That is the New York Post* title on the death of Elizabeth Acevedo. Who is now dead. A 38 year old woman who was disabled, and happened to be a prostitute. Oh, yeah, and police are still looking for a suspect. Or something. Kinda. Worth mentioning down there at the bottom of the short screed on this woman’s death.
Renee at Womanist Musings has more on how some folk are just funny funny har-haring over the whole deal.
Am I surprised? Surprised that people can turn this woman’s death into comedy, or rail on about how she happened to be a prostitute, a disabled one at that, and spend as much time talking about her record for non-violent crimes and criminal lifestyle as they do, oh, about the fact that she was murdered? Nope, not at all. If she were a white man, or a non-fallen women (a white one, especially) do you think there’d be some outrage there? A demand for, oh, actual respect for the dead and justice? I bet there would be.
There is a reason I don’t like people as a general rule…
*fixed!
Your post says it’s the New York Times who posted that, but you link to the New Yorker. Big, big difference. Can you update that?
Um, New York POST – not Times. There’s a massive difference between the two publications!
Your post says it’s the New York Times who posted that, but you link to the New York Post. Big, big difference. Can you update that?
Was she, you know, a native of New York or what? The story only focuses on two aspects of her identity: sex worker and disabled. They take the time to tell us how she lost her leg, and how many busts she had… nothing else.
Really shameful.
PS: Renee’s post rocks!
The link leads to the Post, which is famous for those type of headlines — “Headless Body Found in Topless Bar” being the prime examples. Not to minimize the tragedy of this woman’s death, but I wouldn’t expect much more from the Post.
this shit happens all the time- fuck the new york times
Correction, it’s the Post, not the Times.
Am I the only one who has a big problem with the Post’s headline for this story? I know we can’t expect too much from them, but gosh.
Appalling, but not surprising from the paper who ran the headline “Ike Beats Tina to Death” after Ike Turner died. And what Sally said, this is the Post, not the Times.
This is horrible, and horrifying. Those sick effers. Ugh.
(but I have to point out that the article isn’t in the NYTimes – it’s in the NYPost … aka a tabloid on newsprint …)
Just a correction: the article is from the NY Post, not the NY Times. I think the Times would have shown a bit more journalistic integrity and some empathy in coming up with a headline and in their coverage, if they were to even care to cover the story (a quick search indicates that they haven’t).
However, I would expect such blatant disrespect from the Post. It is a tabloid newspaper after all.
Um, this is from the Post, not the Times. Big difference.
Headline is still horrible but the Post is not exactly known for it’s high journalistic standards. I think it would be more outrageous if the Times had printed that.
OKAY, fixed… THE Post, NOT the Times!
L-K we shouldn’t expect such obvious anti-woman hatred from any paper in print. being a tabloid is no excuse to print such demeaning crap. From the moment I read this story I was incensed. As someone who makes it a point to raise awareness crimes committed against sex trade workers it is my belief that until we demand change it will never come. I do this in memory of women like Stephine Beck whose murderer served 1 day. My eyes fill with tears every time I Think of it. Just saying look at the source to me is like saying this shit is okay…and it is not.
Renee – I definitely do not condone their “journalism” and of course it is not OK. However, I have given up on any improvement on their end. I have called them out them several times over the past 9-10 years (literally since I was in high school) in regards to their ridiculous reporting: their sexism, their racism, their homophobia, their ageism, ableism, their lack of respect towards other religions, classism, anti-immigrant sentiments, their attitude towards sex workers, victim-blaming, etc.
Their reporters have replied to my emails and they have printed my Letters to the Editors several times (I think every time actually, yet I think it was in efforts to say “oh, look, the PC police,” because after my letter it would be someone defending them, patting them on the back). But nothing has changed. If anything, it has worsen. They have no integrity. The NY Post is nothing but vile, hateful trash and I feel that they seriously look forward to these stories in order to deny people of their humanity.
