I don't, I consider it aggravating indeed. I read your comment as a "journalism these days" sort of rant, when perhaps you meant it more like "it's 2017 and we're still in this stage of bullshit journalism" kind of thing.
And that needs to be changed. Sex work needs to be dragged out of that puritan hellhole, and highlighting thhat he spent money on prositutes but not anything else just perpetuates the view of sex work as "bad".
The article also mentioned that he lived in an 11,000 dollar a month apartment. Surely you don't think the article is trying to demonize expensive apartments.
I agree that the guy's use of prostitutes isn't relevant to understand the story, however, it adds colour, rightly or wrongly. If the article had said he spent the money sending his kids to private school, or investing in his wife's business, we might think of him as a caring family man. Instead, we get the image of a lavish playboy lifestyle.
Exactly this. Hookers and penthouses just paints a certain image. I don't think it necessarily casts sex work in a bad light. In fact, quite the opposite. Then again, this may be a personal bias.
