This is a tale about a double-standard in an area teeming with them.
Two men, now 20 and 21, filed a lawsuit Tuesday in DeKalb County, Goergia Court against prominent black Bishop Eddie Long alleging sexual coercion.
The Associated Press isn't naming the accusers: "The Associated Press generally does not identify people who say they were victims of sexual impropriety." See here.
And isn't that consistent with the policy of virtually every U.S. news outlet of not naming alleged victims of sex crimes? Of course it is.
We've written much about anonymity policies in connection with purported sex crimes -- about the double-standard of naming the accused but not his accuser, and about calling accusers "victims." This post isn't about any of that. This post is about a double-standard within a double-standard.
In the Eddie Long case, while the AP adheres to its policy of not naming the accusers because of the nature of the alleged crimes, other news outlets seem to have been blinded by the gender of the accusers and have forgotten the policy.
The New York Daily News, for instance, doesn't name the accusers, but not because of the nature of the alleged crimes. It doesn't name them "because they were minors at the time of the alleged incidents." See here
Excuse me? If these accusers had been adult males at the time of the alleged incidents, the Daily News would name them?
Hmm. But wait. It gets worse. Other major news outlets are naming them, and without explanation. Some examples:
CNN named them: See here. This, despite its alleged policy: "CNN does not identify alleged sexual assault victims." See here.
ABC named them: See here. This, despite its alleged policy: "ABC News does not typically identify alleged victims of sexual assault . . .. "
The Atlanta Journal Constitution named them: See here. This, despite its alleged policy: "The Atlanta Journal-Constitution does not identify victims of sexual assault." See here.
None of these news outlets explain why they named the young men. Did they have permission? Did they name them because some other news outlets named them? (The latter doesn't happen when the "victim" is female.)
Did these news outlets name Ben Roethlisberger's two accusers? The identity of the first accuser was largely withheld by news outlets everywhere even though the only claims filed were civil, not criminal. The identity of the second accuser was almost universally withheld even after the district attorney opted not to bring criminal charges.
So what's the deal?
I don't know for certain, but my guess is that if these accusers were female, no major news outlet would name them. Or if they had named them, they would have gone to great lengths to "explain" why they are naming them. (Something like this: "The Rollings News Institute generally does not name the victims of sexual assault, but in this case the victims gave their consent, so we very reluctantly -- yes, apologetically -- mention the victims' names quickly, and only in passing, even though we harbor enormous liberal guilt about naming the victims.")
Just a wild guess.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
Posts
11 comments:
"Just a wild guess."
A guess? Perhaps! But you're almost certainly correct - and have ample evidence on which to base that guess.
I'm short on time at the moment, but do any of those linked sites allow for comments (i think they need to get some)?
Don't forget that cnn has also yet to name crystal mangum even after she was proven to have lied.
And also after she was charged with arson and attempted murder.
But of course cnn thought nothing of putting the names and faces of the innocent guys she accused on their network for a year.
cnn and abc are total scum.
I have no clue why ANY male would ever watch these networks.
I had a family member that was cnn and abc are total scum.
I live in pittsburgh and a local woman alleged that a guy showed his dick to her in the park....her name and identity was withheld.
Of course them Man's name and face were shown and they followed him around with a camera and went to his house.
In another story a lady beat a 9 year old boy so badly he was hospitalized.
They did an interview with her allowing her face to be off camera.
Of course she was not arrested and put in jail.
What do you think would happen if a Man beat a 9 year old girl so badly that she was hospitalized.
The media is a huge part of the problem if not THE problem.
"I live in pittsburgh and a local woman alleged that a guy showed his dick to her in the park....her name and identity was withheld."
Did they identify the name the guy calls his dick?
ABC news is bias.
Boycott ABC News.
"Did they identify the name the guy calls his dick?"
No, they couldn't. It was the same name as the woman accuser that remains anonymous.
This one is in a gray area.
According to the AP story here, the accusers granted permission to have their names published. It's likely that the other outlets either got their information from the AP or from the accusers themselves. Either way, the accusers themselves put their names out there for all to see.
Where things get gray - and even downright hypocritical - is in the differences between how these outlets treat repeating the names of accusers once they're in the public domain when they're female versus when they're male. When Tom Leykis revealed Crystal Gail Mangum's name on-air months before the end of the whole mess, almost all of the news media refused to repeat it even though it was in the public domain; here, however, they have no problem with repeating the names for all to see. It could be that they only repeated the names because they [the victims] agreed to have them published or that they simply repeated them just because they are, in fact, a bunch of hypocrites. Either way, there definitely needs to be some clarification. Perhaps a letter-writing campaign? What's Glenn Sacks have to say about this?
J.Bowen, excellent points. Generally, when the news outlets publish names of "victims," they generally explain why -- almost as if they were apologetic about doing it. Here, the ones I cited did not explain anything.
I wrote a paper at George Mason University (VA) about FRAs and of all the cases of rape where the media had a chance to name the accuser (once the case has been proven fraudulent), only two came to actually happen. Those two were the Duke Rape and HOFSTRA. The one and only thing both those women shared was their ethnicity.
While I support the releasing of the names of the accuser once the case has proven to be fraudulent, I found myself conflicted due to the apparent racist motive behind the release of these two identities.
I imagine, that if these accusers were women, regardless of their ethnicity, they would be afforded the same anonymity that so many others are afforded. Being that they are BLACK men, it becomes much easier to "suspend" the status quo insofar as they are concerned.
Take it from a Black man who would rather deal with a Black/White problem without the added obstacle of gender. Racism isn't going anywhere and it's easier to deal with than this new enemy (which is the current sexual assault/harassment laws).
It would be interesting to do a study, When white women make false accusations of Rape, what percentage of these false accusations of rape are targeted at some black man??
Post a Comment