NY Times.... Getting worse and worse all the time

So, between Jason Blair and a few other high profile debacles lately, regulars of the backroom know I'm no big fan of the NY Times. In fact, I really believe people's support for it is because it's iconic stature as a left-leaning paper, not because of any quality, which apparently left sometime in the Clinton administration.

Well, just when i thought they couldn't sink any lower...

http://www.thedailybeast.com/cheat-s...d=cs:headline8

An 11 year old girl gets gang-raped by (count 'em) 18 guys in a small town in Texas. The NY Times position? 1) She was provocative 2) she asked for it 3) where were her parents.

Really... does anybody have a good word to say for the sanctimonious, felching bags of puss that are the NY Times editorial board anymore?

Or do you agree with them... when an 11 year old gets gang-raped by 18 guys, she clearly had it coming and... must have 'asked for it'.


Btw, I'm late to the DailyBeast crowd... me likey...

So people who can't read coupled with (other?) people who make statements that are so far out in cuckoo land means what exactly? Yeah sloppy writing I don't doubt. But if you actually read the article you posted it's all rather meh. 18 men gangraping an 11 year old girl and then some speaker going off on a typical “blame the victim/parents” spree to general applause, now that is something to get worked up about.

Except those that usually claim that women who dress like sluts and "ask" to be raped are far from leftists. If the NYT is an iconic liberal institution, then there is no liberalism in the US.

It wasn't the editorial board; just an article.

I don't know if that makes it better or worse.

Quote:

---

But if you actually read the article you posted it's all rather meh. 18 men gangraping an 11 year old girl and then some speaker going off on a typical “blame the victim/parents” spree to general applause, now that is something to get worked up about.

---

The crux here is what the writer chose to highlight - quotes stating the rape victim dressed provocatively and questioning her parents, and no quotes about the really disgusting nature of the crime and how anyone who did this needs to suffer.

CR

When people of the town appear to be of such a dubious nature, then it seems most appropriate to write about it. One question is to what extent a journalist should use his own morals to guide the story. It does though seem like they could have written their article differently, nonetheless. Compare with AP.

As I was celebrating UCONN's win over Syracuse & my wife's birthday (i.e. wine was consumed), perhaps I should have waited until this morning to post this story.

I understand that this was an article by a staff reporter, not the editorial board. But they did choose to run the story unedited.

And while I'll agree that the NY Times isn't the DailyKos, and at one time was a paper read widely in many circles, the only people I know that read it today read it because they relish the left-leaning editorial content, in spite of (or perhaps because of) the journalistic integrity slips they consistently find themselves in.

OH COME ON!

You haven't taken your anti-outrage prescriptions like you should lately, DonC?

http://www.nytimes.com/2011/03/09/us...ault.html?_r=1

This is the article in question. Two of the paragraphs there are the basis of your outrage. What do they say? First, it's a description of the girl's habits. The second is a quote from a resident who disapproves of the behaviour of the mother.

How you managed to turn a rather standard article into your OP is quite frankly beyond me.

You're seriously okay with a nationally syndicated newspaper writing an article about an 11 year old rape victim that focuses on the girl's behavior and on the parenting skills? Even their public editor, the guy named Brisbane, agrees they were out of line.

Yet surprise, surprise, you're here defending them. Shocked, shocked I tell you....

No, I would absolutely not defend an article that focused on her behaviour and her parents.

But I am defending an article that doesn't focus on her bevahiour and her parents.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The NY Times position? 1) She was provocative 2) she asked for it 3) where were her parents.

---

Having read the article, it seems that the author never took such a position, but simply reported that this is what the locals were saying.

Anyway, I think people take it for granted that rape is bad, do you want the reporter to tell give the reactions of locals, or just go on a rant?

It is that phenomenon which only really occurs in America named "Republican Kneejerk Syndrome". What typically happens is that some one from the 'right' persuasion (extreme right, in Europe) visits some random news source which has the credibility of a Meerkat giving car insurance advice then gets all flippant and knee-jerk at some random article (usually attacking the 'left' in some way).

When you finally find out the source of the article it is generally completely different from what the knee-jerk reaction is all about, and incredibly underwhelming experience for some one not caught up in the phenomenon.



Note: It doesn't apply to everyone of 'right persuasion' (for example, see Rhyfelwyr above), but if is usually some one of that caliber as they get that political information from Glenn Beck and friends who capitalize on "Republican Kneejerk Syndrome".

