Outside the bedroom, BDSM practitioners can't take punishment

Megalomaniac loser. I can't believe they're paying you to talk about yourself. You're pathetic at gonzo.

Ah, Matt... you just can't let it go, can you? The only whining I can see is coming from your corner. Guess there's no safe word for bruised ego, eh?

This is the third post on SF Weekly from you and your buddies, all of them complaining about how your expression "torture based porn" is not a nasty way to describe bdsm porn (yeah, it is), and consensual play equals Abu Ghraib. (Oh, I forgot - it was the authority you hand-picked, not you, who drew these comparisons.)

I'd say that this is becoming embarrassing, but that happened some time ago. Maybe it's time to act like a grown up, Matt. You went for sensationalism, now take the consequences.

Apology accepted.

Is this really an article of a serious publication? Seriously? This is a joke.

Oh, man, I was with you 100% ... right up until "this crisis is journalism's own fault."

Since "journalism" is not a person, I can only assume that you mean "jouralists'" such as yourself. Or, wait, do you? Are your articles about Kink.com journalism? Because the they feel more like blogging. The two things are different, I'm told.

I bet Kink.com is enjoying all the free publicity. With the additional income it brings, I'm sure they can afford to setup their own multimedia training school and invite whomever they want. Keep it coming!

I just have to point out the irony of writing an article in which you attempt to defend your journalistic integrity and meticulousness, yet carelessly misquote your primary antagonist, Violet Blue:

["I find Mr. Smith's implication that I, as a model and porn performer, have been coerced, victimized, or exploited by my job to be profoundly degrading and insulting," ubiquitous sex columnist Violet Blue wrote in one of three different online essays, totaling 3,900 words, each complaining about a 1,320-word SF Weekly column.]

While Violet Blue did indeed print the above quote in her article, it was clearly attributed to model Lorelei Lee.

Sorry to be a stickler for the details, Matt, butt I learned it by watching you...

To gain credibility, you might want to try avoiding contradicting yourself so much.

Good luck with that!

It surprises me that our local rags are committed to running follow up stories.. Like Baker's need to respond to all the furor over his Chihuly commentary in the pink section, or something along the lines of Smith... whose current article could have been summed up by saying "I wanted to start a discussion on constitutional rights in funding organizations." or something along those lines. But you didn't... you are basically blogging back and forth with other "bloggers". You had an opportunity to talk about something compelling, impacting, and with proper research and reporting.... something that has something to say. It seems all you have to say is something about your ego.

It's weird bro. Your first article was fine... if all the people want to whine, let them. It isn't your job to create news out of people whining about non-news. Seriously.

So while defending the distortions in your own article, by distorting what you actually wrote (hey matt, we can read ya know?) you distort the words of your own star witness.

Hack.

From Merriam-Webster Online Dictionary:
"torture-
1 a: anguish of body or mind : agony b: something that causes agony or pain
2: the infliction of intense pain (as from burning, crushing, or wounding) to punish, coerce, or afford sadistic pleasure..."
Note the word "coerce"...
Those last few paragraphs sound like an cynical 16-year old trying way too hard to be edgy.

Oh my god, this is my new favorite article.

Torture porn fanatics, you mad?

Oh my god, this is my new favorite article.

Torture porn fanatics, you mad?

Matt, you're just another example of why print journalism is dying. You can't take any criticism at all, when people call out your outrageous falsehoods you get defensive ,and then you start the lying, the pity party, and the "lets talk about ourselves" thing you stupid print journalists just love to do.

Fortunately your stupid paper will be out of business soon (I saw how thin that last issue was!) and jerks like you will be out of a job and be left to go hustle for a buck the old fashioned way, and no one will remember the bitter ramblings of some goddamned preacher's son who hates the town he lives in and can't take criticism and does sloppy work. Sucks to be you, bitch!

