March 11, 2008
An expert perspective on the Emperors Club
Further to the Eliot Spitzer scandal, I recommend to readers the comment left on my earlier post by Ava Xi’an. It starts as follows:
As a highly-paid escort in New York City, I have to say that I’m completely unsurprised by the events that have unfolded the past few days. I am curious, though, as to how it will affect my industry in the coming few months (the Empire Club was one of the top 5 “VIP” agencies in the tri-state area).
I’m sure a lot of women in this particular sex industry will be keeping very quiet on this issue, so I’d like to take it upon myself to offer at least a few words in our defense.
Miss Xi’an goes on to make some interesting points about the role and legality of escort services and prostitution. You can read her comments here.
I am curious whether you think it of any consequence that the same observation (verbatim) was posted by “Ava Xi’an” on discussions of the Spitzer topic at several other sites, as a quick Google search for the contributor’s name will reveal. I raise the question primarily because a reference to your recommendation of this comment has been promoted to the FT.com’s U.S.-targeted home page.
While I respect the decision to point readers to a perspective that is thoughtfully written, I wonder if you have any other basis for labeling the comment an “expert perspective” beyond the content of the post. Do you find it troubling that the same comment appears on multiple sites?
Whether or not the contributor’s claims to authentic professional experience are accurate, posting the exact same comments in multiple places at least raises questions about the individual’s agenda, doesn’t it? Do you think it merits a caveat in your recommendation, or do you have another perspective on ethical practice regarding these posts and assessing their validity?
My comment is offered from genuine curiosity about editorial decision-making in a new media environment. I would be grateful for anything you could share about the process underlying the promotion of this feature to the home page.
Posted by: J Neely | March 12th, 2008 at 8:55 pm | Report this commentI humbly concur with the above comment by J.Neely.Really makes me think actually..
anyone can make up a story hereon and convey a perspective , expertise has to be proven though.
Never thought that the FT would delve in such subjects of expertise..on the home page!
Posted by: Marie-Athena ,lawyer | March 13th, 2008 at 12:36 am | Report this commentSign of the -financial -times I guess,
I
FT or no FT, “The point of a having a blog is to opine.” (J Webb, BBC)
II
The above applies to the blog writer as well as to those who post comments.
III
The same individual using the same identity offering the same view on the same subject is no more sinister than
A: the same journalist expressing the same view on the same subject in multiple fora–in an article in the printed edition, in a blog and in a speech
B: multiple individuals, journalists or not, expressing similar views on the same subject, whether in the same forum or in multiple fora
C: the same individual holding the same prejudice expressed as comment on multiple articles on unrelated subjects in multiple fora with nothing in common save a casual mention of the same word(s)
IV
Posted by: HKLivingston, 26, investment banker | March 13th, 2008 at 1:26 am | Report this commentIndividuals whose talents do not lie with the pen–while no less intelligent than journalists and whose companionship and conversational as well as listening skills are valued by the market at US$4,000 per hour–may or may not choose to phrase the same view differently in separate fora, and may or may not assume different identities in each of those multiple fora.
I am a pathologist and iour lab gets Pap smears from different gynecolocial institutions including one that takes care of prostitutes ( can^t tell whether they are plain street hookers or ” professional escorts”, what a nice euphemism by the way) The amount of HPV Infection and dysplasia including carcinoma in situ and invasive compared to carcinoma Pap smears from institutens that have a mixed pool of patients is staggering.
And please take the time to read about the background of this 22 to year old “professional escort” Kristin in the NYT: History of broken home, abuse, drugs and stupid statements on facebook regarding her calling to become a professional musician. One might get the impression that this poor girl thinks she can capitalise on her history and andywarholian 10 minutes of fame and move on to become a music star. Give me a brake this is pathetic. Eliot Spitzer when using the brain north of his bellybottom rather than south of it is an intelligent man. The services this woman provided for him where certainly not focused on conversation.
Posted by: bmh | March 13th, 2008 at 7:20 am | Report this commentWhat’s wrong with posting the same comment in several fora concurrently? There’s no pretence involved.
Regarding J Neely’s question about her agenda, it’s abundantly clear. She explicitly states that her agenda is to “offer at least a few words in our defense, and given that there is such widespread coverage of this incident currently, it’s logical that she would chose to make the same points elsewhere to maximise her share of voice.
Posted by: DKM | March 13th, 2008 at 1:49 pm | Report this commentThe question here-I think- is whether she can be called an ” expert” . Posting same thing on different media ,sites etc is not wrong per se; she did well to come forward ,but does not make one an expert.
(It could hypothetically be that the person posting as Ava X is me playing devil’s advocate.. ..)
What was most interesting to read is a real Expert’s view above( the doctor pathologist) , lets hope that there will be more awareness of the risks involved by everyone concerned.
Posted by: Marie-Athena ,lawyer | March 13th, 2008 at 6:14 pm | Report this commentThe question that I am raising primarily regards the ethical obligations of a news entity’s editorial staff in highlighting and promoting a comment from any of its user-generated content fora. It may be appropriate for participants in a conversation thread to extend the courtesy of not questioning a contributor’s identity, but I am exploring whether there should be other standards applied when elevating a particular comment to the attention of one’s readers.
