Speaking of theliberalmedia
Not much to add to what Ronn had to say a few days back in his Looking for Patricia Meili post, which linked/quoted Allan Wolper's Editor & Publisher editorial, It's Time to Name the Central Park Jogger:
The reason reporters keep the names of rape victims out of their newspapers is to spare them the stigma associated with the crime. There is a reason for that. We are a country that still paints a scarlet letter on rape victims.
But the Jogger doesn't need to be protected anymore. She is lifting her veil because she wants to tell the world who she is and how she came back from near death to conquer life. She overcame. She is doing what many people want her to do: destigmatize the status of rape victims. She is opening her life to scrutiny.
Her name is not a journalism secret. New York newspaper editors know who she is. She was identified in police records after she was attacked. WCBS-TV, WNBC-TV, WPIX-TV, and the New York Amsterdam News, a leading black weekly newspaper, all identified her before enclosing her in a cloak of anonymity.
Well, other than questioning why he felt it necessary to describe the New York Amsterdam News as "a leading black weekly newspaper." Seeing as there's no corresponding description for the television stations or the "New York newspaper[s]" whose editors know the woman's name.
I vaguly remember reading that there were revisions going on in light of the convictions being overturned -- something Wolper describes as putting the story "once again [. . .] on Page One," although I'm not seeing it that way myself -- seems the mainstream media and bloggers were much more enthusiastic about piling on Trent Lott than on discussing any of the ramifications of this story -- but perhaps this is mere oversight on my part.
Bonus round: Naming the Central Park Jogger by Kelly McBride at Poynter Online:
I want to stop short of saying journalists should never identify a rape victim without consent. There may be a compelling reason to do just that. But I don't find one in this case. The public does not need to know her identity now. If we identify the Central Park Jogger against her will, I worry about the millions of other rape victims out there. Will they view the media with distrust? Will they hesitate to report crimes to the police, fearing their names will be published? Will they be less likely to help us tell their stories and document what has become a hidden epidemic in America? Should we name the Central Park Jogger? I say no. There is no journalistic reason compelling enough to do. And it could further injure our abilities to tell other rape stories, if rape survivors come to view the media as the enemy.
That's the last paragraph. I somehow missed the bit of the essay that provides justification for her conclusion in this particular instance, one where the rape survivor has a book coming out and a publisher who's looking to "identify her first so they can maximize their profits," according to a professor of media ethics quoted in Wolper's piece.
But this is wandering into some confluence of race, sex, crime and corporate dominance of the media, and is more a topic for a dissertation than a blog entry.
Plus, there's always the distinct possibility that I'm completely wrong.
Always wrth bearing in mind, that.
Comments
I somehow missed the bit of the essay that provides justification for her conclusion in this particular instance, one where the rape survivor has a book coming out and a publisher who's looking to "identify her first so they can maximize their profits," according to a professor of media ethics quoted in Wolper's piece.
I don't think it requires a justification "in this particular instance" or in any instance. I feel the same way about it that I feel about abortion. I mean, perhaps the CPJogger is choosing her moment of revealing her name according to mercenary reasons, perhaps not, but it's still her choice to make prima facie and regardless of whether I endorse her motivations.
To say that the media should be in the business of judging whether they think a rape victim/survivor's reason for wanting discretion is good enough -- it will go wrong so easily, I don't trust them with that power.
Posted by: Drapetomaniac | February 20, 2003 10:42 PM
Isn't "unless the victim explicitly asks to be named" sort of a bright line here?
Posted by: julia | February 21, 2003 12:52 PM
I feel no guilty in naming Patricia Meili. I knew her name during the first days of the story. And the fact that she is coming out with a book negates any discussion about naming her publically. Since I work in the publishing industry (and of course, the Central Park 5 is an obsession of mine), I knew her name as her proposal was circulating. Anyone with a bit of gumption can find out her name and other information.
I didn't see the same hand wringing after Abner Louima was sodomized by the police. Maybe because: he's Black, it was alleged he hurt himself while having rough gay sex, he's Haitain...
Posted by: ronn | February 21, 2003 6:13 PM
I knew her name during the first days of the story. And the fact that she is coming out with a book negates any discussion about naming her publically... Anyone with a bit of gumption can find out her name and other information.
