Quote:

Quote:


Because any competent journalist, when writing about someone uses their real name!


Not true. Journalists generally do *not* use real names when doing so would likely result in actual harm - stalkers outside her door, strangers calling her parents or sister at all hours, etc - and if it isn't necessarily to tell the news story. There are other cases: mob informants, underage kids, etc.

In cases where someone is known to the public by a stage-name then a journalist will always use that name, sometimes omitting the real name entirely (TV journalists rarely take the time to mention an unfamiliar real name unless it matters for the story; print journalists are more likely to do it).


When it comes to public figures the only categories that I know where newspapers have policy not to use real names are rape victims. However performers routinely have their real names stated, when an obvious stage name is being used -- example:
NY Times review of an Iggy Pop concert.
Any reference book about actors will always list their real names. The IMDB lists real names.

Certainly when the NY Times writes about a porn star they mention their real name: Example - their Savanna Samson article. (I tried Jenna Jameson, Ron Jeremy, etc. -- the Times always has the real name in the story.)

Unless you are equating porn performers with rape victims (which porn haters like Andrea Dworkin and Catherine McKinnon will be thrilled about), there is no reason to treat them differently from other actors or musicians. You trot out the stalkers again -- but I have seen no evidence that porn starlets are more susceptible to stalkers than Hollywood starlets. I know of mainstream actresses who were murdered or brutally attacked by stalkers -- Rebecca Schaeffer or Theresa Saldana, for instance. I know of no such porn chicks.
_________________________
"Is the snake OK?"