Whether or not it is considered wrong (or bad netiquette, at least) to post a prepared statement on multiple fora to gain wider exposure for a point of view depends on the standards of each forum. Some moderated fora disallow such comments.
An individual is entitled to attempt to engage in a thread in any way she or he chooses, but posting one statement in multiple locations is a publicity-oriented mode of engagement. Even if the effort is intended to publicize nothing more than an idea, I wondered if it would raise questions for Mr.Gapper or FT.com’s editors.
It is hazardous to assume that one knows any contributor’s motives. For example, there is a small industry devoted to swaying opinion on public fora using contributors for hire. While “Ava Xi’an” doesn’t seem to be a typical industry-association shill, there are reasons to be wary of any cut-and-paste approach to discourse.
Highlighting and labeling content (i.e., “expert perspective”) takes a certain degree of ownership over it. I am really curious about the editorial process involved in elevating a reference to this post to the home page. I write this believing that some inquiry (email check or Web search) may have been made.
Posted by: J Neely | March 13th, 2008 at 6:29 pm | Report this commentSeveral questions are raised here by J. Neely and others about Ava Xi’an’s comments and why I highlighted them:
1. How did I know she was genuine?
2. Even if she is genuine, is she an “expert” on the subject?
3. Did it devalue her comments that she posted them elsewhere?
First, I should say that I highlighted them because it struck me - and I think others too - that an New York escort was making a cogent argument in public about the subject, whether or not others agreed with her. I thought it had value for its rarity, especially under the circumstances.
As to whether she is genuine, I checked that she had advertised her services on a New York escort site. She also provided a private email address and I have been in correspondence with her. I am satisfied she is who she says she is. Indeed, she provided more details than some other commenters.
As you may have seen, she has also made another comment responding to doubts about her identity on the original post - and below.
On the question of whether she is an expert, I think she is fairly described as such. She has direct experience and can comment intelligently about it. In my book, that is expertise.
Does it matter that she posted elsewhere? In fact, I did not realise that she had until after I made my posts. But I do not think it really does. The question is whether what she says makes sense, not where it was published.
Finally, I do not think there is any reason why an FT blog should not carry this debate or draw attention to it. There are legitimate public policy questions involved and the way in which they have been treated by commenters including Miss Xi’an passes the FT threshold of decent, intelligent debate.
Posted by: John Gapper | March 14th, 2008 at 2:07 am | Report this commentHi my name is Ava Xi’an, the afore-mentioned “industry-association shill”…
I apologize to those who took offense to my multiple posts. Firstly, I really didn’t think anyone would mind. Secondly, I really didn’t think anyone would pay attention to what I had to say. Had I known from the beginning that the FT would place the post in such a conspicuous spot, perhaps I would not have spent so much time and energy posting my comments elsewhere…
After perusing the web, emailing and calling other escorts that I knew… I quickly realized that there would not be other women coming forward to speak about these issues. Keeping quiet would be the really smart thing to do - as my work is currently considered “illegal” and could have heavy consequences. I wasn’t planning on saying anything - I think that after a day or more of “whore” and “prostitution” comments relayed on places like CNBC - a part of me snapped and just felt that something had to be said.
Perhaps it is bad etiquette to post the same comment in several places, however I may have been the only one at the time willing to talk about the realities of this industry. Since Monday, I’ve been doing quite a lot of domestic travel, and I’m sorry to say that I don’t have clones or a mini-me to help me make all the necessary posts. Oh yes, and I do have to say that those who did have an issue with the multiple-postings also seemed to be the ones who were able to make a large number of intelligent, cogent, and insightful postings. A large, LARGE number of them. Wherever you are, whatever you do, I am filled with envy over the wonderfully massive amounts of free time that you obviously have.
I never called myself an “expert,” though I do consider myself an insider. And I am enough of an insider to know that while “Kristen’s” story is sad and full of abuse… there are many of us out there that do not come from a place of abuse. You may be surprised (or unsurprised) to find that some of these “prostitutes” own companies, and have distinguished careers and “day” jobs.
Oh, and to the “expert” doctor… I do appreciate your medical school training, though I have to wonder about your bed-side manner. I guess we were so busy reading news about Spitzer, that we seem to have missed news regarding the recent finding that 25 per centof all teenage girls were found to have STDs. This is absolutely a scourge in our society that has to be addressed - and hopefully we’ll be able to make progress via actions, and not through value judgements.
And, in defense of the FT, I absolutely can prove my “expert” status. All you have to do is pay me $1,250 an hour to do so. Kisses, Ava
Posted by: Ms. Ava Xi'an | March 14th, 2008 at 2:22 am | Report this commentI’d like to express my gratitude to Mr. Gapper for making transparent the process behind his selection and evaluation of Ms. Xi’an’s comment, including his verification of the contributor’s identity. That was the crux of my interest.
I never intended to question the validity of the point-of-view. I certainly understand the appeal of adding a unique (and underrepresented) perspective to the public discussion. I also agree that the topic is fit for consideration by the FT.