Matt-
YOU must be rather thin skinned to think that our phone conversation turned into a shouting match. Seriously? I thought it was a spirited discussion, but apparently that is too much for you.
You must not remember the conversation we had very well, either. I told you several times, when you asked for my name, that I did not feel comfortable having it in the article due to my line of work and asked you to refer to me by my 'stage name' if you chose to quote me.
Your response to my terms of talking to you were not met, which is a complete violation of my privacy. Journalistic integrity is apparently not part of your makeup.
As Always
Mz Berlin

Matt, you're obviously so threatened by a discussion of your work you not only resort to lies, but now you're revealing sources' names in an attempt to strike out at them.

You really are a dishonest, lying, person, and your personal vendetta is now sprawling all over the pages of SF weekly where you endlessly talk about yourself and cry like a baby because some people disagree with the dishonesty of your reporting -and aren't afraid of calling a white male on his bullshit.

You're another example why there's a blog called "Alt Weekly Death March" and somehow this week you made the Bay Guardian (a self indulgent piece of crap) look GOOD this time around.

You suck, your days are numbered, and in the next round of layoffs, VVM can replace you with a 25 year old with attitude whose cheaper and doesn't have to pay off loans from Columbia Journalism School or whatever it is you piss away your pennies on.

I sure hope Mz Berlin sues the pants off of you.

Mr. Smith, apparently you don't have one single drop of integrity. Not one. When Mz. Berlin asked you not to use her real name, only her stage moniker, what in the world possessed you to not only deliver her true name, but also where she's from and where she currently lives? Know this, Mr. Smith, if ANYTHING were to happen to Mz. Berlin because of your apparent lack of respect for her wishes and your subsequent actions, YOU will be responsible, both legally and morally, though I doubt your morals are something you concern yourself with often. Not only do I hope Mz. Berlin sues the pants off of you, but I also hope that no one ever grants you an interview again. Shame on you, shame on you.

To out someone in the BDSM realm is considered bad form.

Where you have done it in a publication, it will be interesting to see what kind of fall-out precipitates.

I had hoped the drama was over after your first "article." Judging from this follow up, I see that you still lack even an ounce of professionalism or integrity.

I suppose this sort of sensationalism is what has helped you keep your job. Otherwise, I cannot fathom any other reason why this inane, disrespectful drivel would be allowed to be published.

The biggest problem I have with both of these articles is that Matt Smith's disdain for BDSM (not to mention other alternative lifestyles like Wicca) drips from almost every paragraph. And, Matt, if you don't see this, you clearly don't understand language very well. Look at the words you use in your descriptions:
- Kink.com "finagled" the money from the government. You do realize that "finagle" means to obtain deceitfully, don't you? And yet there is nothing in your article to suggest that Kink.com did anything deceitful.
- Kink.com has “passed itself off…as a hip, if esoteric, high-tech media startup.” In case you didn’t know, the term “pass off” means to present one's self as other than what one is. Again, you are accusing Kink.com of being deceitful without any evidence to back that up. By any definition of the terms, Kink.com is a hip, high-tech media startup. That their industry happens to be pornography has no bearing on the truth of that statement, but it does belie your own prejudices against both porn and BDSM, your protestations to the contrary notwithstanding.
- Your constant repetition of the term "torture porn" in what is a transparent attempt to grab eyeballs. Any serious social commentator knows that the term "torture porn" describes a sub-genre of mainstream horror films that graphically detail real torture (Saw, Hostel, etc.). So not only do you use the term for its lurid shock value, but you use it incorrectly.
- In fact, your use of the term “torture” at all with regard to BDSM is completely misleading and inflammatory. You state in your second article that it is a “realistic way to describe” this type of sex. Again, you seem to be having real trouble with words, which is terribly unfortunate for a professional writer. “Realistic” is defined as the representation of actions or social conditions as they actually are. Since torture is defined as the infliction of severe physical pain as a means of punishment or coercion, it does not apply to BDSM at all, in which the punishment is a fantasy and is always consensual. ALWAYS. Let me state that more clearly for you: If something is consensual, it is, by definition, not torture.

