Log in

View Full Version : 20/20



Pages : 1 [2]

former_LV_dancer
04-16-2005, 09:19 AM
The only problem that this show will cause is in it's discussion about making $2G a night. It talks about it very one-sided and now the IRS (or anyone watching it) will think that ALL dancers make that and if they don't that means that they are "holding back" on their taxes.

Other than that...not too bad


I was totally surprised by the story. I was ready for the absolute worst. And it wasn't that bad. I was glad they showed the amount of money dancers tip out and said how they might go home in the negative, that at least is realistic. And they did make the clubowners look greedy. Like VenusGoddess my problem was with the $2000 a night quote. Does it happen, yes, how often, not nearly as freaking often as they portrayed. Which still feeds the dancers are all "millionaires" stereotype. Guys go to clubs thinking "ah they're all rich I don't need to spend much"........
At the end when John Stossel was in disbelief that husbands and boyfriends can be ok with their wives or girlfriends dancing....that was ridiculous. He is such a loser....:thumbsdow




Anyway, the show being not-so-bad aside, I guess I feel a bit betrayed by them so thanks to everyone for listening to me vent. What really pissed me off was that some of the interviews that were in the show were shot at our January seminar during one of the breaks! And here we are not getting one iota of credit for making the vast majority of this report happen for them other than a "thanks, but no thanks" kind of email from them the day it aired.



My boyfriend works in TV everyday at ABC (not a horrid news magazine show thank god) but he's in the industry and says most TV people are scum, never trust them. What they did to you is common practice, seen it before. They get what they want for the story and it doesn't matter what you think or how you were treated. You were lucky you even got an e-mail from them.
The 3 biggest lies in showbiz are "the checks in the mail", "I won't cum in your mouth" and "you'll never even know a TV crew was ever here".......words uttered at ABC everyday.

Sunshine73
04-16-2005, 09:48 AM
About the 2 grand a night comment...I hate to accuse people of lying, especially if they really ARE telling the truth, BUT...I wonder if the women exaggerated the dollar amount they make on some nights to the reporters because they knew they'd be on national TV and they wanted to look good. Hmmmmmmmmm...

DancerWealth
04-16-2005, 10:17 AM
Good point BlueYez. I just went back to Tivo and looked...nope, no credit. Now I'm REALLY pissed. :) I actually had a hunch we were going to get taken to the cleaners on this one back when they shot the class in January. I didn't want to think it because I didn't want to go down that path and think negatively. I'm a very trusting person by nature and will always continue to be so even if I do get burned by ABC news. When I first started talking to 20/20 back in early December, I remember them saying how they wanted to promote us through the show and how interested they were in using us specifically for a segment yada yada yada. When they showed up, they were more interested in shooting footage of our students than of us. I think they saw our class as a collection of higher class dancers and people, just like here on SW. So they decided to tap into that and use us to have a pool of people to shoot from, which is exactly what they did.

When I met with their producers in January, there was one point where I had a bad gut feeling about the whole thing. I was talking with them and asked when they would like to schedule interviews with Mandy or myself. The told me that it wasn't going to be necessary for the show and that they didn't need to interview us. So I'm thinking to myself that here is 20/20 about to shoot a segment for a show about our class and they aren't going to interview the people who teach it? I found that very odd. Now I know why. The funny part about the 20/20 thing though is that if they had done what I TOLD them to do in the piece, it wouldn't have been so damn boring of a segment. I was truly amazed at how little they knew about the industry even when they were continuing to report about it. It was as if they didn't learn anything from anyone they talked to. I set 20/20 up with a ton of dancers to interview and I got bad feedback from all of them. The reason was that 20/20 wouldn't blur any faces, so they wanted to shoot someone who was thinking about being a dancer and following them through the steps of going on an audition, buying clothes, going into the club on their first night, etc. I sent several such people to them and all of them were excited to work with 20/20 until they met with their producers. That's when the negative feedback came to me. One of their producers was interviewing these future dancers and was trying to coax them into showin their face on the show in the interview. All of them said they would be happy to do an interview provided there was som anonymity to it. 20/20 refused and actually told the women, "I have no idea what your problem is here. I mean, what's the difference between going on television and talking about this and going into a club with total strangers and taking your clothes off?" I'm not joking. Here is a woman who is 22, dancing in a small town where her parents, neighbors and co-workers in her other job don't know she's dancing being told that going in front of millions of people isn't that big of a deal. ...and ABC is trying to figure out why they are no longer the leader in news anymore?

