<?xml version="1.0" encoding="utf-8"?>
<rss version="2.0" xml:base="http://stoush.net" xmlns:dc="http://purl.org/dc/elements/1.1/">
<channel>
 <title>journalism</title>
 <link>http://stoush.net/category/topic/journalism</link>
 <description>The taxonomy view with a depth of 0.</description>
 <language>en</language>
<item>
 <title>&quot;Gay plague claims more victims&quot; quoth headline-writer at Fairfax</title>
 <link>http://stoush.net/mark/751/gay-plague-claims-more-victims-quoth-headline-writer-fairfax</link>
 <description>Not really, but why should my headlines about Fairfax cleave to a higher standard of accuracy than their own?

I accept I might be being a bit over-sensitive to cast &lt;a href=http://www.smh.com.au/news/national/police-search-for-victims-of-hiv-prostitute/2008/01/30/1201369229574.html&gt;this SMH story&lt;/a&gt; as homophobic (unlike with the grossly homophobic Sun Herald story &lt;A href=http://stoush.net/mark/749/sun-herald-and-gay-menace&gt;a while back&lt;/a&gt;), but it&#039;s at best hyperbolic sensationalism. 

First, we had the claim that an HIV-positive man &quot;may have&quot; infected 250 people (currently &lt;a href=http://news.google.com/news/url?sa=t&amp;ct=:ePkh8BM9E2IF2mHABqLygBSaPUDRVAMWTJuMBC5_OBj-Nyrt6Ownc558ZT1_GACQkxJ0/1-0&amp;fp=47a06d0ebf827f1d&amp;ei=leagR8KZFqiGqwOFn8GFDA&amp;url=http%3A//www.news.com.au/story/0%2C23599%2C23132123-1242%2C00.html&amp;cid=1127120867&gt;on news.com.au&lt;/a&gt;, but I swear to God that smh.com.au also ran a nearly identical headline yesteray). No-one could reasonably make this extrapolation from the facts, which were that the police were going to talk to every person that the HIV-positive man had been in phone contact with, and that was 250 people. No-one has sex with everyone they speak to on the phone for a month. Seriously. The thing that should be clear from that figure is that there&#039;s no way that the man in question infected that many people, i.e. that whatever the number of infected people is, it&#039;s got to be less than that.

Today we have &quot;Police search for victims of HIV prostitute&quot;. Victims? VICTIMS? Are you fucking kidding me? People who have unsafe sex with a prostitute are victims? Seriously, if you have sex with a prostitute, you might want to use protection. I think that&#039;s kind of a no-brainer. I don&#039;t care of s/he says s/he&#039;s a virgin. You know, this goes for people who aren&#039;t prostitutes either. Having unsafe sex with anyone at all ever carries a degree of risk. Yes, if they lead you to believe they&#039;re safe when they know they&#039;re rife with disease, you might be able to claim you&#039;re their victim, but not if they&#039;re a prostitute. If someone has a financial incentive to pretend that s/he doesn&#039;t have a disease you don&#039;t assume they&#039;re telling the truth. More to the point, if someone you don&#039;t know is willing to have unsafe sex with you, then s/he is probably willing to have unsafe sex with other people, hence it doesn&#039;t matter what his/her last STD tests said.</description>
 <comments>http://stoush.net/mark/751/gay-plague-claims-more-victims-quoth-headline-writer-fairfax#comments</comments>
 <category domain="http://stoush.net/category/topic/journalism">journalism</category>
 <pubDate>Wed, 30 Jan 2008 13:08:10 -0800</pubDate>
 <dc:creator>Mark</dc:creator>
 <guid isPermaLink="false">751 at http://stoush.net</guid>
</item>
</channel>
</rss>
