OK, if you’re a regular to this blog, you’re probably wondering what in the world a headline like that is doing on this blog. If anything, I try to tone down things like that when I’m reporting on it here at LOJ. However, I used that headline to make a point about media coverage of events like the one alluded to in the headline of this blog entry.
Why do we need to know what happened to this poor girl? Why do we need to know the details of what allegedly happened between her and this “man of God”?
This is a long time issue with me and unfortunately today the folks in my spotlight are my television news channel of choice, KSPR. While they didn’t put the details in the headline (they instead said “Pastor charged with sex abuse of 16 year old girl“) the actual story included the details of the charges filed (statutory rape and sodomy) and later in the piece gave details like the one I included in the headline of this blog post.
Why does the public need to know exactly what was done to this girl?
Anyone with a computer can Google the charges against this man and find out what allegedly happened between him and the then-underage girl in question. This is especially true of those close to the situation or live in Neosho and could then use that information to taunt or shun this girl. Don’t think for a second there aren’t some people around her who will use this information in some hurtful manner against her. Teenagers can be extremely cruel. It only takes one person to start a rumor that the pastor isn’t the only guy she’s allegedly entertained. Won’t matter if it’s true…now a girl who’s been traumatized from this situation will have all new levels of emotional trauma.
And even if it doesn’t happen (and I pray that it doesn’t) the fact is that it COULD happen because of the media reporting the specifics of the alleged encounter.
Why does the public need to know that? Can you give me one good compelling reason that the general public needs to know the details of what happened within that room?
I really believe the respectable media should adopt a code like they do in regards to not naming rape victims. Instead of reporting the details of a rape or stautory rape, they should just say that someone was charged with “sexually based offenses” and refer to the incidents as “sexual assaults.” In this, you allow the public to know that the crime involved sex or some kind of attempted sex act without telling the reader/listener/viewer exactly what happened to the victim.
Now, to be clear, I’m not dumping this all on KSPR or whichever newsroom reporter wrote the piece. (The header just says “by KSPR news” so it could be anyone. Like in everything else, I blame Kevin Lighty even though he’s chief meteorologist and likely knows nothing about it.)
This is just the state of media and a time where the media could collectively take a step to protect victims of sex crimes a little further without reducing at all the truthfulness of their reporting or lessening their responsibility to the community.
You’re asking the wrong question. Don’t ask, “Why does the public need to know?” Instead, we should all be asking, “Why does this happen?”
There are many reasons why the specifics of the crime should be reported. One could argue in defense of the pastor, and wonder what sort of acts would lead to a state using its power of arrest to detain a citizen. “Sexual assault” could be anything; it’s a blissfully vague term that could refer to a wide range of different assaults. The point is that if a citizen is going to be detained using taxpayer-funded personnel and equipment, the public has a right to know exactly how their money is being spent and for what reason.
Newspapers are not expected to protect the public’s sensitive morals or somehow prevent its collective gag reflex. Those vary from person to person, anyway. People count on newspapers to report as many facts as possible, not shield them from life’s unpleasantries.
I’m biased, because I’m a reporter. It’s easy to forget that our society is controlled with establishments and people who are funded by taxpayers. We foot the bill. We deserve to know why.
But I’m not advocating shielding the public from the unpleasantries of life…I’m advocating not releasing the details to help provide some more protection to the victims of the crime. Why do you, as a taxpayer, need to know this then underaged girl allegedly gave oral sex to this pastor? Why is that detail vital to you as a taxpayer to know?
““Sexual assault” could be anything; it’s a blissfully vague term that could refer to a wide range of different assaults.”
That’s my whole point. That term lets you know it’s one of a wide range of possible assaults but there is no one out there who would say the crimes that would fall under that header would not be crimes worth prosecuting. When the case comes to trial and the court is in open session then people can find out the details if they’re really that curious. The mass media as a whole doesn’t need to provide those details because “sexual assault” gives your readers/listeners/viewers enough knowledge of the situation. (You never said which branch of media you reported for or I would have narrowed it down for ya.
)
“We foot the bill. We deserve to know why.”
I don’t disagree with that. I just don’t see why telling the public they were charged with sexual assault and leaving it at that instead of telling us the explicit details of the alleged crime. You honestly don’t believe that in the minds of 90% or more of the people who consume local news media that saying someone was charged with “sexual assault” is not enough for them as a taxpayer to be satisfied the police are acting responsibly?
