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.

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?

It’s still rape

There are a lot of good things about this article. I like the way it emphasises that rapists are not some strange subspecies that lives in dark alleyways but “fathers, brothers, husbands”. I am glad that they highlighted the abysmal rape conviction rate.

But then they spoiled it all by using the word ’sex’ in the headline and elsewhere. Sex with a woman who does not or cannot consent is rape. Sex with a woman who is being forced to do it by someone other than yourself is rape. Sex with a woman who you can reasonably suspect is not able to consent is still rape.

These men justify it by calling it anything other than rape. I wish the media would not allow them that comfort.

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.