Scanner's Sex Boycott for New York Post Readers

Emily Farris — Thu, 14 Feb 2008 13:53:00 GMT

As we reported yesterday, The New York Post revealed the identity of a man who happened to choke while minding his own business at a BDSM club. The Post ran a series of stories about the man, his family and his profession and called his presence at the club his "shameful habit." When questioned about the ethics of revealing the man's name, a spokesperson for the paper shamelessly declared "The Post will happily name every adult caught in a dog collar."

We've never been big fans of The Post and its yellow journalism. This particular incident has sent us over the edge. We thought about calling for a boycott of The Post, but that wouldn't do much good. What would we do? Keep not buying The Post? Plus, we're going to go out on a limb and guess that a fair number of the people who get their news from The Post think it's probably okay to out someone like that. So, instead we're calling for a boycott of sex with people who read The New York Post.

That's right. If you believe that what The Post did was wrong, and you're sleeping with someone who reads that paper, or considering sleeping with someone who reads that paper, don't do it. We're all for sex, but we're also all for people having the right to practice whatever sexual fetishes they want to do freely (as long as they're not hurting anyone else, which this man clearly was not) without having their names and faces splashed on the front page of a New York City tabloid.

How long will a Post reader go without nookie before s/he finally makes the switch? And what kind of effect could this have on The Post's sales? We know it's already hurting for readership, that's why they shove free copies in everyone's faces. What would a sex boycott do to The Post?

All we want is for The Post to issue a front page apology to the man. Oh, and never pull that shit again. And even if they don't apologize because of our little boycott, do you really want to sleep with someone who gets his or her news from a source like The New York Post? We thought not.

[Previously on Scanner: "The Post will happily name any adult caught in a dog collar."]

"The Post will happily name every adult caught in a dog collar."

Emily Farris — Wed, 13 Feb 2008 18:44:00 GMT

A quote offered by The New York Post's spokesperson after the paper identified a 67-year-old man who choked at a BDSM club in New York. Not only did The Post name the man in an article, the editors felt the need to report every thing he was wearing (including a collar, nipple clamps, and high heels), and call his wife and former students for comment on the "incident."

Obviously, people—including us, Dan Savage, and the National Coalition for Sexual Freedom—are outraged. This man committed no crime and is not a public figure, yet The Post decided that they needed to "out" him for his sexual fetishes.

Oh, but wait, they misidentified the man in yesterday's paper, calling him Richard, not Robert. And after correcting the story, a Post reporter visited Robert in the hospital, and coaxed an "exclusive" interview out of him where he discussed what the paper called his "shameful habit." They splashed the story, and the man's picture, on the front page of today's paper.

Shame on The New York Post. Not that we ever read that crap for anything but gossip anyway.

[Portfolio: Sexual Vigilanteism at the 'New York Post']

[NOTE: Obviously, The Post ran their faces, we just blurred them out]

Scanner : journalistic integrity

Scanner's Sex Boycott for New York Post Readers

"The Post will happily name every adult caught in a dog collar."