Our issue kicks off with a gritty investigative piece on the current “witch hunt” of priests, written by Rafael C. O’Brien, until recently the pastor of Our Lady of Mount Carmel Church in Greenwich, Conn. With American cardinals descending on Rome at the order of His Holy Father, Pope John Paul II, this piece is a must-read. O’Brien’s meticulous reporting documents how the Catholic hierarchy is offering up priests as “sacrificial lambs” to protect the church from the widening scandal. With help from a “Deep Throat” source high in the Vatican, O’Brien pieces together a tale of lies, lies, more lies and betrayal. What you read may shock you. But you will never forget it.

Our exclusive Newsmaker profile takes a closer look at Ret. Rev. Paul R. Shanley of Boston, a controversial figure currently making headlines. In 1979, Shanley shocked church officials by advocating the benefits of sexual relationships between men and boys at a Boston conference that led to the founding of the North American Man Boy Love Association (NAMBLA). Now, for the first time anywhere, Shanley tells his side of the story, and gives readers an exclusive glimpse into his personal life. (Thanks again to Shanley for allowing us to reprint photos from his private collection).

But we don’t want Defrocked to be all serious stuff. While we’re proud to take thoughtful stands on the issues, we hope we never take ourselves too seriously. We want Defrocked to be more than just a valued resource; we want to become your trusted friend.

Our advice column, “Ask Former Father Taylor,” has already received hundreds of questions from readers responding to our pre-launch direct mail campaign. Now more than ever, former and current clergy members need access to reliable information, and former Father Taylor brings a wealth of pastoral experience to his new magazine ministry. Former Father Taylor is not a licensed counselor and his opinions should not be construed as legal advice. Liability rests solely with the reader and not Defrocked, its owners or advertisers.

Our food columnist has good news: Fish isn’t just for Fridays during Lent. Salmon and Ahi tuna are in season and the catch has never been fresher. You’ll find 15 mouth-watering recipes for fish entrees, all of which can be prepared in 30 minutes or less. And while you’re at it, check out our wine columnist, who wrestles with the question, “Is there life beyond Altar wine?” The answer is a resounding “Yes!” And no, we don’t mean Blue Nun.

If you’re like me, your knowledge of popular music stops at “Godspell” and “Jesus Christ Superstar.” So we would all do well to check out music critic Dennis Tucker’s informative piece on the currently popular musical forms “rap” and “hip-hop.” Readers will come away giving props to all the gangstas in their respective hoods.

In our Look Smart section, we explore the fashion needs of former priests. You’ve ditched the Roman collar: Now what? Well, don’t worry: Black is Back — in style, that is. We’ll show you 20 ways to mix ‘n’ match black pants, black shoes and a black turtleneck without busting your budget. Plus, we take a look at an exciting new line of casual clothing known as “ecclesiastical sportswear.”

On the lighter side, our Altar Boy Pictorial gives readers a sneak peek at what the lads will be wearing this summer while serving those long, hot Masses. Cassock hemlines are WAY up this year, showing lots of leg. Good news for modern man.

In the back of the book, you’ll find our extensive Resources section, chock-full of vital information for priests in transition. Our extensive list of defense lawyers is the most comprehensive anywhere. Even priests not currently involved in litigation will want to clip and save.

Our Personals section is already shaping up to be one of our most popular features, based on your response to our mailings. Please note that the category listed in the mailing as MEN SEEKING BOYS is now known as MEN SEEKING YOUNG MEN. Sorry, no refunds.

Above all, we want you to know that Defrocked is YOUR magazine. If there’s a topic you want us to cover, or a person you want us to profile, please let us know. We don’t claim to be infallible, but we can promise a lively read every month.

Alleluia!

–(Former) Father Bob Boyle, Editor in Chief

Drugs, and the people who love them, were frequent topics in the Oval Office around the end of Nixon’s first term. Nixon, in fact, can rightfully be called the father of the war on drugs. On June 17, 1971, (coincidentally, a year to the day before the Watergate break-in), Nixon announced an “all-out offensive” on drug abuse, which the president termed “America’s Public Enemy No. 1.” He requested $155 million from Congress, and created the Special Action Office for Drug Abuse Prevention in the White House.

In the months leading up to the announcement, Nixon solicited opinions from various drug “experts.” One of them was daytime talk show host Art Linkletter, whose daughter, famously, had jumped out of a window, supposedly because of the influence of LSD. But like many people in Nixon’s inner circle, Linkletter wasn’t above bending the truth to fit his own purposes.

