Robert C. Engesser

Com 3324/01

Nikhil Moro

February 27, 2006

Rape Victims As People, Not Facts

Rape is a vicious crime. Not only does rape damage one’s body but it also ravages one’s mind and soul. Imagine surviving such a personal invasion only to have to endure another via the courts and the media. In the following essay, I will address the issue of reporting the names of rape victims. I will summarize the pro and con arguments made in Taking Sides: Clashing Views on Controversial Issues in Mass Media and Society. Finally, I will discuss my views on this issue: How reporting the names of rape victims can lead the media into a moral, ethical, and professional quandary. News is an important social utility. However, where do we draw the line between the public’s right to be informed and an individual’s right to privacy? At what point should the media recognize rape victims as people, not facts?

Michael Gartner of NBC News sought to answer the above questions in a memo to his staff. His first point centers on the overall purpose of the news media. Gartner writes, “…we are in the business of disseminating news, not suppressing it. Names and facts are news.” Gartner’s belief is that reporting the names of rape victims adds the necessary weight and impact that a fully formed story requires. The second point involves the integrity of the editorial process. According to Gartner, “no other category of news” offers the right to those involved in the story to decide if they are directly identified. Gartner’s assertion is that the decision to print facts should be left to the news writers, not the newsmakers. Third, he appeals to the need to dispel the social stigma involved with rape. Not naming rape victims, in Gartner’s opinion, would be an affirmation to the belief that “…there is something shameful about being raped.” Thus, by releasing names, the media would be performing a valuable service on behalf of those wronged by this horrible crime. Finally, Gartner points out the lack of debate on whether to release the names of the suspected rapist. In his experience, there is little to no empathy in the newsroom for people who are accused of rape. Basic fairness would dictate that the same rules of disclosure should apply equally to both victim and suspect alike. Gartner’s argument raises a number of interesting points that I will tackle later in this essay. Ultimately, he places a higher premium on the story than he does the people who have to live in the aftermath.

In Katha Pollitt’s article, “Media Goes Wilding in Palm Beach,” she directly rebuts the arguments made by the Gartner memo. She begins by illustrating a very real problem with reporting information about rape victims: Full disclosure. The rape victim’s sexual history, their quirks, their personal habits, and their entire lives are splashed across the news in order to properly inform the public. Pollitt opines that anyone’s life, if put under the magnifying glass of a greedy media, could draw alarmingly false conclusions in the minds of even the most reasoned media consumer. Her first argument is that the media’s duty to report all available information is nothing more than a thinly veiled myth. According to Pollitt, the media often errs on the side of silence when it comes to “closeted” celebrities, the AIDS epidemic, and the actions of the federal government. Secondly, she counters the belief that anonymous charges contradict our society’s concept of due process. Pollitt points out that the anonymity of the accuser is nonexistent in the only relevant forum; the courts. Third, Pollitt dispels the notion that, if the name of the victim is already known, no real harm can come from reporting it. Despite knowledge of the victim’s identity, the media treat each victim differently based on their economic class, education, and condition resultant from the attack. Such disparity in coverage runs counter to the objectivity that the media trumpets. Fourth, Pollitt argues that rape victims, unlike the victims of nearly every other crime, are more subject to being blamed for their circumstance. Pollitt also feels that a “tit-for-tat view of rape reporting” inherently favors the suspect. In the effort to avoid any sense of partiality, Pollitt observes that the media sensationalize the story and heap equal amounts of negative attention upon both parties. As Pollitt sees it, the media does not feel that rape was enough of a punishment for the victim, it must now even the scales in the pursuit of “fairness.” The final point Pollitt makes is against the claim that releasing a rape victim’s identity “removes the stigma against rape.” She believes this to be the most preposterous, and most insincere, argument made by NBC’s Gartner. Pollitt states that simply naming the victim lacks context and, therefore, opinions can be reinforced in either direction. In her conclusion, Pollitt comments that the issue that truly needs examining is not whether to deny a rape victim his or her privacy but whether the media should indulge in society’s insatiable appetite for shaudenfreud (i.e. entertainment in the suffering of others).

When examining the two sides to this issue, I find myself in a dilemma. As a communications major with a focus on media studies, it is my ambition to join the ranks of the professional broadcast media. Therefore, it is particularly troubling to me as I discover increasing examples of the media’s arrogance and abuse of their function in society. Prior to my reading of this issue, I had no firm belief either way. On the outside, the reporting of a rape victim’s name would seem to be a reasoned decision in the interest of reporting the basic facts. However, the media does not stop at simply reporting names, dates and locations. The media frames, sensationalizes, and adjudicates rape crimes in the pursuit of a market share. My position on this is issue centers not just on whether or not the media should report the names but how they are reported.

Where the news is concerned, the public is said to crave sex, violence, style over substance, photos over content, and, of course, “if it bleeds it leads.” Gartner’s seemingly idyllic explanation of the media’s need to be fair, accurate, and complete in its reporting glosses over the fact that the media never stops at just disseminating facts. The facts of any crime can be reported without subjectivity and being specific to the particulars of what the public “needs” to know (i.e. that a crime occurred involving who and whom and when and where). However, as Pollitt states, if juries are not entitled to the sexual histories of rape victims, why are media consumers? When discussing such a personal crime as rape, requests of anonymity by the victim should be taken into account not just on an ethical level but also a human level. The same courtesy should be afforded to a rape victim as one would afford his or her own daughter or son. Gartner also invokes the issue of fairness in reporting the both the suspect’s and the victim’s name. If fairness to the suspect is really a paramount issue, do not report that name either. I know, that sounds ridiculous. What kind of crime reporting could exist without naming the participants involved? Take Richard Jewell for example. He was the hero of Olympic Park bombing during the ’96 Olympic Games in Atlanta. Well, he was the hero for a few days. Once the media discovered that the FBI was investigating Jewell in connection with the bombing, front-page applauds turned into front-page attacks. For weeks, Jewell’s entire life was strewn across the media landscape. Everything from Jewell’s sloppy apartment to his sizeable porn collection was reported for public consideration. At the end of the assault, the article covering Jewell’s exoneration was buried somewhere around page eight. The article apologizing for the unwarranted media intrusion into his life was never published. The media thrusts to the forefront the most titillating, intriguing, and embarrassing facts it can find. Rarely does the odd retraction, apology, or the “oh, by the way, he or she was innocent” find its way to the top of the news pile. Gartner’s argument would have some basis if it did not completely overlook the fact that the media’s goal is to entertain as much as inform. Pollitt’s case has more merit because it takes into account the true nature of media; a flawed, human run enterprise as subjective and base as any other. Pollitt begins her argument by placing herself in the shoes of a rape victim. Many people in the media should follow her example.

As I stated previously, I endeavor to work in the broadcast media. This issue, and many others like it, gives me pause as I continue my studies. How can I enter into a profession against which I am so critical? By understanding these issues, and investing my work with a basic sense of moral and ethical conscience, I believe I can help to raise the bar of responsible media. By treating people as people and not just facts, the media could regain its humanity and the trust of a public now jaded and desensitized by sensationalism. When reporting the news, some information is too personal, too irrelevant, or too invasive to report. Rape cases, in particular, involve several aspects of what makes exciting news. However, the public does not always have the “right to know” everything about a rape case, even the names.