Skip to content

Letters: Reader angry over sex work coverage

A Richmond News reader takes issue with the News' sex work coverage
massage
File photo

Dear Editor,

Re: “Sex work allowed ... in a turtle neck,“ Opinion, Feb. 10.

While I am happy that you revisited your story from a couple of months ago about sex work in Richmond, I am even more delighted that SWAN Vancouver had its say.

I can’t provide better insight than they, but when I read the original article I felt like I had been transported back to Smalltown, Alabama, in the 1950s.

The sophomoric, one-sided language in that article was outdone only by this tautology in your editorial last week: “Besides, if we presented a stereotype, it’s one that’s widely held.”

If I was teaching a journalism course, you’d have been failed for that story and expelled.

I agree, we’re decades — even centuries — past having a “grown-up conversation” about sex work.

Sadly, the Richmond News set the tone of such a conversation back by several decades.

I further agree that you should report “something that was happening publicly in our community.”

But really? An angry spouse rises above the level of “dog bites man”?

Craig Hartnett

RICHMOND