AIBU to be annoyed by this?

[falcon]

We recently had an attack on a woman here in Glasgow, she was viciously assaulted and it's getting the appropriate publicity.

However what annoys me is that in every report they refer to the woman as a prostitute.

Does it really matter if she's a prostitute or a 'respectable' finance manager?

Is she of less importance because of her job?I think not, so why must they constantly make mention of it when they could just say 29 year old woman instead?

I understand it's of course relevant to the police and their enquries, but perhaps not so relevant to the general public.

It seems to me that it's almost a way of saying, it didn't happen to one of us, we nice normal respectable people.

nope, mable. you're wrong. if it's true then he's only killed prostitutes as far as anyone can ascertain. you said her job didn't make up nearly half the story, i've given you very valid local reasons for why it does....

well she was a prostitute

and she was murdered

'course i am, noonki. although not in news gathering. ask oi about that area...

what is the rationale then for NOT reporting what she did for a living? or what a vicar does? or a car mechanic?

I don't see why, as a journalist, you would withhold that detail.

Also, don't forget, papers often run with what the police give them.

aah snap

(think you are a quicker typer than me )

bien sur

The profession of the murderer will also be reported.

the problem is not that the press say she is a prostitute

just that she is defined by her profession above and beyond all else

maybe she was

I only think of Suzy Lamplugh as an estate agent - she was very much defined by that job poor girl.

have you thought that it may be your perception of the story rather than everyone's perception?

So you think the fact that she was a prostitute should be hidden/censored?

but you know sex workers, especially street ones, are defined by their 'profession'. which let's be honest, isn't a profession, it's a tragic trap they fell into.

belle du jour n'existe pas.

also using the police to give any moral guidelines is asking for problems!

what, pray, does morality have to do with it?

police use the press too sometimes, it works both ways!

I don't think the fact she was a sex worker should be hidden -

I think it essential that it is reported so that the other street workers in that area are aware of the problems

but I dislike the way for example the Ipswich murders could have be described as the ipswich murders instead of the prostitute murders

but that was key to the case because he deliberately sought out prostitutes and only prostitutes

god I it's three against one !

so was the yorkshire ripper until he decided to start on hitch hikers and then any one ,,,

(one of my friends was picked up by him but did a runner at traffic lights - he was caught over a year later)

RAAAAH!

and come ON, the most interesting thing about those murders was NOT the geography.

I can see what you are saying but it's just the way it is - their jobs were key to that case, sad though it was. In fact, I think that case did quite a lot to bring out the true working conditions of prostitutes to a lot of people who knew no better (all the links to drugs, the stories of those girls etc.)

This is an emotive post. I think the OP, and a couple of others including me, doesn't have a problem with the profession of the girl that was attacked, just that it seems to be emphasised in every description, and public perception is, as many of you have pointed out, biased. But having read through, I don't think it should be hidden at all, but also not sensationalised. I changed my view because it is faintly ridiculous to hide some and not all professions. Nothing should be hidden or censored, but some details are overplayed. However, her profession was her profession, and should be a detail.

I think that if there is a danger this is a serial attack then there are more sensible ways to let people know, rather than leaving it to the local papers.

OK OK I agree it was the most relevant.. but as we are mainly on the same wave length and I have possible two journlist here -

do you not think that the press generally add to the 'she was asking for it scenario ' for prostitutes?

Why do you say the Ipswich murders should be known as such instead of as the prostitute murders? I knew exactly what you meant by the Ipswich murders - and I never saw the phrase 'prostitute murders' used anyway. However the fact that all the victims were prostitutes was highly relevant - central -to the case. If the killer was a serial killer preying on estate agents only, or traffic wardens only, then that would also define the case.

dunno. tabs probably do, cos it's what their readers think. bleeding-heart liberal guardianistas love poring over the sob story, so that's what they get. telegraph readers like a bit of law and order and povvo bashing, so they buy that. mail hates women but sells to women so they buy into a sob/would never happen to a nice girl vibe. etcetera etcetera...

when people talk about 'the press' as a homogenous entity i often think they sound a bit silly. we've got more newspapers here afaia than any other country in the world, each fighting to retain or build their market share. they're giving their public what they want. if they don't, they fold.