Real Journalists Do Real Research

[___closetome]

This week the Village Voice continued its 'investigative' series on the issue of sex trafficking in the U.S.. Framed as a hard-hitting expose uncovering the 'truth,' the series merely serves as thinly veiled editorials with a clear objective -- to disprove the existence of sex trafficking in the U.S. and to discredit those who have criticized

Comments

[karikinetic]

...I just read the VV article and it strikes me as pretty fucking measured in both scope and dedicated research. The fact that this article quotes Linda "Let's criminalize underage teens having sex!" Smith as a barometer for the number of underaged sex slaves in this country makes IT more questionable than the Village Voice article

[tiddlywinks103]

ITA

[dangerousdame]

Thank you.

[___closetome]

Was the 300k # was taken out of context, yes. But the VV trying to minimize the national figure to only "a few hundred" is hella shady, naive at best and privileged at worst.

[karikinetic]

Proof. The VV article provided it's methodology for the data included in the article, so where's your proof that the number is significantly higher?

The only thing that sounds naive and privileged here is the stubborn refusal by "advocates" to accept sound data because it doesn't satisfy their need for alarmist hand-wringing.

[romp]

It the topic being hyped right now? Yes. But all I keep seeing is that the numbers are impossible to determine. That hardly proves he numbers are as small as VV suggests.

I've SEEN a few hundred so how could there be so few across the country? Surely everyone who's lived in a city has seen the same. And not just cities.

Maybe I missed it but the VV methodology I saw sucked. They seem to match those of arrests and stings (example) but how would that reflect how many others there are?

This article is also critical of the 200k-300k figure but explains better where it comes from. And repeats that no one knows what the true number is.

[karikinetic]

I don't see the article link that is critical of the 300k figure so I can't really address it. As for the rest

[romp]

you have a lot of feelings

[karikinetic]

Ah yes, the old "when your argument fails on just about every level, say something random!" technique. Always helpful to be reminded that this comm still starts with "ontd".

So noted!

[romp]

Or you could just continue to be outraged and insult others in order to make your point. And don't forget to scold the entire community regularly!

[karikinetic]

Sure, why not! I'll include that in my notes too. I can probably fit in some more "disproving poorly articulated arguments and not jumping on the OMG bandwagon and being generally a meaniehead" in between "kicking puppies" and "pouring tar on rainbows."

[___closetome]

I don't care what "feels" wrong or "feels" right to you, the fact remains that until a genuine quantitative study is conducted providing some semblance of peer-reviewed ACCURACY, the closest thing you're going to get to a number is through arrest records, and those numbers are LOW compared to that ridiculous 100k-300k figure. And guess what, THE VV ARTICLE SAID JUST THAT.

Going by abysmally low arrest records is just as shoddy as going by the 100k-300k number. One overestimates, the other underestimates. The actual figure is somewhere between what is documented (by law enforcement, who often dgaf) and those at risk (100-300k.) Is 300k excessive, yes, of course, because it's of those at risk, but common sense will tell you there's way more than a few hundred children and teenagers engaging in survival sex in this country. It's absurd and offensive for the VV to suggest that arrest records even come close to reflecting the real figure, they don't, not a little bit, not at all.

[___closetome]

You seriously don't understand why advocates would refuse to acknowledge police data? Really? Seriously? Do we not have a fuck the police tag? Has the VV not done numerous investigations on police corruption?

[___closetome]

Also, calling GEMS "advocates"? Really classy.

[karikinetic]

Proof! Proof! Seriously where is your proof that this problem so pervasive?? Saying something is common sense implies that I can look out my window and verify it like the weather, so where is your proof??? Seriously I'll take anything at this point.

And if the people who keep spamming this figure need numbers and don't believe arrest records I fully accept that. So, you know, fund a better study! Think of all the field scientists they could have paid to pass out questionnaires with the money from those awful "real men..." commercials!

And what makes you think I was implying anything about anyone except "advocates" like celebrities that appropriate causes with offensive psa's and republican politicians that appropriate causes to fuel their culture war in this country? Or are you trying to paint me as a more acceptable villain in this piece now that you've failed to articulate a reasonable argument.