So overall, I know I got taken to the cleaners on this and deep down, I'm fine with that. There will be some good that comes out of this and hey, some of our students were, in fact, featured in the show so that's good I guess. Heck, at our next class in May we're going to have a reporter there to interview us from the AFP (Associated French Press) which is sort of like the Associated Press here in the states but based in France. They're actually sending a reporter clear across the globe to meet with us, so how cool is that?

Hello~Kitty
04-16-2005, 10:25 AM
Why not just be happy that your involvment contributed to a more positive and therefore unusual news story about the industry.....:twocents:

Sunshine73
04-16-2005, 10:42 AM
I agree on Butterfly. She was cute, intelligent, and presented herself well. I did not mind being "represented" by her.
DW I don't blame you for being upset that they did not credit you at all. But I am glad they did create a show that was for the most part accurate, and you had a lot to do with that.At least now WE know you did!!! So thank you.

Destiny
04-16-2005, 10:52 AM
Well I watched it this morning. I had to dig out the instructions to the VCR and tape it.

DancerWealth, it's too bad that they didn't give you credit for you contribution. Personally I think an interview with you would have added a lot to the show. On the bright side, to the extent that it presented dancing in a more positive light, it may help your business in the long run. I hope so.

hooked
04-16-2005, 11:43 AM
7 AM -- Anyway, the show being not-so-bad aside, I guess I feel a bit betrayed by them so thanks to everyone for listening to me vent.


9 AM -- The funny part about the 20/20 thing though is that if they had done what I TOLD them to do in the piece, it wouldn't have been so damn boring of a segment. I was truly amazed at how little they knew about the industry even when they were continuing to report about it.

This is what we call in Texas the "slow-burn." By tomorrow it will be the worst story ever on television.

VenusGoddess
04-16-2005, 12:25 PM
^ And, your point is?

Jillian
04-16-2005, 01:29 PM
you can usually tell when a reporter is lying because their lips are moving.



First of all I just wanted to say that I take offense to that. I am a journalist, a reporter, you don't know me ....the people on this website always complain about people prejudging them and tagging them with stereotypes (ex: drug addicted, mother of 23, stripper/whore) and that is no better. Why are you allowing another reporter (AFP) come to your class if you feel this way?

I'm sorry that you feel burned, and I'm not making any excuses for ABC, I know that I would have done the interview with you because you always find good stories, or new elements to make good stories great, when you don't expect it, it may slightly change the direction the original story was going in, but that's not a bad thing....maybe this is why I am working for ABC.


I don't know if I'm allowed to state this in the thread, and hey I probably will get flamed for doing so.

I know that there is a lot of scumy reporters out there, but there are journalists out there who go into this biz. because of the potential to help others out.

I did not see the segment because I was working, I set my VCR but it only recorded static so I don't think it's hooked up properly.

evan_essence
04-16-2005, 01:35 PM
I actually had a hunch we were going to get taken to the cleaners on this one back when they shot the class in January. I didn't want to think it because I didn't want to go down that path and think negatively. I'm a very trusting person by nature and will always continue to be so even if I do get burned by ABC news. Can I give you a lecture here? You made two mistakes. 1. You failed to trust your intuition and the advance warning signs, possibly because the publicity was alluring. 2. You trusted a television news crew.

Never ever EVER trust a TV news crew. Ever. Local or national, makes no difference. TV is about getting big ratings which translates into big dollars. It is not about truth, at least not if that interferes with ratings. They will do anything, say anything to get the story they want, and say anything in the story to spice it up for ratings, just short of libeling someone who has the power to do something about it.