I will always call publications/media sources out for their lousy, biased coverage. Yet, I also know when it’s time to give up on them. I think 9-10 years is enough for me.
The only thing good and accurate in that newspaper is the Sudoku puzzles.
In addition to this: knowing their readership, I’m just glad that they don’t have a comment section. I stumbled across another article about Ms. Acevedo’s death the other day, writing style similar to the Post, and the comments from the people were just f**kin’ disgusting and just pushed me closer to misanthropy. It was nothing but “jokes;” her death was a literally joke to them! Not even one indication of sympathy. Not even one consideration of her last moments. No one thought of her.
And thank you, Renee, for your post.
I just read the chapter in Against Our Will that dealt with the NY Post and how they covered murders and rape-murders. When the victim was a man, they were described by their job or status; when the victim was a woman they were described by their hair color, if their case was covered at all (sorry WOC and non conventionally attractive women). Nice to know their journalistic integrity has improved in the past 30 years.
My condolences to Elizabeth Acevedo’s family and friends.
Horrid. Unsurprising but horrid.
(And seriously folks, I know there’s a big difference between the Times and the Post, but you really don’t have more to say about this than that?)
cara, the point is, it’s not like it’s a real paper. I avoid shit like this by the simple exppedient of not reading it.
Oh, for fuck’s sake. This makes me so angry.
You know I’ve been terrified for years that my death would be reported as [insert disability][insert reference to sex work in demeaning language][witty reference to death]? As if it’s not hard enough being a PWD who is further marginalised by sex work status, you also get to look forward to being a cautionary tale should you be killed.
I hate people.
“Slain”? Dragons and vampires get slain; people get murdered.
For whatever it’s worth, The Post is a (slight) step above The Star or The Enquirer. It’s not a serious newspaper. I’m not saying we shouldn’t be disgusted and pissed off about this, but let’s look at it in it’s appropriate context – anyone who reads and takes serious The New York Post is a moron already.
I get that’s there’s something to be angry about here, but it’s like being outraged by a particular story in The Enquirer on how Oprah is getting fat again – it’s not that one article that’s problematic, it’s the whole damn magazine.
Robin: ““Slain”? Dragons and vampires get slain; people get murdered.”
I’ve heard slain used plenty of times by respectable papers. Related: Animals don’t get “killed” by authorities, they’re taken in and “destroyed”.
As much as you all want to rail on the Post, remember that it’s in business because it sells. If people weren’t morbidly interested in this stuff and the hyping up of it, they’d change or be out of business. What’s that say about our society? Though it might be immoral, their existence is still an outgrowth of the publics’ interests (not the other way around).
Planet Janet, you make it sound like it’s just one never ending sexist merry-go-round that we can’t stop or get off of if we tried. I don’t buy that and we should demand that shit like this gets changed no matter if it’s a “real” paper or not. I’m sure if they just used a couple brain cells the Post could figure out a way to still be a tabloid without constantly treating women as an object either to be put up on a shelf or thrown away in the garbage.
As much as you all want to rail on the Post, remember that it’s in business because it sells. If people weren’t morbidly interested in this stuff and the hyping up of it, they’d change or be out of business. What’s that say about our society? Though it might be immoral, their existence is still an outgrowth of the publics’ interests (not the other way around).
I couldn’t disagree more with your conclusion. The attitude that “media is nothing but a reflection of society’s interests” is grossly out of touch with what I’d wager most of our experiences with culture are. The relationship between media and consumer is a hell of a lot more complicated than “the media just gives us what we’re looking for”. Society influences and is influenced by the media we consume. It’s not a one way street by any means. Tons of fads and social attitudes are influenced by the media we consume. Is there any doubt that, for example, teens replicate things that they consume?
Even a cursory understanding of advertising should suggest that media consumption influences the consumer. The whole premise of advertising is that shooting out messages to the public can influence their attitudes and cause them to pick product A over product B.
