Violet Blue's SFGate Column Attacks SFGate

I've said before that I don't read Violet Blue's SFGate sex column—I don't actually read SFGate—but maybe I should start: This is the second time in a few weeks that she's generated a blogosphere buzz.

In this week's installment, she uses her SFGate column to attack SFGate. Talk about guts. (By the way, I love this line: "so that I feel like I have a life outside of the daily bump-and-grind".)

She feels that the Chronicle did a poor job reporting Kink.com's purchase of the Mission's Armory building for the company's porn production. The article quoted all the anti-porn protesters, but none of the workers. And the site put that article up high, while Blue's original article, favorable to the move, appeared "below the fold," which on a web site translates to below the normal browser window's edge.

Of course everyone has an opinion about porn, but her article seems surprised that the reporter would be biased. Every reporter is biased, because every human is biased. Even reporters who cover a subject "objectively" are choosing quotes and mannerisms that they think reflect a person's stance. But it really reflects the reporter's view of that stance, which is going to be colored by the reporter's own views. When I cover a controversial topic, I try to represent both sides fairly, but I'm just as guilty of adding my opinion in subtle ways. For my foie gras article, I chose nonviolent verbs for the force feeding. Other reporters use "stuffed" or "crammed" to illustrate the act, and I chose "inserted" (I think). That word choice reflected my view of the matter, but I was pre-disposed to favor foie gras.

And of course, would she have been so upset about the bias if the article had been all positive?