I'm not just being cynical. We have evidence of their typical modus operandi in this case. The producers met you and explained what "spin" (your word) they wanted to put on the story. We have a red flag here. If you've already decided what spin to put on a story, you're not being objective. In a perfect world, journalists approach a story with a more open mind, to find out if their initial premise is correct, not to commit to a premise and then reverse engineer the "facts" to fit it. If they're willing to start out biased, what does that say about how they're going to approach the entire process?

No one knows if the spin they pitch at the start will be the spin they end up with in the end. Either they're lying to begin with in order to get your cooperation, or they're not lying at the start but they or their bosses might think of a more profitable spin later. The producers could lose control of the project and someone else take over, adding new material and editing the material gathered so far in a new way. They know full well that the angle might be changed as it gets reviewed through the creation process. They ought to inform people of that, but of course, if they did, no one would want to talk to them because they couldn't guarantee it won't be negative. As you indicated, you (or maybe I should say "an entire industry") got lucky that they basically stayed with their original spin even though the focus shifted a bit.




When I first started talking to 20/20 back in early December, I remember them saying how they wanted to promote us through the show and how interested they were in using us specifically for a segment yada yada yada. When they showed up, they were more interested in shooting footage of our students than of us. I think they saw our class as a collection of higher class dancers and people, just like here on SW. So they decided to tap into that and use us to have a pool of people to shoot from, which is exactly what they did. Ding, ding, ding! Another advance warning sign. They may have been using you to access the dancers from the very beginning, or maybe they started with the intention they pitched, but it got changed somewhere between December and January, but they didn't tell you. Either way, the result is always going to be the same. Not what they told you.


I was truly amazed at how little they knew about the industry even when they were continuing to report about it. It was as if they didn't learn anything from anyone they talked to. You're thinking of this as journalism to reveal the truth. It's not. It's entertainment for ratings. Their objective is not to learn something; their objective is to get pithy interviews that support their concept and make good TV. Once you look at it that way, their behavior makes sense.



20/20 refused and actually told the women, "I have no idea what your problem is here. I mean, what's the difference between going on television and talking about this and going into a club with total strangers and taking your clothes off?" I'm not joking. I suspect they understood full well the difference. They were saying anything and everything to get what they wanted. It's no surprise that they tried mind games. This is their standard operating procedure. Their objective is more important than some stripper's privacy. Again, once you understand their objective, their behavior makes sense because it's not cluelessness. It's manipulation.


So overall, I know I got taken to the cleaners on this and deep down, I'm fine with that. There will be some good that comes out of this and hey, some of our students were, in fact, featured in the show so that's good I guess.Nice rationalization. Thinking like that worries me that you'll be back for more. You were hustled. You came away relatively unscathed and so did the industry. This time. But you saw the tactics used and the changes made from start to finish. That's standard. That's the point. The process can inherently lead to unpredictable outcomes. Always expect that. Don't fool yourself into thinking that because the outcome wasn't so bad this time that it won't be next time. Honestly, DW, don't be a sucker for the publicity now that you've experienced the hustle first hand.


Heck, at our next class in May we're going to have a reporter there to interview us from the AFP (Associated French Press) which is sort of like the Associated Press here in the states but based in France. They're actually sending a reporter clear across the globe to meet with us, so how cool is that?AFP stands for Agence France-Presse actually. "How cool is that?" Again, you worry me that you're going to be bedazzled by the attention. Odds are that you're less likely to be burned by a print or press service reporter but there's no guarantee. One quote out of context and you're screwed. Reporters won't read their stories to you before they're published because that's tantamount to handing editorial control to someone else, but some will at least agree to read back the quotes they use from you in a story before it's published, just as a double check that they got it right. Ask if he/she is willing to do that. And if he/she says yes, don't expect it to happen anyway.

Hey, when your book comes out and you get ready to go on TV to promote it, let me know. I have a friend who's been there, done specifically that, and also been on TV for other reasons, and she might be willing to shed some light on how to approach it if I ask nicely.

-Ev

DancerWealth
04-16-2005, 04:24 PM
The challenge here is that both Jillian and evan_essence are both right. Jillian is right, that not all journalists are bad just not all lawyers are bad (I can't believe I just said that). The issue here has nothing to do with the journalists though...they did their job here and quite frankly, did it well. The piece really wasn't that bad and I was happy to say I contributed to it, albeit a LOT. Rather many of the goofy reporting decisions have nothing to do with the reporter, it has to do with the producer. My bet is Elizabeth Vargas who reported the story spent no more than 15 minutes in a club in the reporting of the story. Pretty much everything "reported" on the story was driven by the producers. Elizabeth probably was given some background, did a little research, showed up for an interview, and that's it.

