At Hofstra several days ago, journalists sat down and gave a frank assessment of the wretched news coverage of the Hofstra false rape claim. Before we get to what they said, here is my take on the coverage: Hofstra was a case study in the proverbial rush to judgment. For what crime aside from rape do we hand false accusers the unfettered right to use both the police and the news media as a sword to give effect to their lies? The initial news reports of this alleged crime merely parroted the police, who merely accepted the word of a lone accuser (who turned out to be "troubled") over that of five young men. The news reports gave their audiences the unmistakable impression that a rape had occurred. Not "possibly" had occurred. Not "allegedly" had occurred. We expect our police to be something more than "muscle" for troubled young false rape accusers; and we expect our journalists to be something more than parrots for the police.
Here are excerpts from the news story:
Journalists and students dissect recent rape hoax
At an event hosted by professors Peter Goodman and Geoffrey Roth of the Department of Journalism, Media Studies and Public Relations last Thursday evening, the New York Post’s Kieran Crowley, WCBS-TV’s Jennifer McLogan and Carol D’Auria of 1010 WINS spoke to students about the various approaches they took to cover the story and what they felt could have been done differently.
. . . .
McLogan said that from the start, it was her instinct to question the accusation. “The police were sure of the rape,” McLogan said, “but I said to myself, I hope this girl’s credible.”
She gave more personal insight on her perspective while covering the story. “We want to proceed cautiously,” she said. “I’m a mom with three kids in college; two girls and a boy. I wouldn’t want my daughters to be the victim, but I wouldn’t want my son railroaded either.”
D’Auria agreed with McLogan’s notion that caution is necessary when covering such sensitive subject matter, but was pessimistic. “We need to move slower,” she said, “but I don’t see that happening.”
Following student questions, the evening was wrapped up with each journalist describing what they would do differently.
D’Auria reiterated her previous sentiment saying, “We just really need to move slower.” McLogan answered similarly, saying that she would have “proceeded with more caution.”
Crowley offered a different opinion. “I asked the same questions I would ask tomorrow,” he said, “There is a flaw in our criminal justice system, and that’s what this is about.”
Link: http://www.hofstrachronicle.com/news/journalists-and-students-dissect-recent-rape-hoax-1.631884
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
23 comments:
"D’Auria agreed with McLogan’s notion that caution is necessary when covering such sensitive subject matter, but was pessimistic. “We need to move slower,” she said, “but I don’t see that happening.”"
While I feel a good deal of contempt for the way in which the media covered this (and other stories), I have to put this on the Police Department’s Public Relations Officer.
It has long been the case that getting an entry in early-on in a news cycle serves to enhance revenue – once upon a time, by helping to sell printed copies, now by upping ad revenue by increasing internet traffic. So, there remains a very real, and very rational motivation to “rush” ahead for journalists.
But, for news stories, the ability of journalists to rush to judgments has always been tempered by their ability to get information from credible sources.
This is why there are so many Public Relations representatives for organizations, both public and private – to control what information gets out, and to ensure accuracy of that information.
Both police and prosecutors offices have strict policies regarding what those who are not charged with the decimation of information can do or say. If asked by a reporter for a comment, that will usually entail their replying, “I cannot comment on that.” Failure to abide by such policies constitutes a “leak”, and can lead to severe disciplinary actions being taken.
Rightly or wrongly, virtually all information coming from police agencies is channeled through a PR officer. In the Hofstra hoax incident, that PR officer apparently stoked the flames of a rush to judgment by providing details of the allege crime and the identities of named suspects.
It is my belief that that PR officer should lose his or her job over that mistake as an example to others.
As a caveat, I would add that if the news organizations relied on information gleaned from other (and non-credible) sources for their rush to judgment, there are some editors/news directors who need to be fired as well.
At least they are acknowledging the fact that they fucked up here. That means things are moving in the right direction.
slwerner,
While I feel a good deal of contempt for the way in which the media covered this (and other stories), I have to put this on the Police Department’s Public Relations Officer.
The problem with that, IMO, is that the news outlet still decides WHAT is put in print and broadcast to the public. They are the final arbiters of what information you and I see.
Anon,
That means things are moving in the right direction.
Agreed. Anonymity for all parties would move it even more in that direction.
http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/scotland/edinburgh_and_east/8299809.stm
A group of men cleared by a jury of gang raping a 21-year-old woman have called for their accuser to be named.
