Infuriataing News Coverage of Abduction

[GersMan]

This is more media than politics, but it's not about soccer and the FreeForAll Forum seems to be more of a fun thing, and this is definitely not a fun topic.

I'm driving to work this morning and CBS Radio News comes on with a story in the aftermath of this kidnapper in California being killed. The teaser was something along the lines of "California girls home now after being violated" and then the story, which first talked about how the shooting went down and quoted the parents saying how relieved they were that the girls were alive - goes on to report that "it wasn't all happy though - the girls were both sexually assaulted.

This is after their names have been all over the news, including in this story.

So now everyone knows, thanks to the authorities and to the media, that these girls were rape victims.

WHY DID THEY HAVE TO INCLUDE THAT IN THE STORY? I understand that all of us had to think that this might have happened, but I don't have some right to know that.

Was law enforcement trying to deflect some criticism about having killed the guy, because he was an armed kidnapper not giving them up. that sounds like enough of a reason to me. They did say on the report that they think they saved their lives by about 10 minutes -that he was looking for a place to bury them. That also seems to be enough of a reason.

I just think this is irresponsible. MSNBC just ran it to on the Imus show. Didn't this use to be off limits?

When I worked in newspapers, you didn't use rape victims names. Their names were already out there, they shouldn't have reported this. It's wrong.

[DoctorJones24]

I thought it was a bit odd, too. Especially considering they were both minors. But given the climate of our corporate media, it really isn't so surprising. Decisions based on judgment went out long ago, and editors who ever knew a thing about journalistic ethics have long been replaced by corporate stooges intent on profits.

[CrewDust]

I'm confused, are you trying to say that the news is not entertainment?

[GersMan]

well, tv news is presented as entertainment, certainly, but I guess I'm still naive enough to think that someone in a given news organization would have the decency to consider the impact of what they are reporting (especially vs. the need to know aspect of the story).

[DoctorJones24]

CrewDust,
Are you sarcastically referring to the current state of "news," or are you suggesting that the news has always been (and should be) thus?

If the latter, this is clearly wrong. The news is the only industry in America specfically protected by the Constitution. The early proponents of democracy understood pretty clearly that government by the people necessitates an "informed" public, which is why they took to calling the press, the "4th Estate of Democracy." Our mainstream press has now pretty much given up this responsibility entirely. In fact, it might be time to go ahead and rewrite that part of the Constitution: Why talk about a "free press" if we don't really believe in it? And clearly, the leaders who pushed the Telecom Act of '96 through Congress do NOT believe in a free press.

[GringoTex]

The bigger picture: national news organization should not even be reporting about abductions, rapes, murders, etc.

99% of the time, they're not newsworthy from a national perspective. All these stories provide is a cheap, exploitive form of voyeurism for the viewer.

Meanwhile, the real news goes unreported.

[CrewDust]

Originally posted by DoctorJones24
CrewDust,
Are you sarcastically referring to the current state of "news," or are you suggesting that the news has always been (and should be) thus?

If the latter, this is clearly wrong. The news is the only industry in America specfically protected by the Constitution. The early proponents of democracy understood pretty clearly that government by the people necessitates an "informed" public, which is why they took to calling the press, the "4th Estate of Democracy." Our mainstream press has now pretty much given up this responsibility entirely. In fact, it might be time to go ahead and rewrite that part of the Constitution: Why talk about a "free press" if we don't really believe in it? And clearly, the leaders who pushed the Telecom Act of '96 through Congress do NOT believe in a free press.

Sarcasm yes, why weren't they reporting about abductions last year, wait that's right, last year it was shark attacks. I believe that the media is more concered about making money than reporting the news. It's not who gets the story right, it's who gets it first.

[GersMan]

Originally posted by GringoTex
The bigger picture: national news organization should not even be reporting about abductions, rapes, murders, etc.