Also some people here are confusing editorial journalism with news though. News is supposed to be as unbiases as possible. 20/20 isn't raw news though. This was editorially based, so it's normal to have a "spin". They told me originally that they didn't want to paint the industry negatively in this story as that's old-news. They just wanted to show a different side of the industry and, for the most part, they did okay with that.

As for your advice evan_essence, I do appreciate your point, and to some degree I have to disagree with it. I'm not allured by press, but I do welcome it. I knew what I was getting into early on with 20/20 and it was a gamble that didn't pay off. I'm actually okay with it, and all things being equal, I don't feel bad the experience, just the payoff. The report with the French media could be bad or it could be good. I'm choosing it to be good, and I'm happier that way. When Playboy did the article on us, I had no idea what was going to be reported, but knew it was going to be fine and it was more that that. Press is press and I have always seen the evidence that even bad press is good press. When I first met with 20/20, I was telling a friend of mine that I hoped they weren't going to paint us, or the industry, negatively. His response was interesting. He said, "What are you worried about? If 20/20 were to claim that Adam Sternberg was the sole responsability for the moral decay of the United States, you'd make ten million dollars the next day." :)

The bottom line is, I took a gamble with 20/20 and it didn't pay off. I'm not going to quit the game because of it though because that's all this is, a game. Any business decision is a risk. As one of my best friends always says, "It's just a game, so don't get made at the game". He's right. This was a bet that didn't pay off directly, and I'm okay with that. There will be hundreds of others that will. Heck, I make more money than any of the Associate producers who shot that show do anyway, so fooey on them! :)

Also, thanks to everyone here on SW for your input and kind and constructive words. It always reaffirms my belief that the true jems of the industry are right here on SW.

All Good Things
04-16-2005, 05:20 PM
Never ever EVER trust a TV news crew. Ever. Local or national, makes no difference. TV is about getting big ratings which translates into big dollars. It is not about truth, at least not if that interferes with ratings. They will do anything, say anything to get the story they want, and say anything in the story to spice it up for ratings, just short of libeling someone who has the power to do something about it.

OK, a few deep breaths perhaps?

I'd like to propose that we modify your advice a bit. How's this: "Never blindly trust a TV news crew." The same would apply to any on-air in-studio or live remote interview. By that I mean don't walk into any media interview, anywhere, unless you know the angle they are taking on a story (it's not "spin;" that is something quite different) and you are extremely well-prepared with your own position. Be sure you have worked out the angle with the producer in advance, and sat through any pre-interviews with staff.

Sometimes national TV on-air talent will actually do their own reporting, and in such cases, you may be able to prevail upon them with your own viewpoint. Keep in mind that it's still an uphill battle once the story angle is set. These are usually decided in pitch meetings long before the crew and reporter arrive.

I agree with EE that entertainment shows are driven by the likely audience appeal of a sexier angle on a story. However, don't kid yourself, all national news reporters want the headline and they will push you like mad, even using ego-stroking, to get you to say something that will produce a headline. This is one of several reasons that Dan Rather got into hot water -- he was pushing for that headline above all else and working against the competition to get it out there first. This is the entire modus operandi of network TV news.

Having said all this, I still want to say on a personal level that I admire and respect reporters tremendously. In all my time working as a spokesman with the media, I've never been directly misquoted. I've had enormous influence on national stories by becoming involved in very extended exchanges with reporters, sometimes for hours, over several weeks (you would be amazed by how much of that appears in print but is not actually attributed to you). They have protected my identity, every time, without exception, if I've asked them to, and I know they would go to jail to protect it. Once you have a national reporter's trust, it's the greatest high of your life. It's one billion times cooler than being the most popular person in high school.

