The New York Times is basically my favorite media source to criticize. Not because I think they are the worst, by any means, but because I think, unlike FOX news or the NY Post or most other mainstream media sources, they have the potential to rise above the orientalist, racist, sexist, sensationalist tendencies of the American press. So when I'm calling them out, know that it is not out of rage or disdain or even disgust (though I may feel all of those things), nor is it out of a desire to see the newspaper shut down for good; I believe the New York Times is better than the type of reporting I'm about to criticize it for.
An 11-year old girl in Texas was gang-raped. The NYT story on the rape is here. Notice the inclusion of unattributed comments by residents who claim that the girl dressed inappropriately or provocatively. Then remember that she was 11 years old. Ask yourself if there is any outfit an 11-year old could wear, any outfit at all, that would justify or explain a 27-year old man (not to mention high schoolers and middle schoolers) raping her.
Even worse, the NYT is refusing to apologize after being called out for this. I have written a letter to the editor and I encourage all of you to do the same. Letters can be e-mailed to letters@nytimes.com. Here is my own:
To whom it may concern,
The 3/8 article on the gang-rape of an 11-year old girl in Texas is appalling. The inclusion of remarks about the girl's dress ("They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s.") perpetuates the belief that what a woman wears justifies or explains brutality against her. This 11-year-old girl is a child, regardless of how mature she looks, dresses, or acts, and for a newspaper to imply that her brutal gang-rape was somehow caused by her outfits (or to dignify the opinions of those who would suggest this by including their unsubstantiated comments in the article,) is the worst kind of irresponsible journalism. Your paper ought to be above this sort of archaic notion that a woman's (or, in this case, a girl's) manner of dress is linked in any way to rape. Rape is a crime of power, not a crime of sexual desire. The reporter who published this story under his name ought to be ashamed of himself.
In a statement issued in response to objections about this article, your spokeswoman declares "This story is still developing and there is much to be learned about how something so horrific could have occurred." Something horrific did not occur- earthquakes occur, hurricanes occur, floods occur- rapes are committed by rapists. The men who raped this girl perpetrated a horrific crime and there are no circumstances that could justify or explain their behavior.
Sincerely,
Kelsey Pince
Seattle, Washington
Seriously, NYT. You're better than this.
Well done. I am still shocked when even the few remaining respectable news organizations can not quite bring themselves to acknowledge such fundamental failures in editorial judgement. Misogyny of this kind should not still be subject to such a "response," from a spokeswoman, yet! Unbelievable.
ReplyDeleteWhat happened in this Texas town is unspeakably horrific. It's a "gang rape" of a "schoolgirl," according to the subject. Words like that pierce all of our senses of reason.
ReplyDeleteBut I don't think reporter James C. McKinley, Jr., intended to appear either empathetic toward the accused attackers or to refer to the unidentified (for rightful reasons) girl clinically, as Cienna Madrid suggests.
Keep in mind the full title of the article: Gang Rape of Schoolgirl, and Arrests, Shake Texas Town.
What McKinley is presenting is a shocked small town probably in full-fledged denial that anyone in their town could be could commit such a disgusting and coordinated act of brutality against the quintessential innocent victim as the scramble to figure out what the hell happened and why.
It seems that the both the act and the arrests upset the townspeople and McKinley's quotes represent this. To us, the rationality that the girl was more or less asking for it is completely mad, but in this town, it is the justification that at least some of them are using to explain why this happened.
The New York Times is an international newspaper and their stories are often quoted by those who agree to go on the record. McKinley wrote that only a "handful of neighbors would speak on the record." Moreover, the identity of the girl is not known, nor is the whereabouts of her and her mother. So the reporter is stuck with a highly guarded police department, scant public records and the outspoken public who will agree to have their names attached to the story.
Anyway, the whole thing seems to be a mess, ethically and emotionally, for the whole town, especially those with little connection to the girl.
I absolutely respect your critical analysis of the NYT and hope you do it more often, because they definitely need it, as any news organization does. But I don't think it was the author's intention to appear indifferent to the crime. Rather, he was juggling this heinous act with quotes that reflected a baffled and repudiating public.
"The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?"
ReplyDeleteHow could their young men have been drawn in? DRAWN IN? These young men were not the passive objects of a verb, Brian, nothing drew them in to anything. These are the reporter's words and not attributed to any specific person.
To bring in the account of how residents described the girl's outfit paints the picture that this is relevant to the story- the girl's outfit is in no way relevant to the story. If the story is about the townspeople's reaction and not about the crime itself, it still ought to be balanced with language that shows that assertion-that her clothes were provocative-is immaterial to the crime itself and is in fact symptomatic of the irrational response the townspeople are having. This is not the purpose of the story- the reporter is not analyzing the irrational response of the townspeople and using the excuse that they were the only ones willing to talk doesn't mean their opinions deserve to be printed, especially not with the implied endorsement of the reporter.
On 9/11 plenty of people thought the Jews/aliens/the free masons/the knights of the templar were behind it- it doesn't mean their opinions are relevant or worthy of column inches. These neighbors being quoted aren't experts about rape, they aren't witnesses, they aren't relevant to the story of the crime itself. If the story is the town's reaction to the crime (which is, IMO, a stupid story for the NYT to run anyway since the idea that a gang-rape involving so many men would be shocking to a small community isn't exactly a revelation.) It's bad journalism and it perpetuates the FALSE belief that many Americans and especially American men still maintain- that a woman's outfit or behavior causes violence against her. The article doesn't offer any kind of counterweight to these comments by the neighbors- no expert or law enforcement opinion pointing out that an 11 year old child's outfit probably doesn't begin to explain why 18 men took turns raping her.
Imagine this- a woman is beaten to death by her husband and the NYT runs a story quoting a neighbor who says "Well, she was a really terrible cook." The neighbor may have really said that, but it doesn't make it news, it doesn't make it material to the crime and it doesn't make it worthy of the paper of record.
Hi Kelsey. The more I think about it, the more I understand your position on this. The fact is, journalists, like anyone else, can be lazy thinkers and not consider how their words can continue trends like portraying sexual abuse against women somehow the fault of the women. I feel like you and I agree that such a notion is preposterous. This was not the fault of the young girl. It is the fault of these men. Indirectly, it may be the fault of her parents. Even more indirectly, and far less uncontrollably, it may be the fault of a town. It's totally perplexing to me and to probably millions of others why these 18 men would do this.
ReplyDeleteI support your claim that to say these men were "drawn in" is the result of either poor reporting or crisp prejudice. The reporter could easily have reworded it to say "how could their young men have committed such an act?" and still have been effective in relaying the overall sentiments of some of the town.
In fact, Kelsey, the more I consider this, the more I find myself reaching for your shoulder. Consider: the AP's story (http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20110309/ap_on_re_us/) quoted FIVE people, one who blamed no one but spoke about how upset the community was, one whose sentiments were with the attackers, one whose sentiments were with the victim, one who spoke about the case, and the mother talking about receiving threatening phone calls. Contrast that with the NYT article who quoted TWO people: one whose sentiments were with the attackers and the same woman who spoke about how upset the community was (Gatlin, spokesperson for the school).
From a purely technical standpoint, it is outrageous that the NYT would allow a story to run with only 2 sources. That alone should have been a red flag to the editor.
But I don't think we can dismiss the attitude of the town, calling it the attitude of the reporter. Whether it is or not, the fact remains that there is a proportion of the town that blames the girl, in some way, and her mother, for what happened. This is real.
Anyway, I enjoy your writing and am glad you get me thinking. I look forward to more of your enlightening posts. Now it's time to begin my morning...