Further, just because something sells doesn’t mean that it’s beyond criticism. “They’re doing X because it makes money” isn’t a justification for X.
What an awful article. I can only hope there’s some kind of karmic payback to the asshole who wrote it, and the cruel editors who approved it. My sympathies to Elizabeth’s family and friends.
Roy, I might have beat you to it but you definitely said it better :)
“Further, just because something sells doesn’t mean that it’s beyond criticism.”
(repeated for emphasis)
Roy: Hear, hear! A great big “YES” to every word.
Ali: “Planet Janet, you make it sound like it’s just one never ending sexist merry-go-round that we can’t stop or get off of if we tried. I don’t buy that and we should demand that shit like this gets changed no matter if it’s a “real” paper or not.”
You’re objecting to implications I didn’t make. But I do think that just as sex sells and will for the indefinite future, so does gossip, trash articles, lurid details and generalizations.
Roy: “The attitude that “media is nothing but a reflection of society’s interests” is grossly out of touch with what I’d wager most of our experiences with culture are. The relationship between media and consumer is a hell of a lot more complicated than “the media just gives us what we’re looking for”.”
I never made that assertion. I believe, for example, that political mainstream news is a reflection of an elite core of people. Political fringe news is more a reflection of populist views and disenfranchised minorities. Tabloids, however, and non-political news are a reflection of society’s interests… The first rule of capitalism is give the consumers what they want. I’m sure you don’t think they decided they’d shove sexist innuendos and trash down the publics’ throats because they’ll learn to love it, right? The public has been craving these kinds of stories for centuries.
“Is there any doubt that, for example, teens replicate things that they consume?”
No there isn’t.
“Even a cursory understanding of advertising should suggest that media consumption influences the consumer”
This isn’t a matter of getting people to love some widget they don’t really want, like convincing people to buy pet rocks. Trash journalism is repulsive to some and it’s intriguing to others. They’re a reflection of what large parts of society secretly wants, just as people state they’re against suffering or death but if there’s a story about a derailed train that killed dozens of orphans, you couldn’t pry them away from their TV’s.
“Further, just because something sells doesn’t mean that it’s beyond criticism. “They’re doing X because it makes money” isn’t a justification for X.”
If you re-read my post you’ll see I never implied that at all.
Actions matter but so do motives, sometimes moreso.
We can condemn an action while looking deeper into motives. For example, we can condemn the 9/11 attacks while also questioning whether brutally oppressing Muslims for generations might’ve played a role.
Every comment before mine was about the article and the tabloid and not about society. I was suggesting we look at a root cause instead of solely criticizing an outcome.
As much as you all want to rail on the Post, remember that it’s in business because it sells. If people weren’t morbidly interested in this stuff and the hyping up of it, they’d change or be out of business.
An completely unrelated example… Dasani water is disgusting. It tastes horrible, and there’s a horrible aftertaste, and apparently it’s filtered tap water from Brampton, Ontario. (Where the tap water doesn’t taste as terrible as Dasani, interestingly enough.) It sells, though. I don’t believe that it sells because anyone actually likes it. I believe it sells because it’s everywhere. If you want bottled water, and it’s the only brand being sold wherever you are, you’re stuck buying Dasani.
If we apply the Dasani principle to other things in society, how often will we come up with the same phenomenon? Where things sell or are popular because of market saturation, regardless of actual quality? So does that reflect us being a disgusting and inhumane society, or does it reflect capitalism being disgusting and inhumane?
If people are buying the Post to do the Sudoku puzzles on the Subway, the article could have been sympathetic, and done normal “someone died” things like listing the location and time of her memorial service. It’ll still sell just as many copies, because it’ll still be a cheap rag. But this way, the assholes who print/own it can point to all of us and say, “We’re just responding to society! THIS IS WHAT YOU WANT!!!!!” Sure, some of us problem do want it. But not all of us. And even most people who are entertained by such douchebaggery probably wouldn’t notice or miss it if it was gone.