You seem to think people in the BDSM community have thin skin because we’ve taken you to task for using this term; but how would you react if a mainstream media outlet described your sex life using a term that should rightfully be reserved for a heinous criminal act? But even that wouldn’t be the same since you are clearly a pretty vanilla-sex kind of guy. You’re sex life is not marginalized, misunderstood, and vilified, so some online hack calling it criminal wouldn’t matter. You don’t think we have enough problems finding mainstream acceptance of our lifestyle without the media equating it with a human rights violation? In a time when our society is anguishing over our own government’s use of real torture, you do us all a great disservice by frivolously bandying the term about, applying it to legal, consensual acts.

You write that you have nothing against porn, but you certainly knew that contacting the state about this grant would endanger Kink.com's funding. Clearly the brief stir you could create from this non-issue (Oh no, a perfectly legal small business got an employee-training grant from the government! News at 11!) was more important to you than the ramifications of your shallow sensationalism. What about the grand journalistic tradition of investigative reporting, you might ask? Investigative journalism is used to uncover scandals and corruption. If you believe that Kink.com receiving a training grant is a scandal, then you were clearly lying when you said you had no problem with porn. If you didn't believe it to be a scandal, why did you investigate it in the first place? Where’s the story? Looking back on it now, was running what you thought would be a “funny” story worth endangering people’s jobs? Is that funny?

Finally, it has to be asked what SF Weekly's journalistic ethics guidelines have to say about a reporter creating a story by his own actions. The meat of your article was about the fallout from your own actions causing Kink.com to lose their grant. It's almost as if you started writing this article as a cheap, sensationalistic exposé on pornographers getting government money (even though you don’t have a problem with that!), and then when you caused them to lose that money you panicked and tried to redeem your journalistic credibility by turning the article into what I'm sure you thought was a sober discussion of constitutional law. Sorry, kiddo, it didn't work, no one took the bait. From the comments I've read, most readers saw your articles for what they are: cheap, immature, disdainful, and poorly-researched hack jobs.

From one journalist to another, you did a good job here. EVERYBODY's mad at you; you gathered and published the most interesting and egregious quotes, totally violated every truth-subverting PC ethos, and managed to collect fulminating comments from every spectrum of the question.

An editor once told me that if you are doing your job, nobody will ever speak to you again.

Almost makes me want to get back into print journalism.

@badfrog

it wasn't the opinions expressed by Matt Smith, it was the disregard for the safety and the outing of a source because he disagrees with her line of work.

Furthermore, there were SEVERAL articles about the relationship of what Bill O'reilly broadcasted and the subsequent murder of George Tiller. Regardless of any truth that may be in the connection, it is not just a happy accident. Or, for example, the articles about the guy who faked information which was later accepted as fact.

If written enough times people WILL believe what is written. Using the word "torture porn" to describe a community is an excellent way to get someone hurt or killed. This is not to say that it doesn't have merit as an object of free speech, but it is nonetheless inciteful and causes undue harm to a community. Not every article -has- to be kink friendly, but if you're going to report on something, actively causing harm and then reporting on the harm you did is not actual news.

Where did he admit to using the credits himself? Where did he actually talk about the program?...truth is...he didn't. He was so concerned about associated bad evilporn-doers with tax money, he forgot that the program is amazing and should be open for everyone.

You're simply wrong and should take a second look at what you're so "supportive" of because it was not journalism-it was hateful. Even when Matt and the SF Weekly was confronted with the community response, he brushed it off as "thin skinned" and "strippers stripping their way through college" instead of actually addressing a community seeking understanding.

In Sum, while he has the right to write about whatever he chooses, it doesn't make him any less of a high and mighty "it's no big deal" bigot because he so happens to write for a newspaper in SF. The final word has been given to the commmunity in the sex-positive stories that the SF weekly has since run to try and clean up it's image.

So yeah-I can definitely agree with you that his job is not to be liked, but it's also his job to protect sources and be the gaurdian of real factual information.

Ha, you tell 'em. I'm sick of all these sanctimonious porn stars.