Naming Rape Victims

[Tripe Face]

The Debate is back in the forefront of newsrooms this week as the Duke lacrosse case ended.
Now that there is no charge of rape, should the victim be named.

Many news organizations are STILL not naming the woman, but the Raleigh News and Observer, the preeminent paper in the region where the events occurred IS. Here is their explanation:

N&O's decision to identify accuser was made with care

Melanie Sill, Executive Editor

In today's coverage of the Duke lacrosse case, The News & Observer for the first time identifies the accuser, Crystal Gail Mangum of Durham, by name.
During the year since Mangum told police she was assaulted at a lacrosse team party, The N&O had followed its longstanding policy of not naming claimants in sexual assault cases. This policy is accepted practice among most print and broadcast media in the United States.

The N&O has upheld this approach, which the newspaper has followed for at least 24 years, to avoid discouraging victims of rape and sexual assault from reporting such crimes. The N&O's policy regarding sexual assault claimants has rarely been challenged, and we saw no reason to abandon the policy in the midst of a case.

In recent weeks The N&O's senior editors consulted a number of people with an interest in these issues, among them advocates for sexual assault victims, defense lawyers, current and former journalists, a district judge, journalism educators and ethics experts, in considering whether and under what circumstances to identify Mangum. No consensus emerged, but the conversations helped us consider essential questions about precedent and impact.

With the decision of the state Attorney General's Office to drop all charges against Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty and Dave Evans, no charge of rape or sexual assault exists. Mangum's claim has been vehemently denied by the three men indicted in the case and by their teammates, who believe they have been damaged by a false accusation. Attorney General Roy Cooper said his office concluded that the three are innocent.

Mangum also has been widely identified on the Internet, including on mainstream sites such as Wikipedia. Because of these circumstances, and to more fully report on the case and its aftermath, we decided to publish her name. Also, we will review our standing policy.

If you would like to weigh in on this decision and the issue of naming sexual assault claimants in criminal cases, go to share.triangle.com and search for "Naming accusers." We ask that you be civil and encourage you to include your name and town.

If you are in the position of deciding, what do you do?

I know it's accepted practice not to name people who claim to be victims of sexual assault or rape.

But I'm not sure that is fair. If a woman says "Tripe Face" raped me, my reputation is suddenly tarnished. She doesn't have to prove it in court, she can just repeat the story. If I'm found not guilty by the courts, my reputation is tarnished still, hers is crystal clear. UNLESS the court proves she intenionally lied, then I think most if not all news organizations would name her.

If we aren't gonna name the alleged victim, shouldn't we withhold the name of the accused until the matter is settled.

Or just bag the whole policy. Perhaps the media should treat adult sex assault/rape victims the same as victims of con artists, attempted murder, armed robbery.

I would suspect that a 70-year-old woman who was conned into giving away her savings to a guy whole claimed to be a Nigerian Prince would be just as reluctant to have her name made public as a woman who had been raped.

Supposedly there is a stigma to being a victim of rape. I don't know, I'm not a woman and I've never been raped. But I have interviewed a few women who voluntarily came forward to talk about being raped. None of them reported being treated badly because of the crime against them.

Are we in the media just adding to the stigma by treating such victims differently?

Your thoughts? Opinions?

[ April 12, 2007, 07:53 PM: Message edited by: Tripe Face ]

[Diplomat]

She made a false accusation. Thus, she's not a victim. Just a very disturbed human being or a lying opportunist.

[JoinUsForCake]

I agree w/ Dip. This woman does not seem to be a rape victim.

We never disclose names of rape victims unless they consent to it - which actually has happened when a victim wants to get their story out to try to help other victims speak up.

[TVMattNYC]

Let's not forget, that when there is an ALLEGATION of rape ... the "victim" is an ALLEGED victim.

As a journalist, I have a serious problem with my colleagues protecting the name of the ALLEGED victim while gleefully splashing the name of the ALLEGED perpetrator all over the papers and airwaves ... based solely on ONE PERSON'S ACCUSATION.

[ProSports23]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
I would suspect that a 70-year-old woman who was conned into giving away her savings to a guy whole claimed to be a Nigerian Prince would be just as reluctant to have her name made public as a woman who had been raped.You would suspect wrong.

