SF Weekly's Matt Smith Screws Kink.com: Unfair, Unbalanced, Malfeasant Journalism

"Scapegoat" does not mean what you think it means. It's when you blame somebody for something they didn't do. In this case, Smith is squarely to blame for his piece.

"I'm just writing about public information" isn't a valid defense because there's a prissy, sensationalist agenda behind it.

More importantly Smith is spectacularly misinformed about both the nature of porn (which is still legal the last time I checked) and the porn business (which has been a training ground for film production workers in California since the 1970s and contributes more than $20 billion-with-a-B to our economy).

Not so, Jeffrey! We use "scapegoat" in the context of the ETP's decision not to reimburse future Cybernet trainings at BAVC. The only thing Matt did to "cause" that is to file a records request. He can't, and shouldn't, be dogged for filing a request -- we'd got to the wall to support any journalist's freedom to do so.

And we'd never, in a million years, suggest that he shouldn't have written a piece based on the intelligence he gathered. What Violet and the people she spoke to for her article are speaking to is how he chose to approach the information he received and the angle he took on the fallout from his request.

If the ETP is going to stiff Cybernet on professional development (so to speak), maybe it's time for Kink.com to make paying their payroll taxes a "low priority."

This is a great article. A perfect example of balanced and professional journalism.

Oh Please. Grow the frack up. There is no obligation for government to subsidize porn, and that's what you're really upset about. Porn will always make money, there is no need to subsidize it. And if Smith thinks BDSM is gross, that's his opinion, and you have yours. Stop acting like a brat.

Dart, the government was never subsidizing porn -- they were subsidizing career development. The ETP exists to keep Californians employed, and so it provides training that keeps us productive, competitive with other states, and less likely to leave. So, for example, an accountant from Kink.com could take a subsidized class in JavaScript; or a PR person from Wells Fargo could take a class in documentary editing. These are skills that can not only help them in their current job, but help them in their entire career in California.

You're only eligible for ETP classes if you're a California resident; if you're making above a certain pay threshold; if you have been at your job for a certain amount of time; and if you pledge to remain at your job for a certain amount of time once the training is done. It's a very good thing for the state, or at least it would be if it wasn't arbitrarily restricting equal access.

I don't see why members of the adult entertainment industry are any less deserving of career services than the rest of us -- especially if they're forced to pay the taxes that subsidize them.

(I'm not a representative of the ETP or any other affiliated group -- I just happen to be very familiar with their policies, having taken quite a few classes through them myself.)

@Dart, you might rethink your premise that "Porn will always make money, there is no need to subsidize it." First, you're dead wrong. Many a porn company has gone bankrupt. Second, ya know, banks also will always make money (or at least as often as porn companies.) That fact sure didn't stop the government from delivering money to them in cargo planes. If potential profitability was the standard to determine whether a person or business could receive government money, the world would look much, much different.

And, really, calling on a newspaper to deliver responsible journalism is "acting like a brat"? You're right that Smith is entitled to his opinion. But in a newspaper, even an alt-weekly, opinions should be labeled as "Commentaries." His article was pawned off as news, not commentary. If he's going to label his article as news, he owes a journalistic duty to make it fair, balanced and accurate. Calling him out on his failure to uphold his duty is not childish at all. Your comment, however, is.

It's been two years since I wrote and published this article on AVNOnline.com about Kink's acquisition of the SF Armory - seems timely based the substandard "Witch Hunt" article the SFWeekly regurgitated the other day. Enjoy - http://bit.ly/ATgoV

Bah. Foo. If many a porn company went bankrupt maybe good porn wasn't being made. My favorite porn flick is "Edward Penishands," obviously made for a niche audience. Nevertheless the company that produced it made money.

