Friday, November 30, 2007

Why? or, Not the Point

I have read multiple news stories about 18 year old Butler Community College student Emily Sander, and in every single one it is pointed out in great gory detail how she led a "secret double life as an internet porn star". At the conclusion of this article, which focuses almost entirely on the details of her internet presence, it is noted that: "...Sander's Internet activity had no connection to her disappearance. "The issue of the Internet and the spinoff of that has been literally crippling our investigation" [Police Chief Tom Boren] said."

Fabulous. The patriarchal bias of the media has inhibited the investigators and likely delayed the discovery of her body. Hell, the approximate date of her death is not mentioned in the article; for all we know, she may have been held captive during the early part of the investigation. Had the media not been so needlessly and insultingly focused on what she chose to post on the internet, perhaps she could have been saved.

Someone stop the planet. I think I'd like to get off now.


  1. It's sad, isn't it? I just keep thinking that she was only 18, a kid, and that her parents must be heartbroken.

  2. I dunno. I don't think it's all patriarchal bias.

    Let's flip it around. Say it was Joe Dinglehopper who was an internet porn star but kept it a secret and he was murdered but his porno activity didn't have anything to do with his murder.

    Do you really think the media *wouldn't* focus so much on his porno activity? I think they would, just as much they did with this girl.

    It's all about the hook and reeling the reader/listener/watcher in. Sex sells. Regardless of the gender of the victim.

    That's just my 2 cents.

    Until I find out that the media's been glossing over dead male secret porn star's porn lifestyles and inhibiting investigations, then I will jump on the patriarchal bias bandwagon.



Related Posts Plugin for WordPress, Blogger...