The key point to remember is that your best chance of influencing the story is in the pitch meeting, or in the first few weeks when the producers or staff are lining up interviews and sorting out their angle. If you show up to be interviewed too far downstream in this process, they are already too married to their angle to change it at that point, no matter how compelling your viewpoint. This is just the way it is, and I think we need to let DW off the hook on this one.

Final thought. 80% of TV's impact is visual. How you look is more important that what you say. If you are beautiful, or at least very attractive with good stage presence, you will be successful. Sound familiar? My point here is that's it's impossible to compete for emotional impact in a TV piece on dancers when they have the stage. The best voices for dancers are other beautiful and intelligent dancers. If I were doing PR for the industry, I wouldn't let a man within a country mile of a camera, ever, no matter how good he looks. Play to your strengths. It's the dancers.

tampafldancer
04-16-2005, 06:26 PM
To get back on the point... I watched 20/20 and thought they did a great job with the material they had.
I think that dancerwealth could have added much more to the report had he been given the opportunity. I think its horrible that they used him for their benefit. :(

Susan Wayward
04-17-2005, 08:05 AM
I was reading the story on the ABC website, and if the owner of the Rick's chain thinks his dancers are making $3-6 K a week, he is seriously, seriously deluded.

242_fair
04-17-2005, 08:13 AM
... some of our students were, in fact, featured in the show so that's good I guess. Heck, at our next class in May we're going to have a reporter there to interview us from the AFP (Associated French Press) which is sort of like the Associated Press here in the states but based in France. They're actually sending a reporter clear across the globe to meet with us, so how cool is that?

They better not have a camera or I can't come.

There's no way I'm going to let my image or name be associated with this indusrty publicly.

I'd rather talk to the IRS than the media, and that's sayin' something.

evan_essence
04-17-2005, 09:26 AM
:yikes: Where the heck did this all come from?

Am I missing something here?Jillian is a TV journalist, which she mentioned in an earlier post, so it appears I majorly put her on the defensive. In her post right before my last one, she elaborated on her journalism viewpoint in response to DW. It looks sequentially as though my post was written after I read her response to DW, but the truth is that I was still working on mine when she posted hers. (The time stamps show the relatively short lapse between the two.) I didn't notice hers even after I posted, because mine just happened to land on the next page, which at the time was by itself. I can only surmise that this sequencing tends to make mine look even less sensitive to the points she made than if mine had preceded hers.


OK, a few deep breaths perhaps?And a Strattera perhaps? Yeah, I'll blame this on the fact I missed a dose. Uh-huh. Wait, I'm not supposed to be using ADHD as an excuse for bad behavior. Well, damn. Okay, I'll breathe deeply and try not to be so cynical that I suspect you just offered that suggestion so you could think about my heaving chest. :meditate: ommmm... ;)


Final thought. 80% of TV's impact is visual. How you look is more important that what you say. If you are beautiful, or at least very attractive with good stage presence, you will be successful. Sound familiar?I understand your point is that this is the reason they didn't use DW. However, I suspect you'd agree those are perfect qualifications for an exotic dancer; awful criteria to use in journalism's quest for the truth.


Also some people here are confusing editorial journalism with news though. News is supposed to be as unbiases as possible. 20/20 isn't raw news though. This was editorially based, so it's normal to have a "spin".I don't honestly understand that characterization, which seems to me to merely be a rationalization of slanting things. Label it editorially based and it's okay? Maybe that process goes to the heart of what's wrong with journalism these days. :shrug:


I knew what I was getting into early on with 20/20 and it was a gamble that didn't pay off. I'm actually okay with it, and all things being equal, I don't feel bad the experience, just the payoff.But your experience is only half the equation. I'm curious. Had you known ahead of time the negative feedback you heard from dancers about their interview experience with 20/20, would you have cooperated in setting up those interviews?


I didn't even read all of your post - but you know what why am I wasting my time with a bunch of hypocrits...I am SERICOUSLY considering ditching stripperweb for life. Perhaps I'll do what you want and make a expose on what a bunch of lieing, hypocritic, prostitutes strippers are and start with my experience at SW.You mentioned in your earlier post that you'd probably get flamed for expressing your opinion, but I really was not flaming you. As stated above, I hadn't read your response to DW at the time I posted so I wasn't ganging up on you personally. Making sweeping generalities, yes, I was, but directly aiming at you, no. Go ahead and tear into my opinions. Or tear directly into me; I'm a big girl and can handle it, but please spare SW your retaliation.