Well I guess you can only lead a horse to water.

Compare the NYT article to the AP article. The NYT has no quotes condemning the attack, no quotes from the child's mother.

Apparently people expected something like a ranting blog post and anything else was underwhelming.

Let's take a moment and remember this isn't the internet we're talking about here but actual, physical newspapers. Reporters don't express bias one way or another by resorting to the insane rhetoric often found on the internet but what what they include and don't include. As the NYT public editor himself wrote:

Quote:

---

While the story appeared to focus on the community’s reaction to the crime, it was not enough to simply report that the community is principally concerned about the boys and men involved – as this story seems to do. If indeed that is the only sentiment to be found in this community – and I find that very hard to believe – it becomes important to report on that as well by seeking out voices of professional authorities or dissenting community members who will at least address, and not ignore, the plight of the young girl involved.

---

Focusing on the fact that the story appears professionally written and doesn't include fiery language from some internet flame-fest ignores what the article is saying; like excusing offensive words because they are politely spoken.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But I am defending an article that doesn't focus on her bevahiour and her parents.

---

The NYT disagrees with you:

Quote:

---

My assessment is that the outrage is understandable. The story dealt with a hideous crime but addressed concerns about the ruined lives of the perpetrators without acknowledging the obvious: concern for the victim.
...
These elements, creating an impression of concern for the perpetrators and an impression of a provocative victim, led many readers to interpret the subtext of the story to be: she had it coming.

---

But don't let that stop you from defending the story even the NYT won't.

CR

The NYT caves in to the outrage machine.

That is the real story here, time and time again we see respectable institutions cave in to attacks from the deranged and ignorant who will twist facts and statements to suit their demented world-view. When will that stop? When will intellectuals stop their self-flaggration and stand up for their beliefs?

While I very well may deserve the epithets of "deranged" and "ignorant" as you put it, or a "meerkat giving car insurance advice", as Beskar did.... I want you both to remember, I didn't pull this out of DrudgeReport or National Review Online. This came from the DailyBeast, which seemed to think it an important enough topic to make it #9 of their top 10 stories of the week (no small feat, given the civil war in Libya, the price of oil, the earthquake in Japan....)

There's a certain misogyny in the backroom that I find disconcerting at times.

That was a general observation based on society at large, not directed at you, Don C.

And why do you base this on any website? Why don't you read the actual article and make up your own opinion? That's what I did, and that's why I'm labeling this dailybeast-website an outrage machine.

Edit: excuse my english for a while, but... According to wikipedia, "misogyny" means "hatred of women".. Are you trying to say that we(me and beskar?) hate women....? If so, WHAT THE HELL?!

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

While I very well may deserve the epithets of "deranged" and "ignorant" as you put it, or a "meerkat giving car insurance advice", as Beskar did.... I want you both to remember, I didn't pull this out of DrudgeReport or National Review Online. This came from the DailyBeast, which seemed to think it an important enough topic to make it #9 of their top 10 stories of the week (no small feat, given the civil war in Libya, the price of oil, the earthquake in Japan....)

There's a certain misogyny in the backroom that I find disconcerting at times.

---

Actually, my comment was more of a joke, which probably as a American, you wouldn't get the reference to. (as it is part of an advertising campaign over here)
http://comparethemeerkat.com/

Anyway, it wasn't directed at you, but at the website (Daily Beast). Only thing relating to you is that I categorized some of your postings as being affected by "Republican Kneejerk Syndrome".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Rhyfelwyr

Anyway, I think people take it for granted that rape is bad, do you want the reporter to tell give the reactions of locals, or just go on a rant?

---

I would expect the reporter to stick to the known facts of the case, and save the positioning statements for the reverend visiting from Houston they mentioned. Had he found he lacked the ability to offer conjecture of the defendants in the case, the least he could have done would have been to have offered opinions from both sides.

The way I read that article? 4 paragraphs describing the facts released on the case. In paragraph 5, a quick plea for sympathy for the defendants from somebody who knew them from their neighborhood. Paragraphs 6-11 return to a discussion of the facts. Then in paragraph 12, the author relays that the neighborhood found the girl to be dressed inappropriately and raised that "she hung around the neighborhood". In paragraph 13, the author relays the claim that the mother was responsible for not supervising the daughter.

