Don’t do it. Don’t follow the Globe. And tell your readers and viewers and listeners why you won’t follow suit. Use this as an opportunity to stand for the principles of a noble profession rather than racing your competitors to the depths of an anything-goes-as-long-as-it-sells contest.
It changes nothing that a tabloid has published the name and photo of Kobe Bryant’s accuser. The Globe is doing what tabloids do, pushing the boundaries of respectability in an effort to sell newspapers and get attention.
There is still no justification for journalists to deviate from the standard practice of granting this particular woman anonymity along with millions of other rape victims. Nor is there a reason to show the Globe‘s cover photo in the name of reporting the controversy.
The Globe has played this part before. In 1991, British tabloids and the Globe published the name of the woman who accused William Kennedy Smith of rape. (Smith was later found not guilty.) Many respectable newspapers jumped off that bridge along with the tabloids. Many editors later wondered whether doing so had been a mistake.
We journalists debate constantly this topic of naming rape victims, as we should. The debate is most intense when we are faced with an exceptional crime — a celebrity case, a particularly violent or public event, a kidnapping. But rape happens every day in every community and we often don’t acknowledge our journalistic mission to tell the whole story of rape. We let the truth be distorted by our false news judgment, which tilts toward stories of power and violence and away from a crime that most often affects children. In doing so we fail in our job of informing the public.
Does the public need to know more about rape? Absolutely. Does anyone learn anything meaningful by seeing the photo or reading the name of Kobe Bryant’s accuser? No. By choosing a photo of the woman in a sexually suggestive pose, taken on her prom night, I believe the Globe has deliberately misinformed the public. Accompanied by the headline, “Did she really say no?” The Globe is saying that this particular woman must have asked for it because she dared to bare her thigh at a high school dance. In doing so, the tabloid is sending a more subtle message: that anyone who ever vamped for the camera or otherwise expressed their sexuality, even as a joke, could not possibly have said “no.”
Rape is an exceptional crime where sex becomes a weapon. For the most part, journalists agree that rape victims need a greater degree of privacy than other crime victims. Across the country, 99.9 percent of the newsrooms in America voluntarily don’t publish the names of rape victims, unless they agree to be identified.
- Rape victims suffer from varying degrees of stigma and shame that set them apart from other crime victims. In studies, rape victims have told researchers they are more concerned with their family and friends learning about the assault than they are with the prospect of getting pregnant or getting HIV.
- Most rape victims never report their attacks to police. The National Crime Victimization Survey conducted by the US Department of Justice estimates that 240,000 rapes occur each year. The National Women’s Study estimates more than 600,000 rapes. Yet the FBI counts fewer than 100,000 reported to law enforcement. Experts and law enforcement authorities believe the numbers would be lower if victims’ names were made public.
There are steps journalists could take to further reduce the stigma and shame imposed on rape victims by the rest of our society. But naming rape victims against their will should not be one of them. If your intent is to better the public’s understanding of the crime, then look for stories about rape where victims agree to be named. Approach victims or their representatives and ask if they would be willing to be named. Publishing a victim’s name against his or her will should be a rare exception. And it certainly shouldn’t become the rule for the special category of celebrity rape story.
Others struggle with balancing journalism values. “Why does the man get drawn and quartered while the woman is garbed in a journalistic burka?” Ellen Levine, editor-in-chief of Good Housekeeping, told a Salon.com reporter. Fairness is difficult to obtain. But naming a rape victim is morally irresponsible, motivated not by a desire for fairness, but a penchant for voyeurism.
Still, journalists need not abdicate their devotion to fairness because the victim is anonymous. Instead we should look for ways to minimize harm. We should pay particular attention to the tone and placement of stories alleging rape. We should dedicate ourselves to reporting on the judicial process. Recognizing the different stigma that comes with being falsely charged with rape, journalists should strive for balance and accuracy in stories about cases where the court system has yet to determine guilt or innocence. Prurient, salacious, and gratuitous stories are unfair to both the accused and the accuser.
Instead of naming and showing the victims, journalists need a better strategy for covering all rapes, including the celebrity cases.
Related: Naming the Accuser: Discuss Your Verdict Now (Aug. 25, 2004)