For me, the key question about designating the comment an “expert perspective” hinged on confirmation of the contributor’s identity. In print, I would more readily have assumed a journalistic protocol at work. In an online forum, the rules are less certain, and that’s why I asked.
I read Ms. Xi’an’s post and found it remarkable in the context of the larger debate. In the absence of explicit guidance from Mr. Gapper about his verification of the source’s authenticity, I performed a simple Google search as a short-hand check of my own.
On the first two pages of search results, I found multiple instances of the post appearing in discussions on other sites, as well as a recently created Yahoo!Answers profile for Ms. Xi’an. I found those results unusual enough to think it worth asking for additional details via this thread.
I also found an entry on a Guardian (Greenslade) blog commenting wryly on the appearance of Ms. Xi’an’s post on FT.com, and reveling in the idea of Ms. Xi’an as an FT reader. This secondary reference to the entry by another major media organization’s blog suggested to me that it might be worth making blog-based source review practices a bit more transparent to readers.
I regret that Ms. Xi’an may have interpreted my curiosity about FT.com’s practices as an ad hominem attack on her. I apologize if my statement that she “doesn’t seem to be a typical industry-association shill” implied that I meant to characterize her in that way — I honestly did not.
I found her comments both lucid and illuminating, and I meant no disrespect. I appreciate the challenge involved in disseminating a potentially unpopular opinion that one feels strongly should be heard.
My whole intention was to promote more transparent discussion of ethical journalistic practice in a new media environment. There are too few clear rules out here to leave these questions unasked. Perhaps reader skepticism can in future be preempted through an additional sentence or two providing a bit of investigative context to citation of reader comments where identity is an issue in establishing authority.
Finally, I’ll add that assumptions about identity in an online world are hazardous for all. Ms. Xi’an’s “envy over the wonderfully massive amounts of free time” that this contributor has might be mitigated by the fact that my spare time is the direct result of a week-long bout with the flu.
Respectfully, people with “intelligent, cogent, and insightful” things to say are not always people of leisure or of means. Ms. Xi’an, I envy your hourly and wish you the best.
Posted by: J Neely | March 14th, 2008 at 8:23 am | Report this commentThanks to Mr Neely. As a matter of principle, I am happy to discuss (in moderation) why I make posts and the editorial thought that goes into this blog. It is, like many blogs, a work in progress.
Posted by: John Gapper | March 14th, 2008 at 2:55 pm | Report this commentJ. Neely - thank you for your above post, and for clearing up those issues. I myself went through the same bout of the flu about four weeks ago, so I hope you are feeling better soon…
I guess I was (and still am) having some difficulty wrapping my head around the idea of having to verify my identity… In my mind I’m just a regular joe, and I’m guessing that most of the other posters didn’t have to go through a screening process to verify who they said they were (or did they?). There are other issues involved regarding the verification of my identity - for instance, how far can verification go, given that any information about myself could attract law enforcement attention? Also, due to the societal stigmas attached, a person would have little incentive to lie about calling themselves an “escort”.
I am not familiar with the Guardian blog, however, part of the reason why I’m stepping forward is to dispel such stereotypes. Yes, I read the Financial Times and I watch CNBC - and though I’m by no means a financial genius, I have been losing sleep over the state of the economy (as I’m sure everyone else has)… With oil trading at $110, the dollar losing value by the second, and the prices of everyday items suddenly increasing by 15 to 25% - I would think that every American would/should be avidly following the Financial Times, as well as the NYT.
I’m curious - is it the fact that I’m a woman that makes the fact that I can read and write so amazing? Perhaps it’s my choice of profession? I’d like to say that it’s the latter, however, I’ve been unfortunate enough to encounter more of the former. Just the other day I was sitting in Starbucks, having my daily latte, when two guys approached me and asked me what I was reading. When I showed them the Larry King biography, they laughed in shock and asked me why in the world I would be reading that. One of them even asked me if I was really reading it… I guess, you know, in the off chance that I was merely staring at the pages in an attempt to hypnotize myself. And in case you were wondering - no, you cannot tell by simply looking at me what I do for a living (I wear business suits and carry a briefcase and knapsack, not even a purse), and no, these were not teenagers, they were middle-aged men in their 40s and 50s.
Almost all of the women that I see and meet on a daily basis are both smart and beautiful… It seems really weird to me that anyone in this day and age would be so deluded and out of touch with reality as to think that women are anything less than equal to men. To all those living 200 years behind the times, take note: women can run countries, spell correctly, play soccer, take full ownership of their own sexuality, bench press more than you, and kick your teeth in if you try to mug them.
Posted by: Ms. Ava Xi'an | March 14th, 2008 at 5:01 pm | Report this commentNow that we have heard from an expert in one profession relevant to this case, and considering that Gov Spitzer was caught during a law enforcement operation, shouldn’t we also hear from another expert–say, in law.
Alan Dershowitz, writing for the Wall Street Journal:
Posted by: J Michael, private banker, 39 | March 15th, 2008 at 2:14 pm | Report this commenthttp://online.wsj.com/article/SB120536943121332151.html