99% of the time, they're not newsworthy from a national perspective. All these stories provide is a cheap, exploitive form of voyeurism for the viewer.

Meanwhile, the real news goes unreported.

To quote a favorite songwriter of mine:

"Well, it's been said before, the world is a stage
A different performance with every age.
Open the history book to any old page
Bring on the lions and open the cage.

Give the people what they want
You gotta give the people what they want
The more they get, the more they need
And every time they get harder and harder to please

The Roman promoters really did things right.
They needed a show that would clearly excite.
The attendance was sparse so they put on a fight
Threw the Christians to the lions, sold out every night

Give the people what they want
You gotta give the people what they want
The more they get, the more they need
And every time they get harder and harder to please

Give 'em lots of sex, perversion and rape
Give 'em lots of violence, and plenty to hate
Give the people what they want
Give the people what they want

When Olswald shot Kennedy, he was insane
But still we watch the re-runs again and again
We all sit glued while the killer takes aim
"Hey Mom, there goes a piece of the president's brain!"

Give the people what they want
You gotta give the people what they want
Blow out your brains, and do it right
Make sure it's prime time and on a Saturday night.
You gotta give the people what they want"

As bothered as I am about what I heard this morning, I am reminded that these outlets are just serving the market with what the markets want.

[obie]

People assume that the purpose of the news industry is to inform the public. Really, the purpose of the news industry is to make money. If you watch TV newscasts about child abductions and rape victims, and buy newspapers with child abduction stories on the front page, the industry will continue to report on them.

Don't like it? Read the Christian Science Monitor and The Economist, and watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

[GersMan]

http://www.nationalreview.com/thecorner/corner.asp

notice the item about 5 stories down (as of 10:20 a.m. EST 8/2/02) about this same thing.

[GringoTex]

Originally posted by obie
and watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

Or listen to National Public Radio News. Thank gawd for public broadcasting.

[SoFla Metro]

Originally posted by GringoTex
The bigger picture: national news organization should not even be reporting about abductions, rapes, murders, etc.

99% of the time, they're not newsworthy from a national perspective. All these stories provide is a cheap, exploitive form of voyeurism for the viewer.

Meanwhile, the real news goes unreported. What he said.

[skipshady]

Here's the most straightforward explanation of the state of the news media in this country from a thread on the Smart case (http://bigsoccer.com/forum/showthread.php?s=&threadid=502).

Originally posted by bigsmooth
Exactly. Television coverage in news, sports, a lot of areas, isn't driven by real demand (what people want in large numbers) as much as it is by financial demand (what those who have the deepest pockets and support tv networks with sponsorship want). Thus, we get a skewed perception tv -- we think what's on is what's popular, when more than likely it's what's profitable, or at least won't disrupt the overall profits of advertisers.

Also remember that the mainstream media is owned almost entirely by large multinational corporations who have a significant voice in policy making and whose profits would not necessarily benefit from an informed public.

[DoctorJones24]

Originally posted by obie
People assume that the purpose of the news industry is to inform the public. Really, the purpose of the news industry is to make money. If you watch TV newscasts about child abductions and rape victims, and buy newspapers with child abduction stories on the front page, the industry will continue to report on them.

Don't like it? Read the Christian Science Monitor and The Economist, and watch the Jim Lehrer News Hour.

Obie, this is just flat out historically wrong. If the news industry was supposed to be just another capitalist enterprise, as you suggest, then we never would have granted it "protected" status in the Constitution. You are growing up in an era in which corporations have usurped this, but don't be misled into thinking it is normal.

[LomaB8]

I am not sure what I think about publishling rape victims names. At one point I thought it was to protect the innocent, but I'm not sure that that doesn't convey the wrong message. The message being that a person is worth less after being raped. Perhaps it is to protect the women from negative publicity. But there is still alot of shame surrounding rape which is wrong.

Many rapes in say Asia (I only know this as one of my colleagues is preparing to travel through Taiwan and Hong Kong) go unreported due to the amount of shame involved in reporting it.