I don’t believe that it sells because anyone actually likes it.
That’s really what I was going to say (minus your, surprisingly good, Dasani example). Just speaking from the perspective of living in NY:
We have a pretty good selection of newspapers. The Times and Post are, of course, sold everywhere, but they’re expensive. NYC does have a fairly good free paper, amNY (and a not-so-good one, Metro), but they are distributed in certain areas and at certain times. There have been a lot of times when I’ll expect to get the paper from my regular morning person, but realize I’m getting to work 15 minutes too early or late and she’s not there. I live in a suburb outside of the city and it’s not even sold available where I live.
So, for a lot of people, they want a cheap newspaper they can rely on and get wherever they’re coming from. I think that’s why people continue reading the Post, many without really considering that it’s full of crap.
I’m torn about the Post. I can’t stand them b/c of things like this and have pretty given up on them. But I also think we should expect better and that this is really just unnecessary. Ugh, what to do?!
I simply cannot believe the tone this conversation has taken. People are actually discussing the validity of the post as a source of information. Does anyone give a shit that a woman is dead. Does anyone give a shit that not only was she murdered she was demeaned? Where is the concern for a fellow human being. Talking around the real issue is just revicitimizing her. I am sick to my stomach with the avoidance of the real issue. Whether or not the post is a valid source of new is irrelevant. Elizabeth Acevedo was a human being and she deserved much better than what she got.
“She has Yellow Teeth”
The Secrets Dentists don’t want you to know about Teeth Whitening!
[first ad at the bottom of the article... not sure what I was expecting, but f*ck... guess that's what ad services serve up when dealing with text including "woman" and "disabled"?]
Planet Jane: I’m sure you don’t think they decided they’d shove sexist innuendos and trash down the publics’ throats because they’ll learn to love it, right?
In fact this is exactly what I expect. See the cable news network coverage of the democratic convention for an example of this philosophy. Advertising, and in turn media, has not been about “serving the desires of the public” since they switched from the ‘hard sell’ to the ‘soft sell’. That is to say, switching from an appeal to an individual’s intelligence and reason to an individual’s capacity to be programmed.
Luckily there seems to be a growing backlash to this kind of thing. Speaking of which, FWIW here’s the letter to the editor link. FWIW…
RIP Ms. Acevedo.
I simply cannot believe the tone this conversation has taken. People are actually discussing the validity of the post as a source of information.
I’m sorry if you got that impression from my comment, Renee. I meant to emphasize more how much it upsets me that it doesn’t mention the time and place of her memorial, but I didn’t want my post to be excessively long. I just wanted to point out that this stuff isn’t inevitable. I really feel like people thinking that it is gives it a free ride to spread like the societal cancer that it is.
I mean… if this has been a PWD who wasn’t a sex worker, but something “respectable” like a teacher, the tone would have been almost saintly. It would have been all about how caring and loving she was, with teary quotes from those who knew her. Something showing her HUMANITY. The memorial’s details would be at the end, because it would be obvious to the writer/editors that people would want to pay their respects.
That’s really the gist of it, isn’t it? It’s not there, because apparently no one would ever dream about paying respect to a “one-legged hooker.” It makes me feel physically ill.
[...] Feministe » “One-Legged Hooker Slain” “Surprised that people can turn this woman’s death into comedy, or rail on about how she happened to be a prostitute, a disabled one at that, and spend as much time talking about her record for non-violent crimes and criminal lifestyle as they do, oh, about the fact that she was murdered?” (tags: violence crime death awful prostitution sexworkersrights disability ableism) [...]
[...] garbage, seen as good enough to jerk off to but not good enough to respect as a equal human beings, used as the source of cheap jokes when they are murdered, seen as easy targets by violent criminals because who cares about sex workers anyway? – then, and [...]