Why do they call Clifford that? Yesterday morning, the New York Times published three letters about Stephanie Clifford and her overwhelming desire to tell the people the truth.
One of the letters dumbly framed her as an admirable truth-teller. More on that tomorrow.
One of the letters asked a good question. You can read it here:
LETTER TO THE NEW YORK TIMES (3/13/18): Must the label “pornographic film actress” or “porn star” accompany Stormy Daniels’s name in every article that mentions her? This is not a particularly relevant or important detail about Stephanie Clifford (Ms. Daniels’s real name) that should be put in the lead of a story. If Ms. Clifford were an accountant, would the lead of your story read “the legal maneuvers involving an accountant who says she had an affair with President Trump”?The writer started with a good question. Why does every article about Stephanie Clifford identify her as a "porn star?" It isn't a relevant fact, the writer declares.
Of course not. The story should be about a president who commits adultery and lies about it. The awkward descriptors are there to sensationalize and cast an implicit judgment about adult film actors. Can you see your way to talking about Ms. Clifford as a person instead of a porn star?
J— G—, BERKELEY, CALIF.
For what it's worth, the answer to the writer's question is fairly obvious. Why do they refer to her as a porn star? Easy:
They do so because they couldn't care less about all that boring old sex! And their readers are bored by it too!
We think that writer asked a good question. Sadly, he ended with a bit of bad judgment:
"The story should be about a president who commits adultery and lies about it?" Actually, no—the story should be about the war Trump is going to start!
More on this tomorrow. But for today, let's just say no. "The story" very much shouldn't be about the consensual sex.
Anthropologically speaking, we prehumans can't handle that topic. We've proved this again and again.