The stigma surrounding a woman who has been in raped in our society is much worse than someone who has been scammed.

Rape/sexual assault victims should never have their names made public.

Though I agree with what this paper did because she was not a victim, she should be sued and made an example of.

[Marty McFly]

Originally posted by TVMattNYC:
Let's not forget, that when there is an ALLEGATION of rape ... the "victim" is an ALLEGED victim.

As a journalist, I have a serious problem with my colleagues protecting the name of the ALLEGED victim while gleefully splashing the name of the ALLEGED perpetrator all over the papers and airwaves ... based solely on ONE PERSON'S ACCUSATION.100% on the money Matt! Damn right!

Anyone remember Katelyn Fabar? She was the one the press went out of their way to protect when she cried 'rape' against Kobe Bryant?

Thank goodness for people like Tom Leykis who was quick to name her on his radio show.

[John M.]

Interesting that the N&O cited the fact that Mangum's name had already been well circulated on the Interet as a contributing factor to its decision.

For good or ill, blogs and other new media might make the policy of shielding accusers' names by traditional media outlets irrelevant.

[On Air]

Since I was a victim of sexual assault years ago, I know for sure that news organizations' policies of not naming rape victims are sound ones. False rape accusations are statistically very uncommon, and I would politely disagree with the statement that victims or false victims come out with their reputations untarnished. Making an official sexual assault acccusation is extremely difficult to do and there are always people happy to call the victim a liar, no matter how credible her accusation.

Let's not get on some anti-rape victim bandwagon.

The woman who accused the lacrosse players has clearly got some serious emotional issues. I'm am glad to see that this part of the story is getting lots of media coverage too. It would be wrong if we were all burying the story, and no one knew the charges were dropped.

So, the false victim lied. The players are innocent. And Mike Nifong is in trouble. So now, we should doubt all women who report a rape? We, as the media, should further victimize them? Why not doubt all people who report a robbery, an ID theft, et cetera?

Whatever the solution is, it isn't to out rape victims. :rolleyes:

[ April 13, 2007, 07:58 AM: Message edited by: On Air ]

[Consider This]

Originally posted by On Air:

Whatever the solution is, it isn't to out rape victims.
Except they didn't out a rape victim. They outed a woman who made a false claim. And it doesn't necessarily follow from that that people will now doubt all women who claim they are raped.

In fact, if there is a lesson in this case (not one I'm optimistic anyone will learn) it's that we should make fewer presumptions about one's claims and look for more facts before drawing conclusions.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by On Air:
Since I was a victim of sexual assault years ago, I know for sure that news organizations' policies of not naming rape victims are sound ones. False rape accusations are statistically very uncommon, and I would politely disagree with the statement that victims or false victims come out with their reputations untarnished. Making an official sexual assault acccusation is extremely difficult to do and there are always people happy to call the victim a liar, no matter how credible her accusation.

Let's not get on some anti-rape victim bandwagon.

The woman who accused the lacrosse players has clearly got some serious emotional issues. I'm am glad to see that this part of the story is getting lots of media coverage too. It would be wrong if we were all burying the story, and no one knew the charges were dropped.

So, the false victim lied. The players are innocent. And Mike Nifong is in trouble. So now, we should doubt all women who report a rape? We, as the media, should further victimize them? Why not doubt all people who report a robbery, an ID theft, et cetera?

Whatever the solution is, it isn't to out rape victims. :rolleyes: OnAir, I respect your willingness to discuss a personal incident that I suspect you would prefer to forget.
But I respectfully ask you and ProSports23... educate me. My interest here is only in understanding better the issues. I am on the fence here so feel free to convince me.

How is reporting the name of a victim of an alleged sexual assualt different than reporting the name of an alleged identity theft, or assalt and battery or armed robbery? Telling police that you've been a victim of any serious crime, especially a violent crime, is hard. But does the media trying to hide your name if you've been raped really make it less hard? Let's face it, the victim's name is still public record in many jurisdictions. And when the victim testifies, it will be in open court and the prosecutor's first question will be "state your name". It's just a matter of the media (the mainstream media, we all know most new media don't think the rules apply to them) chosing not to report it.

