(no subject)

[slemslempike]

I am incensed with news coverage about rape. Three primary aged girls were attacked in a park and the police are questioning a fourteen year old boy. The news reports insist on saying "suspected rape" and "alleged attack". It disgusts me. When I look at the headline of newspaper, if there's ever a story about rape, it always has liberal use of quote marks. Girl, 15 "raped" by gang. "Police hunt for suspect in "sex attack". This isn't about presuming innocence of suspect before they are proven guilty (or more accurately, let go without charge, or in the unlikely event of a court case, get found 'innocent'), it's about making sure that everyone understands that women lie, that most so-called 'rapes' are stupid sluts changing their mind, or just making it up all together.

I have never seen a report saying "family angry after 'burglary'", or "man in hospital after 'mugging'". The victims of those crimes aren't automatically disbelieved, even though there's no proof that mugging victims didn't hide their money, stab themselves and throw themselves downstairs to get some bruises. Or that people don't say "please take my stuff" and then decide they didn't mean it and they want the police involved. It's just rape, and it's purely about casting women as liars. It's revolting.

Comments

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

Fucking RIGHT. I actually can't understand why there's never been a serious challenge to it.

Could we do it, actually? I know the Press Complaints Commission only takes complaints from the subject of the story, but is there another mechanism? I'm sure we could mobilise the feminist internet mob over this.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I once made a complaint to the BBC about their coverage of a story on the R1 news about sexual assaults in Greece, and that they focussed entirely on what women should be doing, and said nothing condemnatory about the attacks. The three responses I got (because I contacted all the addresses they gave) all said "you're over-reacting", and there was nothing wrong. I think we'd get exactly the same for this, but I think I want to try anyway.

There are complaints procedures to the individual papers and organisations, but I'm not sure how to go about this. I might try to work on a really good letter that I can send to places each time, and try to encourage others to send it to, although I'm not sure what good that might have.

I'm sure that they're hiding behind a legal thing, but it's completely different from "alleged rapist", which is a phrase I do really agree with them saying, but "alleged attack" is ridiculous.

[cangetmad.livejournal.com]

I've sent a complaint to the BBC about that story. If there's a legal reason, no doubt they'll tell me, but if not, I might get in touch with some people and see if we can create some directed rage.

[protoainsley.livejournal.com]

I'd love to partake in some directed rage.

[leedy.livejournal.com]

it's about making sure that everyone understands that women lie, that most so-called 'rapes' are stupid sluts changing their mind, or just making it up all together

Er, no, I think it is newspapers covering their arses against being sued into the middle of next week.

There's a lot, an awful lot, that annoys me about news coverage of rapes, but always referring to "the alleged assault" before there's actually been a trial doesn't really bother me.

[leedy.livejournal.com]

Hmm, on further consideration, I do see that there's some difference between saying "the alleged attack" and "the alleged rapist". I haven't read the newspaper accounts you're referring to so perhaps I should shut up until I've read them.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

Yes - as I said in a different comment, I think that "alleged rapist" is a god thing to be saying. "Alleged attack" is calling into dispute the actual occurence, and if they need to protect themselves against legal claims for that, then they should be consistent and do it about all crimes.

[alohomoron.livejournal.com]

That really enrages me too. Urgh.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

It's so insiduous. And I don't like the use of "claimed" instead of "said". Like, "the victim claimed that he raped her" instead of "the victim reported/said/stated" that he raped her. I really do think that it's at least partially a conscious reaction from a belief that automatically assumes that women lie about rape.

[wonderlanded.livejournal.com]

Along with all the awful, awful things that it is, it's also completely shithouse journalism. When I was learninig to be a journalist, back in the Dark Ages, the only -- ONLY -- allowable attribution was "said", because you know what? Anything else is fucking SUBJECTIVE.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I bet that the argument for all the quotes and the claimed is that they want to be objective - strange how impartiality is much more of an issue when it comes to taking a woman's word.

[jekesta]

Argha rgharhgharhahghrha. YES! It omg. Yes. <--fear my articulation in the face of evilness.

[slemslempike.livejournal.com]

I claim to "agree". ONLY IMPARTIAL MEN WILL BE ABLE TO CONFIRM IT.

[glitterboy1.livejournal.com]

Aaaargh!

[squeeful.livejournal.com]

OOoohh, yes. But atleast you see 'rape' in your articles there. Here it's 'assaulted'. As in, "he threw the victim down the stairs and assaulted her." Nope, rape doesn't happen.

[sabethea.livejournal.com]

I was disconcerted because on radio 5, it changed from "3 girls have been raped" yesterday evening, to today's "the 'alleged' rape" and I wondered what had happened to make them change their wording. I still wonder. Did they realise that everyone else was using 'alleged' and feel left out, or what?

Anyway, I agree with your comments, and if you do find a mechanism for complaining about it, then please share.

[pathology-doc.livejournal.com]

Feeling sick right along with you.

This is dodgy-weavy journalism, and it revolts my sense of truth to the core. The word "alleged" carries a lot of emotional baggage, one item of which is the assumption that the "allegation" is never true.

"Alleged" is a word that belongs in police and/or forensic reports that cannot, before the trial, be seen to make a definite statement about guilt or lack thereof. But that is specialised technical language in a limited, narrow context; journalists have no excuse.

I can understand the use of the term "sex attack" if the particulars are unclear (e.g. victim found with underclothes dissheveled but the memory of what actually happened obliterated by drugs or head trauma), but even then something better is required as and if the situation clarifies itself.