When 20-year-old Diane Linkletter leaped to her death from the sixth floor of her West Hollywood, Calif., apartment on Oct. 4, 1969, her father immediately fingered acid as the culprit. “It isn’t suicide because she wasn’t herself,” Linkletter told the media. “It was murder. She was murdered by the people who manufacture and sell LSD.” Linkletter claimed that Diane had taken LSD the night before her death, and her panic over its effects led to the fatal plunge.

But when an autopsy showed no trace of LSD in Diane’s body, Linkletter’s story changed: Diane had taken acid six months before her death and experienced a “flashback,” which prompted her to jump out the window. No one in the mainstream media challenged Linkletter’s improbable account, and the story of an acid-crazed Diane Linkletter jumping out a window because she thought she could fly became an established urban legend. In 1969, director John Waters released a memorable 15-minute film, “The Diane Linkletter Story,” with Divine in the starring role. Timothy Leary took Linkletter to task in a 1979 television appearance, taunting him: “You got in the Nixon White House on the basis of your daughter’s death. I think that’s ghoulish.” (You can see an actual clip of the exchange here.)

So when Linkletter strolled into the Oval Office shortly after noon on May 18, 1971, the stage was set for an historic meeting between a man who blamed drugs to cover up his own shortcomings as a parent and a president who would soon take covering up to new heights. The transcript reads like satire. It’s not. Honest.

The first topic was marijuana, a drug that Nixon, of course, had never taken. (What would be the point? He was already paranoid.) Nixon did know a thing or two about alcohol, a drug he increasingly abused throughout his presidency, culminating in the Lush Years of Watergate. With Linkletter, Nixon sought to draw a moral distinction between his drug of choice and “bad” drugs like marijuana:

Art Linkletter: “There’s a great difference between alcohol and marijuana.”

Richard Nixon: “What is it?”

Linkletter: “The worst that you can have when you’re in with other alcoholics is more to drink, so you’ll throw up more and get sicker and be drunker.”

Nixon: “And that also is a great, great incentive, uh –”

Linkletter: “But when you are with druggers, you can go from marijuana to, say, heroin. Big difference.”

Nixon: “I see.”

Linkletter: “If, if, if you’re with a guy who suggests you have three more drinks than you should have, you’re just going to get sicker. But if you’re with a guy who you’re already high and he suggests you try, this instead of this, you can go much further.”

According to the Linkletter Vomit Theory, alcohol abusers eventually throw up when they’ve had too much to drink, thus saving them from further harm, while druggers turn to the needle when pot isn’t getting them high enough. Linkletter seems unaware that quite a few people who have had too much to drink don’t vomit; they order another drink. And folks who smoke too much pot usually don’t turn to heroin; most of them fall asleep on the couch with the TV on.

But no matter. In the first minutes of the meeting, Nixon assumes the role of attentive pupil, eager to learn about the drug underworld from an expert. Linkletter has clearly done just enough research on marijuana to give Nixon the inside dope:

Linkletter: “Now, let me tell you one thing about marijuana you should know, that the word marijuana should never be used until you say, what kind of marijuana.”

Nixon: “Oh.”

Linkletter: “There is every grade. Now they say legalize marijuana or it isn’t bad. What marijuana isn’t bad? The mild stuff we grow in Wisconsin, or the stuff from Morocco? The twigs and the leaves, or the resin? The kind of person who uses it, is he psychologically sound or unsound? All these things make a difference. So you can never say marijuana, you’ve got to say, marijuana Acapulco, or marijuana from Mexico, or marijuana from Illinois.”

Yep, one toke of that marijuana from Illinois and your drugger friend will be begging you not to jump out the window. Nixon shows little interest in getting into a stoner discussion about killer marijuana Acapulco bursting with twigs, leaves, and resin. Instead, he characteristically projects a perceived social ill — drug abuse — onto his political opponents.

Nixon: “These, uh, more radical demonstrators that were here the last, oh, two weeks ago. They’re all on drugs. Oh yeah, horrible, it’s just a — when I say all, virtually all. And uh, uh, just raising hell, and, uh …”

Linkletter: “That’s right. And of course one of the reasons you can beat them is that so many of them are on drugs. The police are organized and did a great job …”

Nixon: “Yeah, I got a hold of (Attorney General John) Mitchell on, uh, Saturday night, I said, bust them. And don’t hurt anybody, I said don’t hurt anybody, I don’t want anything like Chicago, but I says, arrest the whole damn lot, if they don’t clear the streets. And they arrested them, and the police chief did a hell of a job.”

