Discussion List for campus-based and allied personnel working to end gender-based violence on campus.

Arthur S. Brisbane, Public Editor

The New York Times

620 8^th Ave.

NY, NY  10018

 

Re: Texas Gang Rape Story

 

Dear Mr. Brisbane;

 

The self-described goal of the New York Times is “to cover the news as impartially as possible – ‘without fear or favor.’”[1] Its recent coverage of the gang rape of an 11-year-old child repeatedly failed to meet this objective.

 

The Times included in its story comments from community members who were judgmental of the child victim.  For example, the reporter wrote “[Residents] said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s.  She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said.”  While these expressions are not the words of the Times, per se, the choice to include this information in the story is the decision of the Times, alone.  By including irrelevant information that implies some degree of amorality, the Times provides a platform for victim blaming, conveying the idea that information about a victim’s attire is somehow relevant and necessary for an understanding of the case.[2]  The overall implication is that the victim is responsible for the criminal acts of others even though the law is exceedingly clear that an 11-year-old child bears no such responsibility and, indeed, lacks any capacity to consent to sexual activity. 

 

In contrast, the reporter treats the accused offenders benevolently.  This effect, identified by hundreds of outraged readers, was accomplished primarily through the use of supportive quotes by community members, who posited that, “these boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.” 

 

By quoting some people in the community as saying they blame the victim, and others who say they feel empathy for the perpetrators, the Times implies that the truth evolves from a local popularity contest, rather than from the rule of law.

The reporter’s own words exacerbate this effect, albeit more subtly. While the 11-year-old victim is described as dressing like an adult, the author refers to one 19-year-old suspect (who will be tried in court as an adult) as “a boy”.[3]  

 

The article opens with an explanation of how the 18 male suspects have been identified “on charges of participating in the gang rape of an 11-year-old girl,”[4] and then notes that two of the suspects are members of the basketball team, and one is the son of a school board member.[5]  Facts such as membership on a basketball team and relationship to a school board member are irrelevant to the crime that occurred and serve only to falsely convey the idea that certain “types” are less likely than others to commit gang rape.

 

The Times’ framing of the issue, itself, was problematic, posing a question at the outset that is not even designed to produce an objective news story: “how could [Cleveland’s] young men have been drawn into such an act?”  The very nature of asking how the perpetrators were “drawn” to commit such a horrific crime suggests that the crime was caused by a force other than the free will of the offenders.[6]^,[7] This question necessarily turns the reader’s focus to the actions of the victim, even though a child bears no responsibility to inhibit the crimes of another.  Put more bluntly – even if the child had taken off all her clothes and begged to be attacked, there would have been no justification or excuse for anyone to touch her. This type of reporting can inspire more violence on behalf of offenders who select children as their victims because it legitimizes the idea that offenders are effectively animals who, when sexually provoked by children, cannot help but commit rape. 

 

That the New York Times chose such a sensational and irrelevant storyline is out of line with responsible reporting. The Times not only reports news, it reflects and influences public opinion, which in turn can cause unfair official decision-making and unjust jury verdicts. We hope the Times will consider this responsibility more seriously in the future.

 

 

 

Sincerely,

 

 

 

Wendy J. Murphy, J.D., Adjunct Professor of Law

Co-director: Judicial Language Project/Sexual Violence Legal News
New England Law|Boston

Boston, Massachusetts

 

Ann W. Burgess, RN, DNSc.
Professor of Psychiatric Nursing
Boston College

Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts

 

Susan Ehrlich, Ph.D., Professor, Linguistics and Women’s Studies
York University

Toronto, Canada

 

Helen Moffett, Ph.D.

Former Senior Fellow of the African Gender Institute of the University of Cape Town, South Africa and the Center for the Study of Public Scholarship at Emory University, Atlanta, Georgia

 

Lisa DeMarni Cromer, Ph.D., Professor, Department of Psychology
Co-director, Tulsa Institute of Trauma, Abuse and Neglect
University of Tulsa

Tulsa, Oklahoma

 

Helen Benedict, Ph.D., Professor of Journalism

Author, “Virgin or Vamp, How the Press Covers Sex Crimes”.

Columbia University

New York, New York

 

Lisa Cuklanz, Ph.D., Professor and Chair, Department of Communication

Boston College

Chestnut Hill, Masssachusetts

 

Ross E. Cheit, J.D., Ph.D., Professor of Political Science and Public Policy

Brown University

Providence, Rhode Island

 

Victor Vieth, J.D., Director
National Child Protection Training Center, in partnership with

The National District Attorneys’ Association

St. Paul, Minnesota

 

Joan Zorza, J.D.

Founding Editor, Sexual Assault Report, Civic Research Institute

Washington, DC

 

Works Cited

 

Coates, Linda & Wade, Alan. “Telling it like it isn’t: obscuring perpetrator responsibility for violent crime.” Discourse and Society.  2004. Vol 15(5): 499-526.

The New York Times.  Ethical Journalism: A Handbook of Values and Practices for the News and Editorial Departments.  September 2004.

Rempala, Daniel M. & Bernieri, Frank J. “The Consideration of Rape: The Effect of Target Information Disparity on Judgments of Guilt.”  Journal of Applied Social Psychology. 2005 Vol 35 (3): 635-550.

Lea, Susan J. “A Discursive Investigation into Victim Responsibility in Rape.”  Feminist Psychology. 2007. Vol 17(4): 495-514.

Benedict, Helen.  “Virgin or Vamp, How the Press Covers Sex Crimes” (1992).

 

---

[1] Ethical Journalism, p. 3

[2] A victim’s attire and prior behavior have absolutely no relevance to the issue of consent and cannot, in any way, justify rape.  Inclusion of such information in a news story erroneously suggests otherwise.  Benedict, H., How The Press Covers Sex Crimes.  (1992).

[3] Using the term “boy” instead of “man” conveys that the suspect may not entirely be responsible for his actions because he was just to young to know better, shielding him with impunity.

[4] Using the euphemistic verb “participate” downplays the intentional, unilateral, and violent nature of the crime, and diffuses the agent’s responsibility.  A more suitable term would be “commit”.  For an explanation of verbs used to downplay the severity of sexual assault, see Coates (2004), especially pp. 514-517.

[5] Including information that personifies an assailant in a positive manner can lead to lowered attributions of blame, as a hypothetical “juror” may find it difficult to censure somebody similar to him.  For example, in a 2005 study by Daniel M. Rempala and Frank J. Bernieri, the authors found that by manipulating the amount of irrelevant information provided in a hypothetical rape vignette, participants who rated themselves similar to a defendant were also less likely to judge him as guilty (p. 544).

[6] By making the perpetrators the grammatical object of the verb “draw”, the statement casts them as the recipients of an action, rather than as willful, responsible, and intentional actors.

[7] In interviews with perpetrators of child sexual abuse and incest, researcher Susan J. Lea finds that convicted sex offenders commonly use physical attraction to the victim as an argument for deflecting responsibility (2007).

=