The author then moves to conclusion, having only presented the opinions of one side involved in the dispute.

If you're an "impartial journalist", and you decide to relay one sides' spin, don't you think it's incumbent to relay it for all sides?

Or is it okay to pass along that the girl dressed like she was in her twenties, "hung around the neighborhood", had absentee parents?

Not even a word from the victim's family?

NOTE: The quotes around "hung around the neighborhood" are meant as air-quotes, not a direct quote from the story.

Do you believe that the reported sympathized with the rapists over the raped girl?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

That was a general observation based on society at large, not directed at you, Don C.

And why do you base this on any website? Why don't you read the actual article and make up your own opinion? That's what I did, and that's why I'm labeling this dailybeast-website an outrage machine.

Edit: excuse my english for a while, but... According to wikipedia, "misogyny" means "hatred of women".. Are you trying to say that we(me and beskar?) hate women....? If so, WHAT THE HELL?!

---

I did read the article, please see my analysis in response to Rhyf.

As for the 'misogyny' statement, I used the term in the common parlance of "disrespectful to women and women's issues", not necessarily hateful. And I did not mean it as an indictment of you or Beskar as misogynistic people. But I find the defense tactic of blaming victims for sexual violence deplorable. I also find defense of the tactic, the discussion itself, not those making the defense, to be quite distasteful.

I do have an axe to grind with the NY Times, and this particular thread is probably the 8th or 9th I've started over the past few years on why I find the editorial content to be so poor. This is not because of their editorial stance, as I actually read Slate & the Washington Post quite regularly. I just find the NY Times to be sloppy, undisciplined and hyper-partisan. Now while I'll grant you the Daily Mail is an equally poor news outlet, as I believe most intelligent people of any political persuasion would agree.... I find the staunch defense of the NY Times to come not from the quality of the paper, but because its defenders appreciate it's editorial stance.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Do you believe that the reported sympathized with the rapists over the raped girl?

---

I absolutely do. The reporter heard that there was a racial element to the story (hispanic girl, african-american defendents) and decided he'd give the defense's case some plugs. It was this undercurrent to the story that got my blood up.

Well, then your outrage is suddenly far, far more understandable. I don't have any issues with the article itself, but if the reporter holds such a view, I do have a problem with him, and I hope that he gets fired as well as tarred and feathered.

But honestly... I would've thought I had made my feminist position quite clear on this board numerous times. I never blame rape in any fashion on women. I am crystal clear that there is no such thing as "responsibility" for being raped. I don't know how to make myself any clearer on that...

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

As for the 'misogyny' statement, I used the term in the common parlance of "disrespectful to women and women's issues", not necessarily hateful. And I did not mean it as an indictment of you or Beskar as misogynistic people. But I find the defense tactic of blaming victims for sexual violence deplorable.

---

It is deplorable. A eleven year old girl cannot be blamed at all for anything 'sexual', because the adults in the situation have all the power. I never read in the article that the reporter was stating as such, thus I failed to see what the fuss was about, and put it down to more of a kneejerk reaction by taking something completely out of context.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

But honestly... I would've thought I had made my feminist position quite clear on this board numerous times. I never blame rape in any fashion on women.

---

What if it is the woman doing the rape?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Don Corleone

The author then moves to conclusion, having only presented the opinions of one side involved in the dispute.

---

I guess I just wouldn't see the issue as a dispute. It's a horrible crime. The gang-rape of an 11-year-old girl is so awful that I can't imagine it needing to be more than taken for granted. As such, the story didn't seem at all biased to me, but maybe I'm just untrained at perceiving malicious undercurrents in news reporting.

Ajax

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

What if it is the woman doing the rape?

---

Duh.....

There was a case in the UK where a footballer was accused of rape. The woman freely admits going back to his hotel room, having a drink, getting naked and gyrating on his lap (I think he was almost undressed too)... and states she didn't want to go any further than that.

Unsurprisingly the case was thrown out.

In my opinion "no means no" has to be said a long time before this point.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

Duh.....

---

Duh what? You clearly said "I never blame rape in any fashion on women.".

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Greyblades

Duh what? You clearly said "I never blame rape in any fashion on women.".

---

I thought it obvious that I was referring to cases where the woman was the victim.