AfOR
"A group of men cleared by a jury of gang raping a 21-year-old woman have called for their accuser to be named."
^ That's what I'm talking about. ^
http://www.google.com/hostednews/ukpress/article/ALeqM5g5ovNsNJbm0mjcCabDG2nQ8tdHVQ
Police investigating two allegations of rape at a university on the same night have said the latest complaint has been withdrawn.
Officers said that following inquiries into the rape of a 20-year-old woman at the University of Glamorgan, in Pontypridd, South Wales, they were no longer looking for suspects.
South Wales Police are still investigating the rape of an 18-year-old student on the campus, which happened on September 26.
AfOR
The media broke the news of the Hofstra rape AFTER the information was verified by the police dept PR. Archivist, you cannot blame the media for this one!
Journalists do NOT "move slowly" once their facts are verified by reliable sources.
They'd lose their jobs.
"Reliable sources." Like the lying woman at Hofstra.
"Reliable sources." Like the lying woman at Hofstra.
The police lie. I KNOW! My husband's 'article' was full of lies, quoted by the investigator. But when asked details, that would show innocence, the investigator refused to comment further which made my husband look like a criminal!!!!
CBGirl
"McLogan said that from the start, it was her instinct to question the accusation. “The police were sure of the rape,” McLogan said, “but I said to myself, I hope this girl’s credible.”"
Yes, it is much better for the journalist if the girl is credible. I agree. It makes for a better story.
Norm, that was my reaction, too. I hope this girl was credible -- and that she was, in fact, brutally raped, or else it's really going to destroy the story everyone is expecting.
Norm, that was my reaction, too. I hope this girl was credible -- and that she was, in fact, brutally raped, or else it's really going to destroy the story everyone is expecting.
How about placing the blame where it REALLY belongs. On District Attorney Rice who rushed to file charges in a case where the least bit of preliminary investigation would have shown the case to be the hoax it was. But she was in such a rush to get in front of TV cameras with a high-profile bust, she forgot what her job was.
Nifong anyone?
And also the judge who signed the arrest warrants. Is there such a thing anymore as judges who ask questions? Like what evidence do you prosecutors have before I sign my name to this document?
Walter Abbott
Walter, everyone seems to rely on the police. If the cop in charge of the case builds it up as if it has to be true, the ball-less judges feel constrained to go alone. They are afraid, in their ball-less way, that one of the men might go and rape "another" girl, and then everyone would be out to get the judge's scalp. Same for the D.A. This rape crap is so politically sensitive that they would sooner jail innocent men than run a remote risk that he might go out and rape - and they'd be blamed for letting the "rapist" walk.
Atom is a little puppet used by academic feminist propagandists.
No she isn't. I wish that's all she was.
She's really a perfectly average modern woman who believes all the lies because she lacks the intelligence and curiousity to question them. Of course our police are the good guys. Of course our courts work. Of course the newspapers report the truth and don't destroy innocent men by supporting liars.
As for the media, forget about them ever changing. They are in the business of reporting the most lurid stories possible and nothing will prevent them from doing that. Innocent men don't sell papers.
The media broke the news of the Hofstra rape AFTER the information was verified by the police dept PR. Archivist, you cannot blame the media for this one!
The hell I can't. They, and no one else, put the information to print. They, and no one else, publish the names. They, and no one else, maintain the anonymity of the accuser, and freely name the accused, with nothing more than a statement by the accuser (no other proof).
No one forces the media to do these things. They do them willingly. Modern journalism is a joke. And the sheeple who think they are doing anything other than sensationalism, aren't real bright.
"No she isn't. I wish that's all she was."
Yes she is.
"....believes all the lies because she lacks the intelligence and curiosity to question them."
What do you think academic feminism is all about?
"This rape crap is so politically sensitive that they would sooner jail innocent men than run a remote risk that he might go out and rape - and they'd be blamed for letting the "rapist" walk."
You know what the feminists and the sheeple say: "Better safe than sorry!"
The media broke the news of the Hofstra rape AFTER the information was verified by the police dept PR.
I have to come back to this. At what point was the information verified? After the arrest (on nothing more than her word), before the investigation. That's what you call verification? I would sure as hell like to see what you don't consider verified.
Post a Comment