(Long Island, NY) A recent Associated Press headline reads: “Accuser in Duke Case Filed a Rape Report 10 Years Ago.” While this may be considered a strict reporting of facts relevant to the case, it also exposes a continuing problem with the coverage and handling of sensitive legal cases.
Everyone knows the accuser in a rape case is put on trial just as vigorously as the defendants. Lawyers on both sides bring out the most sordid details possible to help their cause. Both accuser and accused go on trial in the media long before a decision is made by a jury of peers in the courtroom.
No one knows this better than British actor Craig Charles, star of the BBC cult favorite show Red Dwarf. Charles was accused of rape, ultimately exonerated, and ultimately became a spokesperson for public anonymity in rape accusations. His story became very public, and unfortunately, many considered him guilty before he had a chance to get his day in court. In the end, the case was a focal point for several media critics who debated the anonymity issue. Charles himself may have been publicly humiliated, but at least his plight became fodder for serious debate.
Closer to home, during the Kobe Bryant rape case, the issue of the Rape Shield law was brought up as a point of contention based on certain aspects of the case. Such laws are designed to prevent a rape victim from having his or her sexual history used against them in court. The media made much out of the sex histories of both defender and accuser.
These two issues may seem unconnected, but they really aren’t. The reason? Neither of them gets paid much attention to when it comes to coverage of high profile rape cases; the defendant and the accuser alike are put on trial in the press, anonymity is a joke. The way media outlets treat rape cases is near tantamount to putting both sides in shackles in the town square for ridicule. For the defendant, it’s usually cries of “pervert!” and “we know you’re guilty!” For the accuser, “slut!” and “prove it!” accompany equally vehement cries of “victim!” and “revenge!” Regardless of which side one supports in a given case, all of these points of view are speculation. The media may give extensive coverage to both sides of a case, but in the end, public opinion on both sides is still grossly uninformed. There are facts no journalist will ever be privy to; many of these are discussed in private with investigators or lawyers.
The very idea that a person reading the newspaper or watching television could have in informed opinion about ANY court case is unrealistic. In the case of rape it borders on the absurd.
Besides which, rape, technically speaking, is not news. It IS a crime, it is deplorable and there should be swift penalties for those found guilty of sexual assault. What it is NOT is newsworthy-not in the strictest sense. Those who disagree may want to get answers to the following questions;
- How many people does this news story affect? If the story relates to the plight of all rape victims, coverage of such a case is not only warranted, it may be a civic responsibility. Whether or not the victim or accuser happens to be famous should be a moot point. Which leads us to question two.
- Does the media’s coverage of the case raise societal issues or concerns? Or does the press handling of the case seem more like a daytime soap opera subplot? The issues raised by the INITIAL coverage of the Duke rape case were quite valid; do college athletes have the right to flaunt the rules and regulations of the institutions that support their athletic work? Do these students—let’s not forget they are students—have the right to hold parties that include strippers, potentially dangerous amounts of alcohol consumption, possible drug use, etc, and still operate in good standing as members of a college athletic department?
- At what point does the daily coverage of these cases become self-perpetuating? That is to say, at what point does the media’s coverage of this case become redundant and obviously sensationalistic? In the eyes of some, coverage of the Duke case has already passed this point and gone well beyond.
In the end, the responsibility rests with those who report the news. If they are comfortable with the current status quo, it may be time to raise the issue in a public forum, as did the English press in the wake of the Craig Charles case. The sordid details of rape cases-including names and sexual histories-belong in the courtroom. They do not NEED to be splashed across every newspaper and television screen in America. To imply that they do—beyond concerns for rape awareness and civic responsibility—exposes the heart of American news reporting for what it has become in the last twenty years; an ever increasing hunger for ratings, publicity, and supremacy in the highly competitive arena of reporting.
If this is to be the continued state of things in American reporting, it may be time to apply a label other than “news” for the product churned out by American media outlets. A different, suitably four-letter word may be more accurate.