And can either of you, or anyone else, give me some concrete examples of the "stigma" attached to being raped or sexually assaulted? Yes, people will treat you differently, but wouldn't they treat you differently if you'd been stabbed in a robbery attempt or beat up by a Chicago cop who can't hold his liquor? And wouldn't most people treat you with deference and sympathy... do most people really look down on you because a
man violently forced himself on you? (I'm sure there are some a$$holes who would look for any reason to humiliate people)

Finally, if the solution isn't "outing" (your word) the victim of an alleged rape... should we just not use the name of the suspect AND the victim until the matter is settled.

What concerns me is that when a person tells police to have been rape or sexually assaulted, suddenly the huge resources of a police department and a county prosecutor's office are committed putting that suspect behind bars.

The suspect on the other hand, has only as much legal/investigative help as he can afford. Or he gets a legal aid attorney.

Suddenly the scales of fairness are tipped very much in the victim's favor and I wonder if the media should contribute to tipping them even further.

Just wondering.

[Consider This]

Part of it is the stigma our still somewhat puritanical society attaches to anything related to sex.

Another part goes back to when women were considered more property than people. A raped woman was damaged goods. Similarly, a woman who had sex before marriage was harder to marry off. Men didn't want a bride who was not a virgin then any more than one today would want to pay 2007 prices for a used car.

There are other aspects, I'm sure.

As to why one would feel more embarassed about being a rape victim than to have suffered some other crime perpetrated upon them, you'd probably have to ask one of the particulary unfortunate souls who has had to endure them both and could compare.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Consider This:
Part of it is the stigma our still somewhat puritanical society attaches to anything related to sex.

Another part goes back to when women were considered more property than people. A raped woman was damaged goods. Similarly, a woman who had sex before marriage was harder to marry off. Men didn't want a bride who was not a virgin then any more than one today would want to pay 2007 prices for a used car.

There are other aspects, I'm sure.

As to why one would feel more embarassed about being a rape victim than to have suffered some other crime perpetrated upon them, you'd probably have to ask one of the particulary unfortunate souls who has had to endure them both and could compare.Very good points, although I would hope in the 21st century Americans had moved beyond considering a woman "property" or "damaged goods"

[ProSports23]

Tripe, I believe there is a huge difference in reporting the name of a theft victim vs a rape victim. The reason really comes down to what Consider This referenced, our society views victims of a sexual assault much differently than those of other crimes.

Here is the average persons reaction to two crimes. Think of it this way, you find out from the paper your next door neighbor has been robbed, what comes to mind? You feel bad for the person, you hope they have insurance, you hope no one was home and hurt at the time, and you think what you can do to improve your own security. At no point do most people look down on your neighbor because his house was broken into, or think it was his fault, or make statements such as "he was asking for it".

But, let's say you find out from the paper your next door neighbor was raped. You certainly feel bad for her, you hope she is ok physically as well as she could be, but you also *view* her differently now, you look at her differently, and when you see her 6 months from now, guess what you will think about? When you see your neighbor who was robbed in 6 months, you won't be thinking, "I hope he is ok after his robbery 6 months ago"

The psychological trauma and pain after a rape can be much worse than the actual rape itself. I have a very close friend who went through this, and she told me that the trial, the reliving every detail of what happened, was much worse than the rape. Can you imagine if she went through that with her name all over the papers and TV?

The reason that respectable media outlets don't use rape victims names is because doing it, would highly discourage rape victims from coming public.

Oh and Marty...
Thank goodness for people like Tom Leykis who was quick to name her on his radio show.That is one of the most ignorant statements I have ever read.

[Consider This]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:

I would hope in the 21st century Americans had moved beyond considering a woman "property" or "damaged goods"I would hope so, too. But I'm not always sure. Either way, the question asked about the origin. Why the stigma would last this long I don't know.

[+SN]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
She made a false accusation. Thus, she's not a victim.Exactly.

Originally posted by Diplomat:
Just a very disturbed human being or a lying opportunist.Krystal Gale Magnum and Mike Nifong both.