Now, as for the whole “why does this happen?” That’s a great question but one that I wasn’t addressing in this blog posting. That’s a blog posting and discussion for another thread or post although we went into some of that with our discussions regarding Rowan Ford.
The public at large id desensitized and it’s only going to get worse, stay tuned. I see headlines like this and the first thing that pops into my mind is how they’re testing the waters yet again or wondering the result of pushing the envelope that much closer to the edge. The media at large has tested the waters for years, the only problem is that the world is clearly not ready nor responsible enough to except this kind of info and go about our daily lives untouched. The media itself is not solely to blame, by the way.
Finally we agree on something!
When you put yourself in the position of the victim in this case, you know that by the media not releasing your name that you have some sense of privacy in the matter. Problem is, there are many other people in your life who know you were the one involved but not sure what exactly happened and when the media releases details about what happened, it helps those people picture you in that situation. To me, that would be so embarrassing. It’s not necessary to give details to the general public.
And MoJoe….I agree that it may be the medias job to report as many facts as possible but I don’t consider the details of a sexual assault as facts.
I have to disagree with you Jason. Everyone knows that a rape or sexual assault victim does not deserve the horrible things that happened to them. Victims of these crimes are all too often shamed into believing they were in some small way responsible. No matter how society warps their atrocious experience I don’t think the suspect/attacker’s crimes should be sugar coated. If they are disgusting and horrendous that’s how they should be reported. Here is an example of a woman who says victims like her should shout from the rooftops. http://www.janedoenomore.org/story/
This topic should disgust us. It should revolt us into action but sadly sexual offenses are shamed under the radar all too often. However, Jason and I have discussed before that in small towns an anonymous victim isn’t so anonymous. Therefore reporters have to walk a fine line. Believe me we retract A LOT from probable cause statements. We place warnings when we post them online.
I agree with MoJoe that because sexual assault is a very vague term it has to be explained in some way. When someone is accused of something/or the victim of something that will undoubtedly change their lives facts are essential.
Headlines like these are the ones that the religious right(or whatever you want to call them)will use to say the news media is picking on us. Far to often people such as this Pastor are the ones that bring the “black-eye” to those of a religious nature. I think the news media should out those that profess to have a higher calling when something like this goes down, just as they should if it is a person in the public sector.
They are facts, Sandy and Jason. Ugly, inhumane, abhorrent facts. The details of a sexual assault are observations written down by an officer sworn to uphold our laws.
It is not anyone’s job to decide what facts should and should not be considered decent for the general public. The decision of what is decent depends on moral and value judgments that are as different as night and day between any two people. When we start deeming some facts as too offensive, we begin to walk a dangerous, un-American path of censorship.
Look, I don’t like reading about those details. I really don’t like reporting them, either. The reporters in our newsroom were shaken by the hideous acts committed against Rowan Ford. That story, and others like it, have led to our unofficial motto, “It’s OK to cry while you type.” But describing what happened to Ford as “a sexual assault” does not begin to accurately describe the violence committed upon her.
As I said earlier, people deserve to know the actions of their law enforcement officers. The law provides secrecy and privacy where applicable, and allows the rest to be visible. And that is as it should be. If I were a newspaper publisher, I would gladly err on the side of providing too much information, because I trust readers to decide for themselves what they can and can’t handle. So let’s stop lambasting the media for showing how ugly humanity is. Let’s figure out how to make humanity better, so there are no more Rowan Fords and Randall Russells.
Well, while agree with you MoJoe about figuring out how to make humanity better (a feat that’s not going to be accomplished anytime soon I’m afraid), I still, putting myself in the shoes of the girl assaulted by the pastor, feel that no one needs to know in detail what the pastor made her do to him or what he did to her. His charges in court are statutory rape and sodomy. Nothing more. Not getting oral sex from her or having sex with her on an office desk or anything else.
I still say, to save her some face while out amongst the general population and her family and friends, the reporting of the media needs to keep it simple and to the point and let her share the horrific details with the people she chooses, when she chooses. And because some police reports are public information, let those that really think they need to know all the grotesque details go search for them. When they are published in the paper, and without the victims consent I might add, the public has no choice and the poor victim has to live with everyone knowing their business.
I personally would have trouble with the media outlets that published information about me or events that happened to me without asking me if I approve of that information first. How embarrassing it would be to not only have everyone know that I was raped but how and with what I was raped with.
You said yourself that you don’t like reading the details. Then why report them? It’s not changing anything or solving the problem with our humanity at all.