Gumption is irrelevant and so is whether one can find out her name or not. I too knew her name in the first days of the story. So what? I know lots of things I don't repeat. It is courtesy. There is nothing served by doing so.
I didn't see the same hand wringing after Abner Louima was sodomized by the police.
Oh yes? Whose hand-wringing credentials are you asking to be presented with, exactly?
I have no idea what the circumstances of Louima's naming were. If it was without his consent, I think it was wrong.
Posted by: Drapetomaniac | February 22, 2003 4:48 AM
Patricia Meili doesn't want to remain anonymous for privacy, but for monetary gain. There's nothing wrong with that. But my gut feeling is that she would have already gone public were it not for her book deal. I'm sure it's mostly her publisher's idea.
There wasn't any consideration of Louima's privacy. It happens all the time when males are involved. Look at the Newark house of horrors story. Those young boys had their names and faces all over the tube and in the rags. When it was discovered that the murdered boy was sexually abused by a cousin, there were no calls to hide the identity of the boys. If I remember correctly, maybe one station (possibly two) stations his their faces. All the others did not.
Posted by: ronn | February 22, 2003 9:31 AM
That doesn't change the essential question of whether or not those revelations are wrong, Ronn. That it happened to men does not make it any more correct. It simply makes it incorrect that it happened to them as well.
Posted by: VASpider | February 22, 2003 9:41 AM
She's allowing her name to be used to sell product. Naming her before publication is not wrong in my eyes. Simon and Schuster may not like it, but she's already indicated that she doesn't want to remain anonymous.
And while the essential question is whether or not the male victims were (also) unfairly named, I still don't see anyone upset about it.
Posted by: ronn | February 22, 2003 9:14 PM
Ronn, I'm not arguing the question of Patricia Meili with you. That's a whole other kettle of fish. Please don't be so arrogant, however, as to assume that simply because I didn't use this particular post as an opportunity to froth and rave about the gender bias that is very clearly present in these cases, please don't make the assumption that it doesn't upset me.
Posted by: VASpider | February 23, 2003 7:16 PM
VASpider: don't be so arrogant as to think I worry about what your worry about. I was talking in general terms. No need to have a hissy fit.
Posted by: ronn | February 23, 2003 10:37 PM
You know, I checked my post for evidence of ever becoming vituperative or having a hissy fit in this thread, and all I've found is the fact that I'm female.
Right. Moving on.
I like pie.
Posted by: VASpider | February 24, 2003 1:07 PM
pie is indeed good. i had a piece of marionberry pie this weekend that was so damn big, i had to skip dinner.
funny, the conversation was veering over to pie and the weather and things over at dru's, too. must be one of those days. mercury in retrograde or something.
Posted by: r@d@r | February 24, 2003 3:36 PM
Excellent. It all boils down to "It's because I'm a girl."
Moving on without moving up is pointless.
I'm baking apple pie tomorrow.
Posted by: ronn | February 25, 2003 3:51 PM
At the risk of being an ass, I'd just like to say that I held my tongue the first time ronn was an ass, but this time, I really must say that having to get last licks in when hardly a struggle was raised is a real asshole thing to do.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 25, 2003 4:48 PM
Malcolm your post exemplifies last licks assholism.
Posted by: ronn | February 25, 2003 5:31 PM
Guess as long as the crust doesn't have any eggs or dairy, the pie could be vegan. . .
Speaking of which, any live sightings of "The Garden of Vegan" in the field? Heather and I keep looking, and it keeps not being on the shelves here yet.
Posted by: Aaron | February 25, 2003 9:22 PM
Aaron, according to Borders/Amazon, the book will be released in April, 2003.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 26, 2003 6:49 AM
Aaron, found this version on VegWeb. I'd use a 50/50 mix of honey and molasses.
Posted by: ronn | February 26, 2003 7:06 AM
Honey ain't vegan. If you'd like Aaron, I'll ask my pal Jordan for advice -- he made some amazing vegan pies for my Thanksgrieving supper party.
Posted by: hanne | February 26, 2003 7:11 AM
I concur, Aaron. Those pies rocked.
Posted by: Malcolm | February 26, 2003 7:15 AM