Despite the strong talk, Nixon continues to be nagged by an inner conflict: how can he rationalize condemning marijuana when he freely abuses alcohol? Nixon again steers Linkletter to comparing the two drugs, leading to this exchange:

Linkletter: “Another big difference between marijuana and alcohol is that when people smoke marijuana, they smoke it to get high. In every case, when most people drink, they drink to be sociable. You don’t see people –”

Nixon: “That’s right, that’s right.”

Linkletter: “They sit down with a marijuana cigarette to get high –”

Nixon: “A person does not drink to get drunk.”

Linkletter: “That’s right.”

Nixon: “A person drinks to have fun.”

Linkletter: “I’d say smoke marijuana, you smoke marijuana to get high.”

Nixon: “Smoke marijuana, er, uh, you want to get a charge of some sort, and float, and this, that and the other thing.”

So according to Nixon, people drink alcohol not to get drunk, but to be sociable and have fun. By contrast, druggers smoke marijuana to get a charge and float and this, that and the other thing. Well, that explains it. A final exchange between Nixon and Linkletter takes the big picture view:

Nixon: “And your drug societies, uh, are, are, inevitably come apart. They –”

Linkletter: “They lose motivation.”

Nixon: “– mind”

Linkletter: “No discipline.”

Nixon: “Yeah.”

Linkletter: “You know I did a show –”

Nixon: “At least with liquor, I don’t lose motivation.”

Nixon’s final comment is perhaps more revealing than he intended. At least with liquor, I don’t lose motivation … although it sometimes makes me talk aloud to paintings late at night in the White House.

Just five days before Nixon’s drug summit with Linkletter, the president had wrestled with another topic ripped from today’s headlines: sexual misconduct by the Catholic clergy. Speaking to domestic affairs advisor John Ehrlichman, Nixon viewed the issue through the long lens of history:

Nixon: “You know what happened to the popes? It’s all right that, po-po-Popes were laying the nuns, that’s been going on for years, centuries, but, when the popes, when the Catholic Church went to hell, in, I don’t know, three or four centuries ago, it was homosexual, and it had to be cleaned out.”

Three or four centuries ago was, at the time Nixon was speaking, 1571-1671. It’s unclear what led Nixon to date the Catholic Church’s downfall to this period. Perhaps he was referring to the Thirty Years War (1618-48), an inconclusive battle between Catholics and Protestants that left Germany ruined and much of Europe exhausted. Or maybe Nixon had in mind the Peace of Westphalia in 1648, which upheld the division of Catholic and Protestant states that had been agreed upon at the Peace of Augsburg in 1555.

Or maybe the guy was just drunk.

At any rate, Nixon the strategist thought the Catholic Church was right to root out homosexuality in the clergy, while continuing to look the other way at the popes laying the nuns. For Nixon, the lesson of history is clear: homosexuality, like drug abuse, has no place in a robust culture.

Nixon: “Let’s look at the strong societies. The Russians. Goddamn it, they root them out, they don’t let them around at all. I don’t know what they do with them … You know what happened to the Greeks. Homosexuality destroyed them. Sure, Aristotle was a homo. We all know that. So was Socrates.”

Ehrlichman: “But he never had the influence television had.”

Socrates not as influential as television! Say it ain’t so!

Regrettably, Nixon dropped the topic of the Catholic clergy, and moved onto more mundane matters of state. It leaves us to wonder, 31 years later, how Nixon might view the sexual abuse scandal currently rocking the church. I’m guessing something like:

Nixon: “The Po-po-Popes laying the nuns is one thing, but the church has to root out the goddamn homos. I’m serious. You’ve got the priests feeling up the altar boys and this, that and the other thing. Socrates did it, we all know that. But the church has to bust these priests, don’t hurt them, but arrest the whole damn lot of them before everything goes to hell.

“Christ, somebody get me a drink.”

Launched last November, FrugalJohn has already attracted something of an underground following among “hobbyists,” as those who frequent these ladies like to call themselves. The site’s page views — currently about 350,000 a month — have doubled every 30 days since launch. The FrugalJohn network has expanded to include escorts from Seattle, Los Angeles, Sacramento and San Diego — with Houston and Dallas soon to come, so to speak.