I'll amend my original contention to say that strippers shouldn't be trusting of TV news crews, simply because I doubt it's worth the risk. I'm sorry it makes your job harder whenever others in television act irresponsibly. That's not your fault when you're not one of them. And as I said in my original post, there are occasions when TV people are being honest but they're overruled later by someone else in the decision making chain. How can I possibly know who is and who isn't going to live up to their word? It's a risk DW feels is worth the potential benefit. I think I can see that for a business person, but when the subject is stripping, I can't see the same cost-to-benefit potential holding true for an exotic dancer who agrees to participate.

All other analysis aside, I'm thrilled the report was positive and DW had a hand in making it that way, even if he wasn't in front of the camera.

-Ev

Emily
04-17-2005, 09:54 AM
That comment about making $3-6k a week....

I saw the part on the show where it was aired.

From what I remember, they were talking about housefees, and the concept of paying to work and paying the other employees, being the ones that draw in the business, and not receiving any kind of employee benefits. The manager defended all this by saying a stripper can earn $3-6k per week, implying there is no injustice.

This was on in the dressing room at my club and of course all the girls laughed.

Destiny
04-17-2005, 11:23 AM
I was reading the story on the ABC website, and if the owner of the Rick's chain thinks his dancers are making $3-6 K a week, he is seriously, seriously deluded.Yes, but I doubt he minds potential dancers thinking that they make that much at his clubs.

Pryce
04-18-2005, 05:08 PM
We too had a part in the 20/20 special. I'm sure members remember a posting about a "Major network news program" looking for a first-time dancer for their program. We were promised a "Special Thanks to Stripperweb.com" by producer Deborah Apton - who claimed she was puting together the credits. I've done interviews before and they had been positive experiences. I didn't expect to be disappointed by ABC.

On the positive side, they did keep to their promise about trying to remain balanced on the subject. There were a few points that bothered me, but they tried to balance them out.

jumblies
04-19-2005, 04:21 PM
I was reading the story on the ABC website, and if the owner of the Rick's chain thinks his dancers are making $3-6 K a week, he is seriously, seriously deluded.

I work at Rick's Minneapolis, and I laughed out loud at that. :P Sure, maybe the NOLA Rick's...

Also, they mentioned how touching rules vary around the country, giving the Minnesota example where we can touch the customer but they can't touch us. The reporter said something like, "What's the fun in that?" and he responded, "I have no idea." Obviously he's never sampled our wares. ;)

VenusGoddess
04-19-2005, 10:15 PM
The only thing I didn't like about the program was one of the dancers they interviewed...she always makes my blood boil...

Other than that, I think it was a good show.

LilSweetVixen
04-20-2005, 10:47 AM
"The women said nobody takes new dancers under their wing and mentors them, or tells them how to survive and how to make a lot of money. They have to figure it out on their own."

::)....../:O damn them for getting stripperweb's help then!>:(

"They show up each night because it's their job. "

::) and we like it bitches!:)

I knew they would make the world of stripping sound all fierce, so I'm glad I didn't bother to watch it.

afxturnip
04-20-2005, 10:52 AM
I work at Rick's Minneapolis, and I laughed out loud at that. :P Sure, maybe the NOLA Rick's...

Also, they mentioned how touching rules vary around the country, giving the Minnesota example where we can touch the customer but they can't touch us. The reporter said something like, "What's the fun in that?" and he responded, "I have no idea." Obviously he's never sampled our wares. ;)

On the contrary, I've heard he's sampled plenty.

:O

Eric said a lot of things that I scoffed/laughed at. BTW, welcome jumblies - always good to see a Minneapolitan on the boards.

-afx

ReleaseTheBats
04-21-2005, 03:57 PM
I was reading the story on the ABC website, and if the owner of the Rick's chain thinks his dancers are making $3-6 K a week, he is seriously, seriously deluded.
my old roommate is definetly making that make a ricks in new orleans