I read the NY Times article the day it came out and it left a bad taste in my mouth for the reasons the NY Times editor later said. The journalist messed up, no doubt. But I am not convinced the politics of the paper have any bearing on that mistake and if the editors failed to prevent the mess, they have at least responded appropriately. However what disturbed me most about the article was not the reporting but the possibility that the community was blaming the victim/parent. If so that was pretty sick and helped understand how such a terrible thing could happen. The politics of the newspaper and the races of the protaganists are not the things to get riled up about here.

Hmmm....I thought the article was somewhat unfortunate.


I blame 'report what you've got, not what you don't'. A syndrome that easily affects inexperienced or poor reporters. The reporter did not (get to) speak to the girl or her custodians. So he focused on what he did get. Which is the story of the locals, the account of himself visiting the trailer, etc. Some relatives of the perpetrators tell him that the girl lived in ill-disciplined circumstances. So the reporter dutifully sets about to gather imagery, quotes, evidence, of the girl's ill-discipline. It is the method of Dan Brown / Conspiracy theories / Discovery Channel. Take an assumptuion, then set about trying to find clues that confirm it. The more of these you can gather, the more the premise must be true. Whereas one ought to critically asses the premise by trying to find reasons why something isn't true, not solely why it is.

I also think the reporter lost track of the difference between establishing the opinion of the people involved, to represent that from a distant, descriptive perspective, with presenting the opinion of persons involved from their perspective. The latter is not without use, but can easily go astray, as perhaps happened here.


Still, the subtext of the article to me reads 'outrageous crime, little girl gang raped, how did we get to where this not only happens, but is considered normal. What makes this community tick.'

There are eightteen men involved. Most shocking to me, something I'll never get used to, is that these perpetrators did not seek to hide their crime, what's more, they taped it and proudly showed it around. Many more people than the perpetrators have seen the video, are aware of what happened. Dozens of people have watched a video of an eleven year old girl being gang raped and thought this was normal, thought this was cool.

That is the story I think the reporter sat about trying to uncover. 'Who are these people, why do they think all of this is more or less normal'.

Sadly the final product is a bit sloppy, to the point where it is not readily distinguishable from a mysogonist piece. It reads like a story directly out of Paris east, or a Catholic boarding school a Pakistani mountain village, where a massive abuse case is foremost considered in terms of the possible detrimental effect on the small, inward-looking society. I do not think the article is meant as such. But then, I am not sure how much that is me assuming the article is not meant as such, based on me assuming that the reporter assumes that the reader shares his opinion that a gang rape of an eleleven year old is wrong, and that he therefore omits dwelling on the obvious in what is a very short piece. But that is a whole lot of assumptions.



Also, the brothas are not guilty!! http://www.chron.com/video/?822833886001

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

I read the NY Times article the day it came out and it left a bad taste in my mouth for the reasons the NY Times editor later said. The journalist messed up, no doubt. But I am not convinced the politics of the paper have any bearing on that mistake and if the editors failed to prevent the mess, they have at least responded appropriately. However what disturbed me most about the article was not the reporting but the possibility that the community was blaming the victim/parent. If so that was pretty sick and helped understand how such a terrible thing could happen. The politics of the newspaper and the races of the protaganists are not the things to get riled up about here.

---

You're back! :jumping:

When I read the NYT article, those sections definitely jumped out at me. I read it, furrowed my brown, and read it again... did they just say that? Very odd reporting indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by econ21

However what disturbed me most about the article was not the reporting but the possibility that the community was blaming the victim/parent. If so that was pretty sick and helped understand how such a terrible thing could happen.

---

I thought that part was unsettling as well. The question, that the reporter didn't answer, is how prevalent is that view? You can always find some creep who would sympathize with a rapist- but they're usually the outlier. If that's a mainstream view in town, it's very disturbing indeed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

how prevalent is that view? You can always find some creep who would sympathize with a rapist- but they're usually the outlier. If that's a mainstream view in town, it's very disturbing indeed.

---

Still quite prevalent. Women can forfeit their physical self-determination:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

There was a case in the UK where a footballer was accused of rape. The woman freely admits going back to his hotel room, having a drink, getting naked and gyrating on his lap (I think he was almost undressed too)... and states she didn't want to go any further than that.

Unsurprisingly the case was thrown out.

In my opinion "no means no" has to be said a long time before this point.