+SN

[+SN]

Originally posted by ProSports23:
Though I agree with what this paper did because she was not a victim, she should be sued and made an example of .Only if we as a society can be honest with ourselves.

+SN

[ April 13, 2007, 11:42 AM: Message edited by: +SN ]

[On Air]

Originally posted by Consider This:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by On Air:

Whatever the solution is, it isn't to out rape victims.
Except they didn't out a rape victim. They outed a woman who made a false claim. And it doesn't necessarily follow from that that people will now doubt all women who claim they are raped.

In fact, if there is a lesson in this case (not one I'm optimistic anyone will learn) it's that we should make fewer presumptions about one's claims and look for more facts before drawing conclusions.</font>[/QUOTE]Oh I have NO problem with that woman's name being published. She is NOT a victim. What I'm talking about is rape victims in other cases... I don't think we should be airing or printing their names without their consent.

[On Air]

Originally posted by Tripe Face:
</font><blockquote>quote:</font><hr />Originally posted by On Air:
Since I was a victim of sexual assault years ago, I know for sure that news organizations' policies of not naming rape victims are sound ones. False rape accusations are statistically very uncommon, and I would politely disagree with the statement that victims or false victims come out with their reputations untarnished. Making an official sexual assault acccusation is extremely difficult to do and there are always people happy to call the victim a liar, no matter how credible her accusation.

Let's not get on some anti-rape victim bandwagon.

The woman who accused the lacrosse players has clearly got some serious emotional issues. I'm am glad to see that this part of the story is getting lots of media coverage too. It would be wrong if we were all burying the story, and no one knew the charges were dropped.

So, the false victim lied. The players are innocent. And Mike Nifong is in trouble. So now, we should doubt all women who report a rape? We, as the media, should further victimize them? Why not doubt all people who report a robbery, an ID theft, et cetera?

Whatever the solution is, it isn't to out rape victims. :rolleyes: OnAir, I respect your willingness to discuss a personal incident that I suspect you would prefer to forget.
But I respectfully ask you and ProSports23... educate me. My interest here is only in understanding better the issues. I am on the fence here so feel free to convince me.

How is reporting the name of a victim of an alleged sexual assualt different than reporting the name of an alleged identity theft, or assalt and battery or armed robbery? Telling police that you've been a victim of any serious crime, especially a violent crime, is hard. But does the media trying to hide your name if you've been raped really make it less hard? Let's face it, the victim's name is still public record in many jurisdictions. And when the victim testifies, it will be in open court and the prosecutor's first question will be "state your name". It's just a matter of the media (the mainstream media, we all know most new media don't think the rules apply to them) chosing not to report it.

And can either of you, or anyone else, give me some concrete examples of the "stigma" attached to being raped or sexually assaulted? Yes, people will treat you differently, but wouldn't they treat you differently if you'd been stabbed in a robbery attempt or beat up by a Chicago cop who can't hold his liquor? And wouldn't most people treat you with deference and sympathy... do most people really look down on you because a
man violently forced himself on you? (I'm sure there are some a$$holes who would look for any reason to humiliate people)

Finally, if the solution isn't "outing" (your word) the victim of an alleged rape... should we just not use the name of the suspect AND the victim until the matter is settled.

What concerns me is that when a person tells police to have been rape or sexually assaulted, suddenly the huge resources of a police department and a county prosecutor's office are committed putting that suspect behind bars.

The suspect on the other hand, has only as much legal/investigative help as he can afford. Or he gets a legal aid attorney.

Suddenly the scales of fairness are tipped very much in the victim's favor and I wonder if the media should contribute to tipping them even further.

Just wondering.</font>[/QUOTE]You're right; I really would like to forget it, but I never will, not entirely. A week doesn't go by that I don't think about it, at least once, at least in some sort of intellectualized way. Sometimes, it's more often and sometimes it's a lot more emotional than that.

I can say that there is still a stigma attached, although I would be willing to bet it is diminishing as the years so by.

However, rape is different from other crimes, other violent crimes even, in that the rape victim feels extreme humiliation, which of course, seems to be the whole point of rape.

I mean, if sex were the point, well, free sex is easy to find, especially if you're not terribly picky, right?

