Journalists like rules.
They like to compare performance — particularly that of people in positions of authority — with established standards. Journalists also like to have internal rules to guide them in making difficult decisions.
When confronted with informing people about the crime of rape, though, journalists often find those internal rules to be in conflict with one another. They wrestle, specifically, with whether to identify all parties involved, as news organizations do in reporting most crimes, or just to identify the accused.
Recognizing that dilemma, Kelly McBride of the Poynter Institute, a school for journalists in St. Petersburg, gathered a small group of people from throughout the country last week to discuss rape. It included representatives of news organizations, a researcher, counselors and people who, themselves, or whose loved ones, had survived such attacks.
The issue arose from the treatment of the recent abduction of two Lancaster, Calif., teenagers. Many news organizations, including the Sentinel, had identified the girls before the local sheriff announced in a televised interview about their rescue that they had been raped.
That left many newspapers and television networks in the awkward position of unwittingly having violated their own rules. The Sentinel’s policy states: “The name of the victim or complainant is not to be used except under extraordinary circumstances.” Examples of those circumstances include the victim being killed, the complainant being charged with filing false information, the victim being a prominent public figure and the victim wanting to be identified.
None of those circumstances applied to the California abductions. The girls’ rapes, however, did not make them unique.
Statistics presented at the Poynter gathering — that one-seventh of the women in America have been forcibly raped at least once — opened everyone’s eyes. But the gripping accounts of those in attendance who had suffered that indignity — and the shame it had made them feel — touched everyone’s heart.
Surely we must protect them from further harm — from the stigma of being a rape victim.
In sharing their own, very personal experiences, though, several of those at the session bravely announced that they are not victims but rather survivors — and that voluntarily stepping forward to discuss what happened would make clear, correctly, that they have no reason to feel shame.
Could ending the anonymity allow such a ridiculous notion to die? But what about those still too vulnerable to discuss their rapes? Should journalists ask before identifying them?
If so, what about victims of other crimes — robbery, theft, non-sexual assault? Should journalists ask them, too?
Identification provides detail that moves journalism from the abstract to the concrete. It helps fulfill Poynter Ethics Program Director Bob Steele’s first guiding principle: Seek the truth and report it as fully as possible.
In the past, I’ve questioned the practice of shielding supposed rape victims from identification while not affording such protection to alleged rapists. That practice is in keeping with another of Steele’s principles: Minimize harm — at least as it applies to supposed victims.
But what if the accused didn’t do it? Is he subject to any less shame? Would that be fair?
This is just one small part of a much more complex issue that involves children and even men victims, as well as women.
Sometimes, though, more information can broaden horizons but make establishing rules and deciding issues more difficult. That’s what last week’s Poynter session has done for me.
I’d like to know how you feel about this issue.
Manning Pynn can be reached at Public@orlandosentinel.com or 407-650-6410.