No one’s more surprised at FrugalJohn’s tumescent popularity than its founder, a 30-something out-of-work midlevel Internet executive who goes by the handle Giorgio Xo.

“I started it as a lark, but it’s exploded into a real business,” says Giorgio, with a genuine sense of wonder. “And it’s all been viral marketing. I don’t do any advertising, and I’m not even listed on the search engines. I’m kind of scared to think of what might happen if I advertise.”

Giorgio, a U.C. Berkeley grad who’s been laid off by three dot-coms in as many years, got the idea for FrugalJohn after reading dozens of posts on the general discussion board of San Francisco Redbook, an online guide to sex services in the Bay Area. The guys were complaining that local escorts were charging too much, considering the region’s battered economy. Giorgio, having built and managed quite a few corporate sites in his day, had no problem cobbling together a no-frills site listing escorts and massage providers whose fees were more in line with recessionary realities. Soon, guys began suggesting other cut-rate cuties for inclusion on the site, and then the ladies themselves began contacting Giorgio, clamoring to be featured on FrugalJohn.

The FrugalJohn family of sites — what Giorgio likes to call “The Atomic John Network” — has grown to include DoubleDee, devoted to large-breasted escorts (with similarly inflated rates), along with FBSM, which features providers of full-body sensual massage. “Full-body massage is very popular with married guys who don’t want to feel too guilty and yet have a different kind of sexual experience,” explains Giorgio. Next up are spinoff sites devoted to AMPs (Asian Massage Parlors) and $700-per-hour and up porn star escorts. FrugalJohn has become so popular that Giorgio had to lease two servers in Texas to handle the traffic and is talking about snaking a T3 line into his Silicon Valley home by summer.

“I think the success of FrugalJohn is because I’ve kept it as simple as possible,” says Giorgio. “Guys don’t like being surprised. They want to know what does she look like, how much does she charge, and what’s her friggin’ phone number?”

“Plus,” Giorgio adds, “there are a lot of horny out of work dot-commers.”

Giorgio understands his market niche. FrugalJohn is the Wal-Mart of escort directories, where every aisle is crammed with Red Light Specials. And while FrugalJohn injects a bit of indirect editorial commentary by not including what Giorgio calls “well-known scam artists and low-quality providers,” the site’s chief attraction isn’t quality, but price point.

“The initial group of escorts I had on the site weren’t, uh, the most aesthetically pleasing ladies,” Giorgio says. “But I’ve been working hard to improve the look of the site, getting better photographs. So now I have not necessarily better-looking ladies but better-looking pictures. I’m not looking for fantastic women, but there are plenty of really well-regarded ladies on the site.”

Escorts and massage providers aren’t charged for their listing on FrugalJohn, but Giorgio’s thinking about offering premium placement on the site for about $50 a month, which works out to 15 minutes on the clock for a $200-per-hour escort. Even though Giorgio’s not making money directly from the site yet, he’s already landed several Web site projects from escorts he’s met through FrugalJohn.

Running an online escort directory, it turns out, isn’t much different than managing a corporate Web site. The same rules apply: Keep it simple, know your audience, keep the customer satisfied. “It’s just like my regular Internet job was; the only difference is that I’m not hamstrung by the six-month VP review process,” says Giorgio. “I can have a site up in a day and see immediately how it’s doing and start fine-tuning it. As a Web professional, it’s much more rewarding.”

Plus, overseeing an escort directory has certain fringe benefits. “I get a lot of unsolicited pictures of naked women,” Giorgio reports. “Another fun thing is that I started doing photo shoots for the site, so now I have a number of very good-looking naked ladies running around the house.”

The recession has hit the escort business hard, particularly in Silicon Valley. During the boom, Valley escorts were routinely charging $350 an hour, and some high-rolling dot-commers were flying to other cities to see their favorite $500-an-hour companion. But these days, Giorgio reckons the average going rate for an escort in the Valley has dropped to about $260 an hour. And plenty of ladies, like most on FrugalJohn, are willing to offer even deeper-dish discounts. Some Silicon Valley escorts have become “proactive” in marketing, e-mailing or telephoning regular clients to drum up business.

“Even escorts who have a posted rate of $300, when a guy actually calls up, he’ll hem and haw, and she’ll say, ‘Well, how about $250?’” Giorgio explains. “The higher-end girls all say the downturn hasn’t affected them, but I know for a fact it has. There were a handful of providers who retired on the money they made in the stock market during the boom, and now all of sudden, they’re coming back in to work.”

