The Courier-Journal does not print the names of rape victims or accusers who are involved in criminal proceedings. The only time we do so is when we have their permission. If our library archives are an accurate barometer, that is almost never; or, maybe we haven’t asked as often as we should.
This newspaper’s policy is not unusual. It’s an almost universally observed practice among news organizations, both print and broadcast. This no-names-without-permission practice in criminal rape cases is not under debate at the Courier, nor is it about to change, said Executive Editor Bennie Ivory.
But the no-names policy does deserve some discussion, especially in the thick of the fever-pitch coverage of basketball superstar Kobe Bryant’s sexual assault charge. And let us state again: He has only been charged.
With high-profile cases like Bryant’s, some media this time, Internet sites and a talk radio host have revealed the name of the accuser; a supermarket tabloid ran a full-cover picture of her with her eyes banded out.
If mainstream news media have not named names, that doesn’t mean we’ve been completely respectable or respectful in our coverage. Outlets like cable news have heaved their bags and hopped aboard this almost runaway train, affording it All-Monica-All-The-Time status from the get-go. They also, not coincidentally, have conveyed a great deal of conjecture about the young woman who says Bryant raped her.
The sensationalism and the bad journalism that already have enveloped this case shouldn’t obscure important questions:
Do the news media add to the stigma of rape by clinging to the no-names policy?
Is it fair to name the accused rapist in the press, but not the accuser?
These are not new questions; they arise each time a high-profile rape case is in the news. They are never easy questions. The answers aren’t easy, either. If anything, they’re uneasy.
A sampling of today’s national discussion over these questions:
* From a column by Geneva Overholser, former editor of The Des Moines Register, who has since 1989 challenged not using rape victims’ name in print:
“An awful lot of cruelty surrounds the crime of rape. The crime itself, of course, is unspeakably cruel. And the reaction is often cruel, as well. In what other instance are victims so painfully scrutinized? Where else do we see such loathsome insinuations about a victim’s character? So many false assumptions? So much ignorance? Cruelty feeds on ignorance. And I have yet to see ignorance effectively addressed by secrecy.
“On all the tough problems, from AIDS to teen suicide to drug addiction to priests who abuse children, society has made progress when the truth is told. When real people talk about real experiences. When names are named.”
* From a column by Joan Ryan, who writes for the San Francisco Chronicle:
“There is also the `unfiltered’ journalism argument. The job of the media is to report the news as accurately and completely as possible. We are reporters, not social workers or therapists. `Openness serves society as a whole,’ one former editor wrote recently, arguing in favor of naming victims. `It serves enlightenment and understanding and progress.’
“The arguments are reasonable.
“But they could not be more wrong.
“The issue here is what rape victims do feel, not what we think they should feel. The issue is what society actually understands about sexual assault, not what it should understand by now. The issue is what naming rape victims will do to discourage women from reporting assaults, thus allowing more rapists to roam free.”
I have to say I am genuinely conflicted about how rape is covered and not covered in the pages of newspapers and on TV news programs.
As Overholser wrote, I have seen what coming forward and putting a face and a name to a problem or a cause can do to chip away at that problem or further that cause.
It happened with Holocaust survivors who made sure “never again” was stamped on everyone’s psyche. It happened with civil rights pioneers who sat on a bus or crossed a bridge or wrote letters from jail. It happened with AIDS, and I am reminded of the early equation of AIDS activists: Silence = Death. It happened with victims of sexual abuse by priests and ministers, who righted decades of wrongdoing with their courage to go public. It is happening now with gay people who live openly and honestly and, in doing so, lead the way toward greater knowing and acceptance.
Finding a voice and using a voice for them was and is empowering.
But, echoing Ryan’s concerns, I understand that those folks chose to use their voice; it wasn’t forced from them.
In a crime that’s all about force and humiliation, naming rape victims against their will would be a cruel irony to impose. And even though we’re living in the 21st Century, I’m not sure how much understanding we’ve gained and how much baggage we’ve unloaded when it comes to rape and judging its victims.
If that weren’t confusing enough, there is fairness to consider.
Ivory said, “We don’t name rape victims because of the stigma that society attaches to victims of sexual assault. It is an uncomfortable position, I think, for most newspapers because of the fairness issue. Is it fair to name the accused and not the accuser? That’s the question I struggle with. After all, the accused is presumed innocent until proven otherwise.”
(Making a tricky situation even trickier: Ivory points out that if a rape defendant has been found innocent in criminal court and the accuser pursues the case in civil court, the newspaper prints the name of the accuser in that coverage. “It is not fair not to print the name of the accuser once the accused has been acquitted or found innocent,” Ivory said.)
The wire stories and columns we have carried about this case and given the TV marathon over the past several days, our coverage has been relatively scant have been careful to note that Bryant has only been charged. Terms such as “alleged attack” and “alleged victim” have been used.
To help sort things out, I called Kelly McBride, a member of the ethics faculty at the Poynter Institute, a training organization and think-tank for journalists and journalism. She is on record as noting that coverage of the Bryant case “underscores the worst in American journalism.”
She said coverage of such cases is a balancing act as news organizations try to tell the truth, to minimize the harm that can be done to all stakeholders that’s accused and accuser and their ancillaries and to maintain journalistic independence in that coverage.
At the same time, McBride thinks journalism is in a period of “transition” when it comes to how rape is reported. She said some newsrooms are considering being more pro-active in asking victims to identify themselves; and she said newsrooms ought to examine how stories about rape accusations are played.
She is emphatic and she is right when she says that newsrooms shouldn’t let this case, and this coverage, define or re-define how journalists report about rape.
But I do think it’s a good time to look at what we do and why we do it, and to talk to you about it, too.
As always, let me know what you think.
