The Sleeping Car -- Pornomag: 5 of 7

ornomag
[A Media Analysis of the Time Cyberporn Story]

Page 5 of 7 - Back to start

When the July 3 issue of Time hit the stands (actually on June 25), readers were greeted with a cover depicting a stunned little boy gaping at a computer screen, his face bathed in an eerie blue glow; the headline blared: "CYBERPORN: A new study shows how pervasive and wild it really is. Can we protect our kids - and free speech?" And the inner art, created by the same person responsible for the controversial darkening O.J. Simpson's face in a previous issue (Hotwired 1), was even more over the top. It showed, in full-page detail, a man being pulled into his computer by a woman's hand, a child being offered a picture of a lollipop on a computer screen by a man in a dark alley, and a picture of what can only be described as a man having sex with his computer.

The article itself begins with the assertion that "sex is everywhere these days," and a lurid description of sex's representation in today's culture as "acted out by balloon- breasted models and actors with unflagging erections, then rented out for $4 a night at the corner video store." The second paragraph ironically declares that "something about the combination of sex and computers...seems to make otherwise worldly-wise adults a little crazy," and gives a brief mention of the Exon amendment to the Communications Decency Act (the amendment had recently passed 84-16 in the Senate, and the bill was preparing to move to the House at the time of the article's publication) (Elmer-DeWitt "Cyberporn" 38).

Then, in the third & fourth paragraphs, Elmer-DeWitt states
If you think things are crazy now, wait until the politicians get hold of a report coming out this week. A research team at Carnegie Mellon University in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania, has conducted an exhaustive study of online porn -- what's available, who is downloading it, what turns them on -- and the findings (to be published in the Georgetown Law Journal) are sure to pour fuel on an already explosive debate.... "We now know what the consumers of computer pornography really look at in the privacy of their own homes," says Marty Rimm, the study's principal investigator. "And we're finding a fundamental shift in the kind of images they demand." (Elmer-DeWitt "Cyberporn" 38)

Already Elmer-DeWitt has gone wrong. First, he has irresponsibly sensationalized the policy implications of the study. The findings of the Rimm study are much tamer than the Time story makes them out to be, and a flawed study written by an undergraduate is not likely to pour fuel on congressional debate -- unless it is hyped, overexaggerated, and sold as political fuel by a major newsweekly. Second, Rimm's quoted assertion that there has been a shift in the kind of pornographic images demanded is unsupported by his research (Hoffman "Critique" 1). Throughout the article, Elmer-DeWitt reports what Rimm says entirely uncritically. It is as if he had not read the study himself at all, but had only read a summary supplied by Rimm. Instances of this are so widespread as to be beyond the scope of this paper. The reader is referred to the article "A Detailed Critique of the Time Article: 'On a Screen Near You: Cyberporn'" by Donna L. Hoffman and Thomas P. Novak, associate professors of management (specializing in study of the Internet) at Vanderbilt University.

Third, and perhaps most importantly, the way Elmer-DeWitt describes the study is erroneous, and serves to reinforce the other problems with the story. As Hoffman and Novak point out, the Rimm study is not "'an exhaustive study of online porn...' The Rimm study is instead an unsophisticated analysis of descriptions of pornographic images on selected adult BBSs in the United States. The study findings cannot be generalized beyond this narrow domain" (Hoffman "Critique" 1). This may seem to be a hair-splitting dispute over a journalist's word-choice; it is not. The way Elmer-DeWitt presents the study, both in the quoted passage and throughout the article, gives an entirely false picture to the reader.

Elmer-DeWitt refers to the article as "exhaustive," "careful" (40), and "a gold mine for psychologists, social scientists, computer marketers, and anybody with an interest in human sexual behavior" (42). Nowhere in the article does he mention that the research was performed by an undergraduate student ; rather, he refers to "a research team at Carnegie Mellon" and refers to the study as "the Carnegie Mellon study" (40), giving the impression that the study was officially sanctioned by the university. He also fails to mention that in the week before publication Donna Hoffman had informed him of the flaws in the study already apparent from reading the abstract ; in discussion on the WELL after publication, he stated that "we talked to [Professor Hoffman] and she was strongly critical. But she had not read the study (not her fault) and it seemed to me she had no basis to call the researcher 'reckless.' I couldn't justify using that quote. And I couldn't risk giving her or anyone else the study for fear it would leak. ...these things happen" (Various "Postings" 1).

And the fear at Time that the story would leak was very real. Rimm and the Georgetown Law Journal had arranged an exclusive deal with Time and the Nightline for the pre- publication reporting on the study, with no-one else to be allowed access to the text (even, or perhaps especially, for peer review), and Time was very jealous of its scoop. When Newsweek published their own (less sensational) cyberporn story the week before, it included a brief mention of the Rimm study; writer Steven Levy had received a copy of the study's abstract from David Post, a visiting professor at Georgetown who had not been allowed to see the whole text either. Levy's mere mention of the Rimm study in his story caused the top editors at Time to become apoplectic over the potential loss of their exclusive (Meeks 7). When Levy wrote on the WELL that he was concerned that the exclusivity deal might have been cut with Time to ensure a cover story, Elmer-DeWitt snapped back that "Steven is one of the best. It's not my fault he works for the magazine that secured exclusive rights to Hitler's diaries" (Kurtz C3).