Escorts featured on FrugalJohn are generally happy to be there, since it’s free advertising. Giorgio says he gets e-mails from providers thanking him for the service, and the community message board of San Francisco Redbook now features escorts singing Giorgio’s praises and, by extension, their own.

“Wonderful job you are doing on FrugalJohn!” posts JillSix, a $180-an-hour escort featured on the site. “Your creativity and resourcefulness shines through. I especially appreciate your selectivity and class, keep up the good work, I wish you only the Very Best.”

“I”ve gotten a good bit of business from FrugalJohn,” says Kelly DD. “But call me in a couple of months. I’m paying for premium placement on the site.”

The only complaint from escorts seems to be that FrugalJohn’s bargain prices promote more window shopping than actual business from the cheap bastards.

“I’ve gotten calls from FrugalJohn, but only one date so far,” says Desire. “Most of the calls are just inquiries.”

Even escorts too expensive to make the FrugalJohn cut acknowledge that Giorgio is serving his demographic well.

“Frugaljohn.com is an excellent resource for hobbyists looking for economical escort services,” e-mails Brittany, a $300-per-hour Seattle-based escort. “Although I do not benefit personally from these sites as I focus on a different market segment, I know that the women that are listed really appreciate the service. I like the fact that if I’m not able to accommodate a gentleman I can refer him to Frugaljohn.com.”

FrugalJohn’s reach is impressive, based on the return e-mail addresses Giorgio sees. The site gets lurkers from around the world, including a contingent from Saudi Arabia, where viewing FrugalJohn, technically speaking, is punishable by death. Closer to home, many of the site’s regular surfers check out FrugalJohn from inside some of Silicon Valley’s most respected companies, including Sun, Oracle, and Cisco. Plus, Giorgio sees the occasional dot-gov address.

With the success of FrugalJohn, Giorgio isn’t in any hurry to look for a straight job. In a way, he’s found his calling. “I’m not ashamed of what I’m doing,” Giorgio says. “I’m providing a killer service for everyone. I’m saving guys money. And it’s empowering for the women because they can make money on their own terms.”

FrugalJohn’s upcoming move into Texas is timely and could prove to be a much-needed tonic for a local economy battered by recession and corporate malfeasance. There have to be plenty of out-of-work guys in Houston who would like to do to a reasonably-priced escort what Enron did to them.

If your child exhibits two or more of these symptoms, chances are he’s already a member of the Taliban:

Dramatic changes in clothing or hairstyle

Sudden bursts of anger

Loss of interest in popular music

Really dirty face

Can’t keep a girlfriend/boyfriend

Poor grades, especially in Civics

Bloodshot eyes

Wears fake beard (boys) or full-body veil (girls)

Anti-American slogans in notebooks and/or school yearbook

Dramatic changes in diet, refuses to eat pork or “unclean” foods

“Hides” in cave-like bedroom

Impaired capacity to reason

Feelings of paranoia

Distorted sense of history

Talks of suicide or “glorious martyrdom”

Unexplained late-night international phone calls

Vague about social activities and company kept

Speaks fluent Urdu

Always blaming others for problems

Why Do Kids Join the Taliban?

Many parents are shocked when they first learn their child (or increasingly, children) have joined the Taliban. “Who’s to blame?” many parents ask. And then: “No, besides us.”

As parents search for answers, they frequently point the finger of blame somewhere else. There’s the media, which glamorizes the Taliban lifestyle with constant coverage while glossing over the dangers, such as the loss of an eye or limb. There’s peer pressure in school: Kids join the Taliban because it’s “cool,” what the “in” crowd is doing. And there’s America’s Mideast policy, which upsets even teens.

Ultimately, parents need to take responsibility for their children. You may think you’re doing your kid a favor by letting him “explore his spirituality” in Yemen, but you’re playing right into the hands of the enemy.

What Parents Can Do

Talk to your kids Don’t expect your children to learn about the dangers of the Taliban in school. Many schools don’t even have a Taliban-awareness campaign in place, thanks to the liberal courts.

Sit your kids down and give them the facts. If you dabbled in the Taliban as a youth and then quit, reinforce your decision and encourage your children to follow your example. Say that religious extremist groups are much stronger than in your day and far more dangerous. Be honest. Make sure your kids understand that you were wrong and that they should avoid the Taliban at all costs. And if you’re still in the Taliban, get help for yourself first. Your local FBI office is a good place to start.

