A day in the life of Ashley Dupre: Celebrity callgirl to callgirl celebrity

It seems that 24 hours is a lifetime in the blogosphere. Just yesterday I was defending the right to privacy for sex workers caught up in scandals and media stories.
Now I find myself being amazed again at how quickly some people can turn adversity into a new adventure.

The young woman who's found herself caught up in the Eliot Spitzer fracas now seems to be trading infamy for instant celebrity. It turns out that Ashley Dupre is a recording artist whose songs are available at Amie Street online music store for around 90 cents.

Ms Dupre's music got some random airplay on New York radio stations once she was outed by the NYT newspaper. But apparently it's not that good and failed to gain high rotation status. However, it's a good example of how people can make money from someone's misfortune. Here's a statement of great principle from radio Z100 honcho Tom Poleman:

"Z100 is all about playing what's hot, and we can't think of anything hotter than a song from the woman at the center of the scandal that took down the governor of New York. On top of that, it's not a bad song. Looks like she may have a new career; this time in music."

Not only a music career either; according to speculation in the news today Ms Dupre may well be able to parlay her brief stint in the media spotlight into a Hollywood career, or at least a "spread" in Playboy or Penthouse magazine. Perhaps she'll have to wait till after her testimony to the investigating grand jury.

No doubt more images and information about Ms Dupre will emerge soon. I expect that the gossip and trash mags will have a field day. The first nude photos should be arriving at your inbox any day now.

The story gets more interesting the further you dig. According to one version the Aime Street site was set up by Dupre after the scandal broke, which indicates she may still have some control over her own destiny.

She's also rapidly reaching 'vapid star' status on Facebook. A number of groups have been established, including Ashley Dupre for president and Ashley Dupre for next American Idol.

There are many others, including for supporters and 'haters'. I guess it never hurts to be famous on Facebook, and it also, once again, proves the cliche "there's no such thing as bad publicity".

So at the end of the day can we blame Ms Dupre for making the most of her 15 minutes?

Prostitutes, privacy and media harrassment

Good things come in threes...but not it seems if you're a sex worker caught up in a high profile media broo-ha-ha.
I recently mentioned a Herald on Sunday story that outed an Auckland businessman who frequented a brothel in the city. My point then was that the guy had done nothing illegal (at least as far as the paper could report), so why was the HoS harassing him?

I got a brief reply to an email I sent to the journalist. Basically her response was "I know a lot more, but can't say anything for legal reasons." Let's see what next Sunday brings - perhaps another installment in that story.

The story also featured a photograph of a woman who, according to the caption, was a worker from the brothel in question. Her face was turned away from the camera, but she'd be identifiable to people who know her.

Now this week the New Zealand Prostitutes' Collective has gone public with a complaint about an immigration department raid on another Auckland brothel in November last year when officials were accompanied by a television crew shooting for a reality TV series called Borderline which is produced by Auckland company Cream TV.

A man, who was a client at the brothel at the time, died after jumping from a window to avoid being caught on tape by the crew from Cream. Immigration officials at the time said they knew nothing about this unfortunate accident. it looks like they didn't really care either, but someone must: perhaps a family member, a child, a friend.

A former NZ Immigration Minister and now consultant, Tuariki Delamere described the raid as "Gestapo tactics".

The Prostitutes' Collective wants a ban on such ambush raids by television crews. Quite rightly, the collective's spokeswoman Catherine Healy is concerned about the invasion of the privacy of both clients and sex workers.

I think this is an interesting and important issue. Sex workers in New Zealand and many other places are doing nothing illegal if they're employed in a licensed brothel. But because of the stigma attached to the world's oldest profession (I'm sure that's just a crap cliche, but it fits here anyway) they are fair game for the media.

I think we tend to forget that prostitutes are also friends and lovers, mothers, fathers, brothers, sisters, husbands and wives. They are deserving of respect as much as anything and certainly deserving of their privacy.

