PressEthic

In correlation with class discussion, the San Francisco Chronicle’s series, “Diary of a Sex Slave” caused tremendous controversy and further raised questions regarding exploitation in pursuit of a story.

How much is necessary to expose and how does one define crossing the line – creating pure sensation, as opposed to relevant discourse?

Chronicle reporter, Meredith May spent 10 months researching Korea’s forced prostitution rings, reporting from South Korea, the U.S. – Mexican border, and Koreatown in both Los Angeles and San Francisco. The foundation of her four part story was the personal account of You Mi Kim, a young woman whose interpretation of her own experiences within the industry were the basis of May’s expose.

Korean leaders angrily addressed the series in an open forum letter to the newspaper. Many attacked the Chronicle’s journalistic integrity, claiming the series to be “outrageous and ridiculously titillating.” Critics suggested that May failed to delve into larger issues surrounding the problem and was negligent in failing to address the global scope of the issue, narrowing her focus only to the Korean community.

The open forum letter, signed by over 50 Korean community leaders, questioned the purpose in dwelling in such detail on one woman's experience:

The articles were unnecessarily lurid in their myopic coverage of an isolated issue, and were deeply offensive to the Korean American community. The exaggerated headlines and photos that ran on the front page of the S.F. Chronicle for four consecutive days gave disproportionate emphasis to a small segment of the Korean American population in San Francisco and California, the vast majority of whom are well-educated professionals and hardworking families.

May was lambasted and Korean leaders demanded a public apology for her “imbalanced coverage and racially offensive and exploitative handling of these issues.” Critics claimed You Mi Kim’s experiences were atypical and questioned May’s journalistic fairness. And regardless of the racial issue, many readers simply found the series too lurid for a mainstream daily newspaper.

Was the series “sexploitative journalism” as Salon’s Carol Lloyd asks on her Broadsheet blog? Or was there simply no other way to fully explore the sex industry without delving into graphic detail?