~:smoking:

---

This is wrong, Rory. No means no. There is no point where a woman has become the slave of a man, for him to use however he desires, just for wearing a short skirt, or for being flirtatious, or for making out a bit. No always means no.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

This is wrong, Rory. No means no. There is no point where a woman has become the slave of a man, for him to use however he desires, just for wearing a short skirt, or for being flirtatious, or for making out a bit. No always means no.

---

My example clearly was not merely wearing a skirt, or being flirtatious or making out a bit. I chose an extreme example, which you quoted and then appear to completely ignore. It was both the fact she was naked and the setting. After all, in the main women don't get raped on stage in strip clubs as again the situation is clearly defined. Is the line up until foreplay? Oral sex? The point of penetration - lie on the bed naked with legs splayed and then change one's mind? Or even during to decide it's not a great idea. Or better yet, would it be better to get the whole thing signed and dated beforehand to avoid misunderstandings?

You appear to wish for men to become the slave of women, to be required to turn their libido off at a moment's notice lest the woman suddenly changes her mind at any point.

Do I go around like a sexual predator getting close to the line of raping people? No.

Most sensible gun users lock their guns up. Why? Guns are for over 18s only, and should only be used by trained people. There is no reason why having them unlocked should in itself be a danger. But taking a sensible precaution helps everyone.

Am I saying that women can't look attractive and should all be covered head to toe in sack cloth just to be on the safe side? No, I merely think that being realistic is a good idea: in a world where messages can get mixed - especially between strangers and alcohol why not place responsibility on both parties to act in a sensible manner, rather than state that one party can do anything to tempt the other and the other is supposed to not react.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Xiahou

I thought that part was unsettling as well. The question, that the reporter didn't answer, is how prevalent is that view? You can always find some creep who would sympathize with a rapist- but they're usually the outlier. If that's a mainstream view in town, it's very disturbing indeed.

---

Probably the biggest failure of the reporter (assuming he wrote poorly and not intentially mysogonic), as with the number and age of the people involved, there will always be parents that are in complete denial about their "darlings".
But Louis have a very disturbing point about their numbers and thier behavoir when it comes how acceptable this was considered.

My personal opinion about the article is simular to Louis as well, it depends on if you see group rape as an inexcusable crime, no matter what. Then simply mentioning the crime is enough to show your own opinion. But it's poorly written in any case.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

Is the line up until foreplay? Oral sex? The point of penetration

---

I'm saying that there is no line whatsoever. At no point does a woman's right to self-determination become subordinate to a man's libido. Mind, for example, that one can rape a woman after she had voluntary sex. One can rape a woman in a marriage.

There simply is no point whatsoever where one becomes entitled to do as one pleases with a woman. There is no point where a woman forfeits her right to physical integrity. That attitude belongs to the animals portrayed in this case. A man of twentyseven, who thinks he is entitled to rape an eleven year old girl because 'she wears adult make-up and she allowed the other seventeen men to have a go. Surely the ***** has no right to be so arrogant as to deny me what she allows those others? Am I not good enough for you? Spread 'em ******, too late to backtrack now.'

Yes, and I have never said that in any way I am defending gang raping an 11 year old regardless of the situation. I agree with your description that the individuals in this case are animals and I would personally execute them without a shred of remorse.

But a 20 year old woman who decides whilst drunk to have sex with 20 drunken blokes and then has second thoughts after 18... no, the other two shouldn't have a go, but it might have been better not to even start the process in the first place.

I disagree that there are no actions that a woman can undertake that do not cause her to share some degree of culpability, any more than driving a car at night with no lights on will mean that the driver of the car is partly culpable if hit by another car - even if following all the other rules of the road.

But then I am a pragmatist and I would take the position that when a woman (or a man) enters a situation where a conviction is unlikely due to the ambiguous situation if events proceed - then don't enter the situation: if being eyed up is the end of the world, avoid certain clothes - sorry I will look at attractive women who display their secondary sexual characteristics; if being groped is the end of the world, best avoid clubs and dance floors as it might happen either intentionally or unintentionally; if you don't want to have sex with someone better not go to a room a deux - it might be your "right" to be able to do so, but best not. I'd not go to a gay club wearing tight leather and get plastered as I don't want that sort of attention from other men (I might be flattering myself a tad here...) I'd not walk through Brixton using an expensive phone, with a gold Rolex on my wrist and my wallet on show. Yes, it is "my right" not to get mugged, but my actions are massively increasing the likelihood of it happening.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by HoreTore

I thought it obvious that I was referring to cases where the woman was the victim.