And what's with immigration officials allowing the cameras to accompany them on a raid like this. If they're looking to uncover criminal activity (in this case perhaps illegal "overstayers", or some such), what public right do they have to agree to allowing a commercial TV production company to follow them onto the premises which are essentially private property?

The television company has no right and if they barged in without the cops or other officials there, they'd be trespassing. I'm sure any warrant issued for the raid that resulted in the death of the client did not specify "and TV crew" as a party to the affair.

These so-called reality shows, like "Border Security" and so on make me bloody angry and pretty sick too. It's a combination of trivial voyeurism and the legitimation of authority in the name of public service and entertainment.

What public service? I'm sure Cream TV is only interested in the profits it makes from such programmes. I've checked their website, no hint of an apology to the sex workers, or the dead man's family and none from TVNZ either which screens this crap.

While I'm on the topic of prostitutes, privacy and media harassment, the third story this week is about the governor of New York.

Dickwad! Caught in an FBI sting operation and wiretapped making arrangements to see a high-priced hooker. He's resigned, for the sin of hypocrisy rather than adultery, one suspects.

But the newspapers today are splattered with photographs of the attractive young woman who Eliot Spitzer is alleged to have liaised with. It seems that her privacy is not an issue for headline-hunting media pimps.

Again I draw your attention to the NZ Herald, which is carrying a photograph, but saying that it was the New York Times that outed the young woman. This is a neat media trick - wait until someone else breaks the dam then pour through the cracks fullspeed. It was the NYT (see below).

There is a public interest angle here.

The public interest in this case is in Spitzer's anti-crime public persona being contradicted by his private prediliction for under-the-table tonking. As an "Elliot Ness"-style anti-corruption crusader he should probably not consort with criminals. But that does not justify the NY Times naming the call girl, or writing a feature exposing her personal life to the world. That is just prurient self-interest on the part of the media, it does not add one jot to the public interest in this story.

Celebrity picture wars - worth a mint

OK! wins Zeta Jones picture battle
A British magazine has won a House of Lords appeal against a rival publication that published photos as a way of 'spoiling' its exclusive deal with Michael Douglas and Catherine Zeta-Jones to print images from their wedding.
The judges' ruling is interesting. They decided that OK! magazine had paid for the right to impose a confidentiality agreement on wedding guests, one of whom is presumed to have taken the secret photos and sold them to rival Hello magazine.
So let's put this in perspective:
Two rich bums decide they want to make money by selling pictures of their celebrity-splashed wedding to a magazine. They sign an exclusive and then impose a confidentiality agreement on their guests (are you following this Aunty Beryl?). A court agrees that because money has changed hands, the guests are bound by this dubious contract.
It seems to me that the rights of the wedding guests to attend said celebration, get pissed and behave like idiots have been infringed here.
A word of warning. If you're planning a wedding, make sure you sign a confidentiality agreement with the photographer and ban your guests from taking happy snaps. Your exclusive with the Woman's Weekly could be at risk.
If the worst happens, you could always take the guest's cameras and feed them to that big sloppy dog on television who seems to like chowing down on the odd Canon sure-shot.

Social Networks making news

Press Gazette: How should journalists use social media material?

It's interesting this discussion is starting now. I told my students in a lecture yesterday that there's going to be more of this - using MySpace, Facebook, etc as news sources. Reporters are now routinely checking MySpace pages for personal information about people who are in the news.
I think we should all be careful about what kind of trails we leave in cyberspace, nothing is really private anymore.
Martin Stabe's blog (above) gives more details on a recent British case and of course it has become a staple of the Virginia Tech coverage.

Meanwhile, MySpace is also launching a news aggregation service. Of course its links with the Murdoch empire - MySpace is owned by Fox Interactive - will mean it is never short of a good story, particularly if it favours Mr Murdoch's viewpoints. Is this a sneaky way of turning young Americans into Republicans, and the rest of the world is just collateral damage?