I don't know how I would feel it it happened to me.

What I find outrageous in this case is though that this idiot was out on bail. He raped his stepdaughter for crying out loud and had a history of sexual assaults. Its about time that sexual offenders got the book well and truly throw at them. This man should not have been out on the streets.

[Ian McCracken]

This was a story in progress. Their names were published while they were kidnap victims, with the police and citizens on the lookout for them. After the kidnapper was caught and killed, and the girls examined, was it learned that they were rape victims. This was a kidnap story that turned into a rape story, not a rape story from the get-go where the names would've been withheld due to their ages.

[GersMan]

understand about their names being out there - but the problem was telling the world they were raped. The county sheriff, btw, has since apologized about this. I notice the stories on the web and on radio are now not using their names. It was wrong to tell everyone they had been raped. the fact that he had kidnapped them and was armed was enough reason to shoot them, he didn't have to tell us that to justify what happened.

[Garcia]

Ian has it correct. A stroy in progress, which included the highly regarded, innovative and untested "amber alert" system.

Today, I watched MSNBC fumble their way through these choppy waters as they said they wouldn't name the girls anymore and not show their picture as they showed their picture! :rolleyes:

The anchor, the Cuban guy Richard (Ricardo) Sanchez, was saying that it wouldn't matter much...after all...we Americans have a short attention span anyway.

The problem is that you have to be first, with exclusive information and many times the story is incorrect, misleading or at worst, it blows up in your face.

Gringo is also correct. Most of this is regional at best. A man in a 20 year old Ford couldn't make it out to Ohio in under 5 hours, so why did we in Ohio have to watch the live coverage ALL day long?

We have FOX news showing us car chases in LA when we all know of the time when the dude killed himself on LIVE TV, after a car chase!

Speaking of Ohio, Rick Case the helicopter guy, who's real name is also Ricardo, Rick Casagrande, not Case, was telling WCMH, local NBC station in Columbus that the Ohio guy was Killed when he was not dead. I could go on, but that makes it interesting. As things evolve, as the story develops, we get to watch. There is a rubber-necker in all of us.

The worst of all this kidnapping / rape case in California was watching the families give their press conference. They all said their kids were safe AND UNHARMED. They too allowed their kids to be hurt. A few people were yelling in celebration, "Yea man, this is your 15 minutes of fame!"

Totally sick. Yea, I am famous because my daughter was kidnapped and later I learned she was raped...but hey, I'm famous!

And I did see the woman who said that keeping raped names quiet was reinforcing the idea of rape bringing shame. Yea, but let's allow them to decide, not the media.

All in all, today the Gov of Cali is acting like a hero while the media is covering their tracks. I can't wait until he uses this in his reelection bid. :rolleyes:

[Godot22]

http://www.thenewrepublic.com/doc.mhtml?i=life&s=cottle073102

[DoctorJones24]

Godot,
That New Republic piece is right on.
I'm reminded of a comment I heard on ESPN Radio a few weeks back that absolutely blew me away. It was on "Mike and Mike in the AM." They were doing an "all Iverson all the time" deal on that weekend when Iverson was about to be arrested. And the little geeky Mike said something like,

"I don't want you all to think we REALLY WANT to be focusing so much on this story. I know this is a case of the media overhyping a trivial story instead of dealing with real news. But let's face it, if we stopped covering it, pretty soon fingers would be reaching for the dials, and someone else would be covering it."

Now granted, ESPN admits in its very moniker that it is an "entertainment" network first, not a "news" source, so we may cut Mike some slack here. But I was just amazed at how he could distill EVERYTHING that is wrong with our corporate media into this tiny mea culpa. And I'm assuming he went to college for broadcast journalism (he's no athlete-turned-talking head)--I just wonder what his "Journalistic Ethics" professor is thinking when hearing this jerk and his hypocrisy.