Incriminating No-one

I’ll quote this article in its entirety:

Dunedin police are investigating the sexual assault of a young woman in the centre of the city last night.

Police communications inspector Alan Weston said the woman was attacked about 2.50am.

See? It’s not that hard to report that it actually happened.

And it doesn’t incriminate anyone, neither the accused nor the woman who was raped.

Alleged rape victim identified

Alleged rape victim identified

Well, you know what I’m going to say about that headline by now, don’t you?

After an emotional outburst in the Christchurch District Court as she gave evidence – and after the court was adjourned to give her time to compose herself – Jacqueline Howat told Judge Murray Abbott she wanted her name made public.

Complainants in sexual abuse cases have their names automatically suppressed.

However, after Howat’s unusual request, the judge made a special order allowing publication.

I think this was incredibly brave of her, particularly given the way the media frequently treats both rape survivors and sex workers, let alone those who are both.

She repeated her claim that she could identify the accused as the attacker, but agreed she had blocked out a lot of what happened on the night.

The “but” implies that these things are contradictory; they’re not. I think it was Maia who said to me recently that trials in such cases should include expert witness on how memory works during and after trauma. Suffice it to say that for her memory to work in this way is neither unusual nor illogical.

%^#@%&^*$^#

SHE’S NOT AN ALLEGED VICTIM, OK?

I suspect the reporting on this trial will just get worse

In 2003, a woman was brutally attacked and raped. A couple of years later a police trainee gave his fingerprints during training and they matched a fingerprint at the scene. That man is now on trial.

I think I have to give Radio NZ’s reporter points for trying (listen here). She emphasised the fact that no-one was denying that the woman had been attacked and raped.

But TV3 gets no points for this:

It is alleged the rape happened in 2003

The rape did take place in 2003, ‘it is alleged’ that this man was the attacker. Is it that hard to grasp?

Untold stories

Accused teacher says life shattered

Now I know there will be issues with what the media can report, but even so there is a huge disparity in this article between the teacher’s viewpoint and that of the girl. We hear all about his “supporters” and how this has shattered his life and his (rather short sighted) assertion that this is “anyone’s worst nightmare”.

So what about her. How has this affected her life. Can she sleep at night? Does she have nightmares? Is she still at school or is she too afraid? Is she ostracised there? Is she able to concentrate? Are her parents supporting her? Is she being blamed for what happened to her? How does she feel being accused of lying?

Because these are the stories that so often go untold.

This headline says it all

‘Court hears details of alleged sexual assault of murdered girl’

In other words, they accept the murder happened but not the sexual assault. I wrote about this type of discrepancy here.

Allegedly again

Unfortunately this article doesn’t seem to be following the lead of this one. Every mention of abuse is preceded by “allegedly” or words to that effect.

I’ve outlined the problems with this here, but I think it’s worth noting other examples.

A positive example

Here’s a positive example of how newspapers can – and should – not question the veracity of what happened to the person who was sexually assaulted, but at the same time not assume the guilt of the perpetrator.

If only more journalists did the same.

A 54-year-old car salesman is to appear in court today on charges relating to the abduction and sexual assault of a 13-year-old girl in West Auckland two weeks ago.

So the article assumes the events have happened, but states that the man has been charged with them, not that he did them.

The girl was walking along West Coast Rd in Glen Eden on her way to visit a friend when she was lured into a car.

She was sexually and physically abused during her 45-minute ordeal in West Auckland.

So there is no use of the word allegedly here, that these events happened is not questioned.

The man had allegedly asked the teenager for directions, then insisted she get into his car to show him the way.

Here the word allegedly is used, and whilst it’s not the ideal phrasing it is only done here because it is describing his involvement in what happened, rather than just what happened.

The man will appear in the Rotorua District Court to face charges of abduction, sexual violation, and assault with intent to commit sexual violation of a girl aged between 12 and 16 years.

A straightforward statement of fact, with no judgement implied on either his guilt or her truthfulness/reliability.

How it could be done

This article has nothing to do with rape, but these lines stood out:

The owner of New Zealand’s largest kennel and cattery has been charged with animal cruelty – but he claims he’s the victim, not the animals he cares for.

Two cat owners returned from their holidays and claim their pets – Choco, a purebred Tonkinese, had a dislocated hip and a ginger cat called Basil was dehydrated – were injured in Sean Cleary’s care.

What the author has done is reported the harm done to the animals without assuming the guilt/responsibility of the accused.

I’ve written here about the use of the word ‘allegedly’, and how in rape cases it’s often used not just to not imply the guilt of the perpetrator, but to question whether the event actually occurred. The above article is an indication of how that issue could be tackled.

Allegedly

Posts so far have particularly focussed on ‘victim blaming’. In this post I want to highlight another recurring problem with the media – the use of the word allegedly.

Now I don’t generally have a problem with referring to someone who has been accused of, arrested for or charged with a crime (but not convicted) as an alleged criminal. I am aware that, as with other crimes, a person can be accused of a rape they didn’t commit (and often for reasons other than a malicious complaint).

However, in newspaper reporting of rape cases, they often go one step further. Not only do they refer to the alleged perpetrator, but also the alleged victim, and the alleged crime – like here, for example. This doesn’t seem to apply to other crimes. How often have you heard the newspapers refer to an ‘alleged burglary’ or an ‘alleged murder’?

The implication goes beyond a non-presumption of guilt, and moves into questioning whether the event actually happened. This is not being careful not to incorrectly tarnish someone’s character, but is casting doubt on the character and truthfulness of the person who reported it – usually the survivor and reinforcing the idea that women can’t be trusted to tell the truth about these issues.