Since I have not been the victim of another violent crime, I can't speak to that as sympathetically as I can speak to being the victim of a sexual assault, but I doubt there are many people out there who would go out of their way to call an armed robbery victim a liar or a whore. When is the last time the defense went through the background and the romantic history of a victim of a beating?

I had that happen to me. I was followed. I was threatened. I was accused of lying. The defense couldn't find anything in my background, thank G-d. I was accused of conspiring with the other victims (because there were multiple victims), although I only knew one before the sexual assault happened and we never talked about it.

We never talked about it until I went forward to police, and that should speak volumes about how utterly humiliated I felt about the whole matter. This happened in college; I tried to forget about the assault until I heard that my attacker had been hired as a residence advisor in a co-ed dorm for the following school year.

If I hadn't known that, I probably would have not reported it. It did turn out to be the singularly worst experience of my entire life and the aftermath of the actual assault was as bad as the assault itself. I really was psychologically re-victimized -- by the university, by my attacker's friends, and in a way, by the media itself.

I know, I know it's odd that I ended up in media, but I was already a journalism student by that point. I'd already started interning at a local TV station and I was hooked on it. Well, I was hooking on breaking news anyway.

I also blamed myself for the sexual assaults he committed after he assaulted me. I felt that if I'd had the courage to come forward when it had happened, maybe those other women would not have been attacked.

Anyway, perhaps the solution is to not air or publish the name of the accused until a jury decides. It might have actually helped ME in my case, because I WOULDN'T have felt it necessary to out myself to the media, in order to put a name and a face to the victims who were being portrayed as unfairly and falsely accusing my attacker.

Anyway, today I use my experience in a good way, I think. I've talked to co-workers about rape victim sensitivity and how to handle covering those stories. I have to say too, that even if I am forever biased because of what happened to me, I also feel a huge responsibility to get the story right and to not convict the accused before a jury does.

The Duke case is a perfect example of why.

P.S. I'm editing for grammatical errors, because I typed this very fast.

[ April 13, 2007, 12:54 PM: Message edited by: On Air ]

[Clever Login Name]

On Air, thanks for an insightful post.

I'm curious, does your ND know what happened to you and has there ever been any discussion about not giving you stories about rape cases/victims?

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by ProSports23:
Tripe, I believe there is a huge difference in reporting the name of a theft victim vs a rape victim. The reason really comes down to what Consider This referenced, our society views victims of a sexual assault much differently than those of other crimes.

Here is the average persons reaction to two crimes. Think of it this way, you find out from the paper your next door neighbor has been robbed, what comes to mind? You feel bad for the person, you hope they have insurance, you hope no one was home and hurt at the time, and you think what you can do to improve your own security. At no point do most people look down on your neighbor because his house was broken into, or think it was his fault, or make statements such as "he was asking for it".

But, let's say you find out from the paper your next door neighbor was raped. You certainly feel bad for her, you hope she is ok physically as well as she could be, but you also *view* her differently now, you look at her differently, and when you see her 6 months from now, guess what you will think about? When you see your neighbor who was robbed in 6 months, you won't be thinking, "I hope he is ok after his robbery 6 months ago"

Maybe I wouldn't worry about my neighbor if his/her home had been burglarized... but if he/she had been beaten, or robbed at gun point... I would still worry him/her 6 months later. Shouldn't we as humans show concern for those who have suffered.

Anyway you make very valid points.

Thanks for enlightening me.

[Another side]

Originally posted by Marty McFly:

Anyone remember Katelyn Fabar? She was the one the press went out of their way to protect when she cried 'rape' against Kobe Bryant?

Thank goodness for people like Tom Leykis who was quick to name her on his radio show.Which, in my view, illustrates the problem in ever using the victim's name.

I think most people who followed Kobe's case, acknowledge something happened that night. Remember, Kobe first said there was no sex at all, then came back in a press conference and admitted there was sex, but it was consensual. The young lady said it was forcible rape, and before the dust setteled, Kobe and the woman reached an out-of-court settlement to keep the facts under wraps.

That was totally different than the case involving the Duke players, and the comparison doesn't hold at all.

In the case of the Duke players, the prosecutor declared them innocent. Not so, in Kobe's case, and as a result we still don't know whether the woman was raped or whether the sex was consensual.

