Some time ago, the “Straight Dope Classics” on the homepage reran Cecil’s column on snuff films. It so happened that that week, in a Washington Post Sunday magazine article on teen sex, reporter Liza Mundy referred to snuff films and to her father-in-law, a police officer, who “used to confiscate them all the time.”
Flabbergasted – could we be that close to a law enforcement official who had seen a real snuff movie – I sent an e-mail to Ms. Mundy, asking her about the reference and referring her not only to Cecil’s column but to several other online sources, and asking if she could elaborate on her statement, if for no other reason to contribute to the eradication of ignorance.
Today, after about a month and a half without a reply (I was certain she had written me off as a crackpot), I received this reply:
"Dear Mr. Dennison,
This is a very belated response to a letter you wrote me back in July, with regard to the piece I did on teen sex. Your question was about snuff films and whether I have any information on whether they do in fact exist.
Unfortunately my husband’s father, a detective with the Virginia State Police, is dead now, so I can’t ask him about the films he used to confiscate. I only ever had one conversation about this, which I remember because I was so shocked to hear about this kind of movie. If they’re only urban folklore, that would be interesting to know. But of course, it’s hard to prove absolutely that a certain thing doesn’t exist.
Sorry I can’t be more help.
Best regards,
Liza Mundy"
So, another potential avenue of investigation turns out to be a dead end. The march against ignorance progresses ever onward . . .
Gee, yet another Journalist who wrote something with no real factual verification or backing of any kind.
Why does this person still have a job?
“One conversation”, completely anecdotal and unverifiable, and that justifies giving her column space? It never ceases to amaze me.
Phil: will you writing back asking whether she will be asking for a retraction to be printed? CCing this to the editor of the publication and any programme/ publication which tries to act as a media watchdog might help as well. Well done.
picmr
Congratulations on your efforts pldennison! It sounds like the reporter sincerely believed her father-in-law, so for an off-hand comment in a piece on another subject, maybe that’s considered to be sufficient research in journalism? At least due to your letter she will probably be more careful next time she has the urge to mention snuff films.
picmr and Anthracite, I doubt I’ll make it more of an issue than it has to be with her or the Post. The article itself was, overall, well-written, and dealt with the sexual behavior and precociousness of pre-teens. The comment that prompted my letter was that she (Ms. Mundy) was watching a comedian talking about the election who remarked, “Bush, Gore, Bush, Gore–it sounds like a snuff film!” To which she remarked, “How am I to explain that to a child? I know what a snuff film is–my father-in-law, a police officer, used to confiscate them all the time . . .”
As Arnold says, it’s likely she simply heard such a thing from her father-in-law, who was probably mistaken as to what a snuff film was or what he was confiscating. In the scheme of things, it didn’t affect the thrust of the article or purport to represent snuff films as real beyond the scope of her comment. Who knows–maybe it will give her a story idea!
I had just read this thread, then was snooping around snopes as i tend to do… and i came across this http://www.snopes.com/quotes/reno.htm
if you scroll to the bottom, it would seem that this snuff film bit is not the first piece of dubious journalism one Liza Mundy has engaged in…
what do you guys think?
oops. looks like i actually misread the quote… seeing the name twice in one day is kind of odd though. disregard.
I just did a search for “snuff films” on Alta Vista, and I got 2320 hits. I was too creeped out to follow them, but if you are looking for leads …
Just tried the same thing. You should have followed the leads to see what they really lead to:
#1 can be determined to be talking about animals just from examining what's provided.
#2 is a hit into a long thread on a discussion board, an apparently unproven allegation that a certain individual makes such stuff.
#3 is a deliberate trap. It leads to a page saying that the website has no snuff films, the user has been misusing a search engine.
#4 is an indirect reference to a page of urban legends.
#5, I'm not sure exactly what it is, but it's not a link to snuff films.
#6 appears to be a discussion of them not being permitted on TV.
#7 appears to be a statement that they don't exist.
#8 and #9 are the same site. It makes it clear that the images are fantasy.
#10 is a dead link, it appears to be taking about the column that prompted this thread!
I didn't see any point in continuing the search--the trend is obvious.
I, myself, am not so certain that snuff films are an urban legend. I know of one Web site that has a couple of written snuff fantasies.
Given the vast number of sickos in this world, I expect it is only a matter of time before some devos do make a snuff film.
Incidentally, Martha Grimes’ newest novel, “The Lamorna Wink,” another Richard Jury/Melrose Plant book, features some villains who make at least one snuff film. I wouldn’t buy the book, though, unless you are a real fan of Ms. Grimes. I have read her novels for a long time, but, sadly, I think the quality of the Jury/Plant novels is steadily declining.
But that would be a little different then the issue Cecil was addressing, and that UL is about, which is a widespread industry in snuff films.
It’s hard to deny that there might be a wacko or two out there making a snuff film, and possibly even passing it amongst a few other wackos.