Government subsidies serve to keep afloat business and labor sectors that are manifestly threatened or where there is a significant public policy priority in keeping it alive. The notion that porn belongs in that category is manifestly ridiculous. People will always want to jerk off and porn will always be profitable. There is no need to subsidize any sector of such an industry. Yes, some subsidies are misdirected, and some - like the agro subsidies started by the Nixon administration - go on too long and have unexpected negative consequences. And banks, like them or not, are an important part of the economy. Comparing the economic worth of a porn videographer to a bank is simply delusional. Being a "sexual outlaw" does not make you special, it makes you a grandiose fool for doing things out in the open that others enjoy privately and don't make a big deal about. If your identity is based wholly on how you get off then you may be afflicted with craniorectal impaction, so be careful.

"Being a "sexual outlaw" does not make you special, it makes you a grandiose fool for doing things out in the open that others enjoy privately and don't make a big deal about. If your identity is based wholly on how you get off then you may be afflicted with craniorectal impaction, so be careful."

You know Abel, from where I'm sitting the kind of pinched, judgmental, smug tone you're exhibiting here in spades is a symptom of craniorectal inversion, but I guess that's a matter of perspective.

As for the issue at hand, its clear to me, anyway, that the technical staff at Kink.com are perfectly legit multimedia employees, and if employers are going to charged a special payroll tax to fund training programs for their employees, and Kink.com has to pay those same taxes, I see no good reason why its employees shouldn't be able to benefit just because they work for a porn company. That does not amount to "taxpayers subsidizing porn". The program is in fact funding training in skills that are transferable, which is what it is intended to do.

Either the ETP program is corporate welfare and needs to be eliminated across the board (you could just as well ask why funding should go to, say, KRON), or they have no business in turning away qualified workers just because the folks in charge happen to have their undies in a bunch over the kind of media those workers produce.

Manual trackback:

Blog of Pro-Porn Activism: The Kink.com Wars, Round II

Dart, I'd be interested to know more about your background in economics, since I'm having trouble following your argument. What's your threshold for "threatened" sectors? How threatened is threatened enough to receive training?

The way I see it, EVERYONE can benefit from job training. Porn generates a lot of money for California -- as does agriculture, movies, tourism, biotech, etc -- so we have a vested interest in keeping the industry strong, and the workers competitive. Doesn't matter whether it's pornographers, farmers, florists, or realtors -- a strong workforce equals a strong state.

There's this idea floating around among SF journos who know Smith personally, that say he's "reasonable" or "the sort voice this city needs."

I've never found him to be anything other than a complete and utter tool. And his values often seem more aligned with the city of Modesto than the city of San Francisco.

Uh, no, people who think that their occupation is automatically eligible for economic assistance from government are overly enthused with themselves, whether they are aspiring porn directors or chicken sexers. You may think you are because you yourself think you are special, but that does not make it so.

Now here's something to think about: According to SF's Human Services Agency, there are about 1400 families with kids between the ages of 1-3 that are at risk for being vectored into foster care. You'd think that if we decided to put some money into a pilot program for something like, say, bond investment accounts for each of these kids that mature upon secondary school graduation, that would be worth a hell of a lot more to our community than giving you a subsidy simply because you think your pseudo-artistic method of inciting masturbation is special.

Please Grow Up.

Perhaps the sheer snottiness and assholism of your rhetoric says something about you having some serious growing up to do, mister. And you can just can your pseudo-populist, "you just think your special", "cultural elite", blah blah blah rhetoric – it adds absolutely nothing to the discussion.

Look, if you want to argue that in general its wasteful to channel money into training relatively well-to-do multimedia workers when programs for the truly poor are underfunded, go right ahead. But I have I haven't seen you argue against the Cal ETP in general, just its use for funding a few Kink.com employees. And that strikes me pretty selective outrage on your part.

Instead, you're simply making a classic "there are people with real problems over in Africa" red herring argument. The argument is a red herring because funds denied to Kink.com employees are not going to end up in Health and Human Services coffers anytime soon – that's not how they were earmarked.