I'm not a fan of a pick-and-choose newsroom philosophy that would necessarily be in play in the decision to name the women who accuse men of rape. In the Duke case, it's easy -- after the fact -- because the federal prosecutor contributed some very important language that would undoubtedly be absent in most cases in the future.

If the newsroom policy is now to name accusers, does that mean ALL accusers, or just those whose cases ended with stalled investigations and never filed, or those in which the jury brought back a not guilty verdict?

We know that "not guilty" does not mean "innocent" and we know that a stalled investigation doesn't necessarily mean a rape didn't occur.

As far as the stigma, I have some experience to draw on. My wife was raped before we met, and we've been married 24 years. To this day, it is never far from her mind -- the wrong news story, the wrong TV show, the wrong movie, and she's back to that day, if only fleetingly.

And the result of "that day" was a collection of dates and men who treated her differently -- some who assumed she "asked for it," some who presumed she was "easy," some who just wanted to hear the details, others who used it as a way to prove their sensitivity by telling her they wouldn't "hold it against her" and vowed -- repeatedly -- to "never again" bring it up unless she wanted to talk about it.

I agree there's something tragically wrong with a system that encourages us to name the rape defendant but not his accuser. It is, absolutely,unfair.

It would be nice if we could depend on law enforcement -- which seems to have escaped the criticism in the Duke case -- to be more thorough before an arrest is made, but sadly, many do just enough to THINK a crime was committed and then fall back on, "It's up to the district attorney to determine whether to file charges; we're just the investigators."

I don't pretend to know what the answer is, but I know the stigma is real and that rape victims suffer mental and psychological damage that never goes away.

And it's easy in this case to argue, "Yeah, but she wasn't a victim ... she was lying, because she wasn't and ... she was.

But there aren't many cases this clear-cut, and newsrooms who agree to the systematic naming of accusers would be forced to select between the ethically debateable policy of pick-and-choose, or one that announces all women will be named in all cases -- to their own peril, perhaps, and that of the news organizaion naming them.

[ April 13, 2007, 04:44 PM: Message edited by: Another side ]

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by On Air:
[QUOTE]You're right; I really would like to forget it, but I never will, not entirely. A week doesn't go by that I don't think about it, at least once, at least in some sort of intellectualized way. Sometimes, it's more often and sometimes it's a lot more emotional than that.

I can say that there is still a stigma attached, although I would be willing to bet it is diminishing as the years so by.

However, rape is different from other crimes, other violent crimes even, in that the rape victim feels extreme humiliation, which of course, seems to be the whole point of rape.

I mean, if sex were the point, well, free sex is easy to find, especially if you're not terribly picky, right?

Since I have not been the victim of another violent crime, I can't speak to that as sympathetically as I can speak to being the victim of a sexual assault, but I doubt there are many people out there who would go out of their way to call an armed robbery victim a liar or a whore. When is the last time the defense went through the background and the romantic history of a victim of a beating?

I had that happen to me. I was followed. I was threatened. I was accused of lying. The defense couldn't find anything in my background, thank G-d. I was accused of conspiring with the other victims (because there were multiple victims), although I only knew one before the sexual assault happened and we never talked about it.

We never talked about it until I went forward to police, and that should speak volumes about how utterly humiliated I felt about the whole matter. This happened in college; I tried to forget about the assault until I heard that my attacker had been hired as a residence advisor in a co-ed dorm for the following school year.

If I hadn't known that, I probably would have not reported it. It did turn out to be the singularly worst experience of my entire life and the aftermath of the actual assault was as bad as the assault itself. I really was psychologically re-victimized -- by the university, by my attacker's friends, and in a way, by the media itself.

I know, I know it's odd that I ended up in media, but I was already a journalism student by that point. I'd already started interning at a local TV station and I was hooked on it. Well, I was hooking on breaking news anyway.

I also blamed myself for the sexual assaults he committed after he assaulted me. I felt that if I'd had the courage to come forward when it had happened, maybe those other women would not have been attacked.

