because the way journalists describe us matters. The way you talk about us has a direct impact on our ability to advocate for ourselves and on the tremendous stigma that we face every minute of our lives. When we are fighting for our bodily safety, this dismissal of our humanity by a journalist amplifies our daily risk of harm. It invites violence against our bodies by implying that we are not real, whole people.

Why is this such a big deal?

Because words matter. Especially when the words are coming from someone who’s supposed to know how to write about people.

The adult entertainment industry is already marginalized by most Americans. The films give a horribly unrealistic view of life, body image, and relationships (they’re not really supposed to be realistic, anyway), and good heavens, but the actors are getting paid to have sex with multiple partners! But those actors are people, and journalists are their voice.

The words a journalist uses are supposed to be about the news story. A journalist is supposed to report the relevant facts associated with a news event. Hair color, clothing, and the manner of a person’s walk are barely relevant to a story about the fashion industry, unless the story is about a fashion show. They might be relevant to a crime story, if the alleged criminal is still at large at the time of the story. They are not at all relevant to a story about a regulatory meeting, especially if they’re only applied to one side. Writing the story that way suggests an agenda, even if one doesn’t exist, and undermines the credibility of the reporter and the news organization, and these days, news organizations can’t afford to lose what little credibility they have left.