---

:blinks:

Quote:

---

But honestly... I would've thought I had made my feminist position quite clear on this board numerous times. I never blame rape in any fashion on women. I am crystal clear that there is no such thing as "responsibility" for being raped. I don't know how to make myself any clearer on that...

---

Sorry the mention of a feminist position followed by the never blame rape on women seemed to give me a wrong impression, I apologise.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Louis VI the Fat

I blame 'report what you've got, not what you don't'. A syndrome that easily affects inexperienced or poor reporters. The reporter did not (get to) speak to the girl or her custodians. So he focused on what he did get. Which is the story of the locals, the account of himself visiting the trailer, etc. Some relatives of the perpetrators tell him that the girl lived in ill-disciplined circumstances. So the reporter dutifully sets about to gather imagery, quotes, evidence, of the girl's ill-discipline. It is the method of Dan Brown / Conspiracy theories / Discovery Channel. Take an assumptuion, then set about trying to find clues that confirm it. The more of these you can gather, the more the premise must be true. Whereas one ought to critically asses the premise by trying to find reasons why something isn't true, not solely why it is.

I also think the reporter lost track of the difference between establishing the opinion of the people involved, to represent that from a distant, descriptive perspective, with presenting the opinion of persons involved from their perspective. The latter is not without use, but can easily go astray, as perhaps happened here.

Also, the brothas are not guilty!! http://www.chron.com/video/?822833886001

---

That's pretty much it. I'm a (newbie) journalist and reporter, and yes, I'm fairly sure that's what happened. The reporter couldn't get in touch with anyone from the girl's family. The police probably refused to give him more informations that what he already knew.

Despite that, he had to do his job nonetheless. One of the main rule of journalism, as silly as it may be, is that you have to include quotes in your papers.
I've had to do the same in my - so far, pretty short - career. Though I'm glad it never happened for such a gruesome case. You want to give both side a chance to voice their opinion, but one of them doesn't want to or can't. So he looked for quotes, and that's all he got.
The reporter failed when he didn't put a quote blaming the boys and supporting the victim. That was the very least he could do after the whole crap about how she dresses and uses make up.


As for the video, it's digusting. All these people should be jailed.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Meneldil

That's pretty much it. I'm a (newbie) journalist and reporter, and yes, I'm fairly sure that's what happened.

---

The reporter has been writing for the NYT since 1989.

With that sort of experience there's no excuse for presenting such a one sided story - at least no excuse so benign as incompetence.

CR

Agreed, there's no excuse. But if he's working for a newspaper, he likely has to stick to a tight deadline, especially for such a piece of news. If he didn't have the supporting quotes and was asked to finish his paper, then he had to finish his paper. If what Louis and I suspect is true, he simply shouldn't have used any quote at all, rather than only this "she deserved it" bullshit.

And then, if he did it on purpose as some people here seem to imply, then he just plain sucks and deserves to lose his job.

Everyone, everyone has the right to not be raped. I don't care what they're wearing, where they go, or what they do. It is never someone's responsibility to not get raped. It's the would-be rapists responsibility not to rape someone.

I don't feel like the NYT article was even remotely balanced. It didn't purport to be, but I expect something better than this dreck from the NYT. I take issue with a lot of its phrasing. "The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?"

Drawn into such an act? This makes it sound like they weren't responsible for their actions. "Sorry officer, it's not my fault I raped an 11 year old girl, I was drawn into it!"

The selection of quotes/opinions from the town were chosen very poorly.

The fact that this woman's quote was published is sickening (emphasis mine)
"'It’s just destroyed our community,' said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. 'These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.'”

What about the 11 year old girl, who will have to live with being gang raped by 18 people for the rest of her life? She'll just get over it, I guess.

From the same woman, "“Where was her mother? What was her mother thinking?” said Ms. Harrison, one of a handful of neighbors who would speak on the record."

This takes more responsibility away from the rapists. It's the victim's mom's fault now. Maybe the mom wasn't watchful enough, or didn't warn her daughter not to go to dangerous places in the neighborhood. But, she is not responsible for the rapes. The rapists are.