Provide age-appropriate information Be sure that the information you offer fits your child’s age. A typical 6-year-old need only know that the people in the Taliban are “bad.” A few years later, your child will come to know them as “the evil ones.” Teens are old enough to be told how America’s support of Saudi Arabia greatly compromises the moral authority of the war on terrorism. If your child has questions about U.S. Mideast policy, admit that you don’t fully understand it either.

Encourage less dangerous activities It’s a fact: Kids who are involved in healthy activities are far less likely to join the Taliban. Provide your children with acceptable alternatives to terrorism. It’s especially effective to have your kids participate in activities banned by the Taliban, such as listening to music, dancing, singing, flying a kite or having fun.

Promote a positive self-image Kids who feel good about themselves don’t need the Taliban to make them feel good. You contribute to your child’s positive self-image by praising his nonviolent achievements, correcting inappropriate behavior before it becomes treasonous and practicing “tough love” when he brings automatic weapons into the house. A child who’s comfortable with himself is far less likely to leave home to join an ill-equipped militia halfway around the world.

Be alert Above all, keep in mind the four things you should know about your children at all times: 1) Where they are, 2) Who they’re with, 3) What they’re doing, and 4) Which side they’re rooting for in the war on terrorism. The Taliban is willing to take the time to gather this information. Are you?

Nilsson pointed to the dozen or so reporters and cameramen crowded around her as she made her way around the job referral center. Television lights shone brightly as Nilsson filled out an employment form, talked briefly to a career counselor and shook her head sadly while scanning the current job postings. She later repeated the head shake several times for a second group of cameramen.

“They’ve been wonderful,” Nilsson says of the media pack. “CNN went along with me to two job interviews yesterday. Newsweek helped drop my kids off at school. Some guy from the Christian Science Monitor is taking us out to dinner tonight, and he’s paying.”

With the nation’s unemployment rate surging to 5.8 percent, a six-year high, the market is booming for out-of-work people telling their stories to the media. Nilsson, in the past week alone, has appeared as the anecdotal lead in a Wall Street Journal story on the unemployment rate, as “a worried mom” in a Time magazine story on the recession and as a “casualty of the tech bust” on the “CBS Evening News with Dan Rather.” An upcoming “Nightline” segment will follow her to a series of disappointing job interviews, and later this month, a USA Today pie chart will break down her family’s weekly budget.

Nilsson isn’t the only unemployed person who’s found work telling her story to the media. Tom McGee, an unemployed sheet metal worker from East Lansing, Mich., has been featured in more than two dozen media accounts since being laid off from his job in August.

“The ‘ABC World News Tonight’ piece, that was the big one,” recalls McGee. “Once I landed that, everybody started calling. I’ve never been busier.”

The market may be flourishing for unemployed workers with a good story to tell, but increased competition is forcing some to be more creative about how they present themselves to the media. When San Bruno, Calif., resident Antonia Moore was laid off by a pet Web site last year, the media flocked to her door.

“It was easy at first,” recalls Moore. “All I had to do was sit in my living room petting my cat and looking sad, and I’d end up on the evening news every time. But then producers started telling me that the dot-com bust story was ‘old news’ and I knew I needed to come up with something new.”

Moore began volunteering at a local SPCA, and was soon featured in a flurry of stories about laid off dot-com workers seeking more meaningful jobs. More recently, after announcing that she was delaying the purchase of a new pair of shoes, she’s appeared in half a dozen stories about weak consumer confidence.

Experts say unemployed workers will need to be nimble if they hope to appear in upcoming stories about the sputtering economy.

“In today’s market, out-of-work folks have to be much more creative about packaging themselves,” says Bill Mueller, a former Stanford economist who was laid off from his job in November. “Is that good enough, or do you need another quote? I can give you another one, it’s no problem.”

According to a recent study by the U.S. Department of Labor, the average unemployed person will change the story about why he’s out of work five times before landing his next job. While unemployed, he’ll be featured in eight print stories and four broadcast accounts, on average.

For Andrea Nilsson, the media attention has been a welcome distraction from the stress of looking for work. But as she trudged out of the job center, with a pack of reporters trailing close behind, she admitted that it’s getting harder to make ends meet.

“With all the reporters I have to talk to, there’s a lot less time to actually look for work,” says Nilsson. “That’s why I’m thinking of charging a fee for interviews.”

Nilsson declined further unpaid comment.