Anyway, perhaps the solution is to not air or publish the name of the accused until a jury decides. It might have actually helped ME in my case, because I WOULDN'T have felt it necessary to out myself to the media, in order to put a name and a face to the victims who were being portrayed as unfairly and falsely accusing my attacker.

Anyway, today I use my experience in a good way, I think. I've talked to co-workers about rape victim sensitivity and how to handle covering those stories. I have to say too, that even if I am forever biased because of what happened to me, I also feel a huge responsibility to get the story right and to not convict the accused before a jury does.

The Duke case is a perfect example of why.

P.S. I'm editing for grammatical errors, because I typed this very fast.Intellectually I think shielding the name of victims of alleged rapes/sex assaults while naming the suspects is unfair. But after reading your very enlightening posts and ProSports23's posts I find that my instincts tell me we should continue shield their names. Perhaps that answer is also shielding the names of the accused, too... but that's another thread.

Well, this was a thoughtful, mostly mature rational discussion on a very serious topic.

Can't have too much of that. I'm going back to Free-For-all where I can make fun of Diplomat and Fearmonger!

Thanks again!

[Diplomat]

Keep in mind, Tripe, people will make fun of you, too.

[Marty McFly]

If NOT reporting a rape victim's name is a sound decision, why is it okay to report the name of the person suspected of doing the rape?

An unknown person claims rape and says that a guy named Steve did it.

Whose name gets put in the paper, on the web site and on the evening news?

Steve's name. And that's it.

The accuser gets to sit back, out of the public eye and enjoy being a nameless and faceless person for a while.

No trial yet, and facts are still sketchy... but Steve is about to hop on his name and go for a ride in the mud for a while.

And why? Just because some person says it was this fictional Steve person who did the raping? Just because the police suspect that Steve did it?

That doesn't make any sense.

In the scenario, one we deal with at least once a week or more, the press takes sides and chooses to believe one individual over another... just because the police say so.

[On Air]

Originally posted by Clever Login Name:
On Air, thanks for an insightful post.

I'm curious, does your ND know what happened to you and has there ever been any discussion about not giving you stories about rape cases/victims?Well, my ND knows now, because my attacker tried some ridiculous move to get himself exonerated and I stepped forward again -- I am now in an entirely different market many many miles away, so it had no direct impact on my work here.

I'm a M-F anchor, so I am not sent out on stories on a daily basis, much less crime stories. I covered a rape trial once, when I anchored weekend and reported weekdays, and I told my then- assignment editor, who is a woman. She had confidence that I would be able to report fairly and I did.

However, to expect me to have to tell my managers at every shop for the rest of my career -- don't you think that's re-victimization? And because someone did something to me, not the other way around, I'm to be penalized and my work held suspect????

Does that mean that every woman who has ever been sexually assaulted should have to tell her ND and should be excused from ever covering a sex assault case? Every man, too, for that matter? Does it mean that if you are victimized in one of the most humiliating ways possible, that you should essentially have to wear a scarlet letter? Does a sexual assault automatically make the victim untrustworthy?

Seriously, assuming that my work may be biased simply because I personally feel one way or another is totally not fair. I'm also a registered Democrat (full disclosure: my experience DID make me take a hard right on crime issues), but that doesn't mean that every time I've done election coverage in my career that my work is automatically biased against Republicans. ( In fact, I like to have politically conservative co-workers proof my scripts.)

That's simply not responsible journalism. And who gets through life without forming opinions?

I am a grown-up who CAN separate the personal from the professional. If you assume that I cannot, because someone chose to make me a victim, then without meaning to, you just illustrated perfectly the stigma that comes with being a sex assault victim.

Are you saying you have no opinions about anything and have no biases about anything either???? If your house got robbed or your car stolen, does that mean you can't cover robbery and theft stories ever again?

The only sexual assault cases I should never ever cover are the ones that involve my attacker. Luckily, there's little chance of that becoming an issue where I am now.

[Signature on File]

Don't forget the "Shaun Hornbeck" kidnapping case in Missouri. The poor kid was apparently sexuall assaulted weekly for four years and his face was plastered around the World.

[Tripe Face]

Originally posted by Diplomat:
Keep in mind, Tripe, people will make fun of you, too.Oh, you can TRY, Dip. You can try.