"Residents in the neighborhood where the abandoned trailer stands — known as the Quarters — said the victim had been visiting various friends there for months. They said she dressed older than her age, wearing makeup and fashions more appropriate to a woman in her 20s. She would hang out with teenage boys at a playground, some said."

This doesn't out rightly state that the neighborhood people thought the victim deserved it or had it coming, but it definitely reads that way.

The fact that this is not the first article like this I've read makes me sad. I remember a few years ago when a 15 yr old was gang raped near her school and it was videoed, there were people just like Ms. Harrison above who attacked the character of the victim.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Scienter

The selection of quotes/opinions from the town were chosen very poorly.

---

But is that necessarily the case?

Does one need to read an elaborate essay why raping eleven year olds is wrong? Is it not more interesting, more to the point, to read an article that describes to the reader, that explains to the reader, why people would commit this crime. Why eightteen men, as mature as twentyseven, would not only do it, but think nothing of it. What's more, be proud of it, as witness their showing the video around.

What is clear is that article focuses on explaining the mindset, the kind of community, where all of this can happen. The reporter, either by necessity or by intent set about to describe this.

Problematic to me is, did he do so because he thinks this is the most astute angle to the event, the 'real' story to which all else is collateral detail? Or for more practical reasons? That is, does he report from an internal or external perspective? This is not clear, rests on too many assumptions and things I don't know.
For example, perhaps the newspaper has already ran another story reporting the rape from a more neutral perspective, and followed up on this with this story, which describes what made these people tick. Maybe Don is right, and this is about a Black activist. I don't know. Maybe the reporter assumes that between the reader and reporter the obvious can be left unsaid, namely that this is a heinous crime. One does not need to write a lenghty essay in each report of a rape explaining why rape is bad, when the readership is expected to agree to that.

One must not conflate the thoughts of the reporter with those of whom he quotes, and whose point of view he tries to unravel and portray. As for myself, I can not make up from this - rather short - single article what the intention of the reporter is. I can read it both ways: as a paleo-misogynist article, or as a portrayal of a local community, of a mindset where these crimes can happen.

~~o~~o~~<<oOo>>~~o~~o~~

While the reporter may be merely reporting pityful mindset, there is no excuse for the mindset itself. Shame on the people quoted!
But not unlimited shame. For example, sadly, one really can be drawn into partaking in a gang rape. A sixteen year old guy, not particularly bright, his friends egging him on. Maybe doesn'ty want to, maybe he is even sexually embarrassed. He doesn't want to be taped by those cell phones. And besides, what if his girlfriend sees the video and thinks he is cheating on her? But he doesn't want to lose the respect of his peer group. He'll join in. He is not enjoying it, but he'll play along, for a minute or so.
Sadly, it is possible he was drawn into it. There are a whole lot of weakminded, slightly thick, easily persuaded people.

Even the bit about the girl dressing older than she is, her seeking out these guys, is not completely trying to excuse the inexcusable. Mind, lest I be accused of what the reporter is accused of, that I not in the least bit condone this behaviour. But bear in mind today's teenagers. Especially, depending I guess on where you are, (Western?) teenagers of African descent. Ever seen a music video lately? They are about gangstas raping their ****** in every hole. Young girls want to do that stuff, they want to be that ****. Guys who seek out danger commit crimes, get a gun, act violently. Girls seeking thrills do so sexualy, from college girls giving a lesbian act at a college party, to deprived young girls gang banging the local gangs. What is voluntary and what not, is in much dispute. We all know just about every woman at some point is forced / pushed / pressured into things she doesn't want to do, or will feel bad about afterwards. But the line voluntary - involuntary is written by threat and pressure as well as social expectations, other girls, risk and thrill seeking, power games.

If there is / are communities where this behaviour is allowed the contents of said neighbourhood needs to be urgently culled. To cure an abscess, first of all it needs to be drained.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

If there is / are communities where this behaviour is allowed the contents of said neighbourhood needs to be urgently culled.

---

Tell Meneldil about it....

Quote:

---

Samira Bellil (November 24, 1972 - September 7, 2004) was a French feminist activist and a campaigner for the rights of girls and women.

Bellil became famous in France with the publication of her autobiographical book Dans l'enfer des tournantes ('In the hell of the "tournantes" (gang-rapes)) in 2002. The book discusses the violence she and other young women endured in the predominantly Muslim immigrant outskirts of Paris, where she was repeatedly gang-raped as a teenager by gangs led by people she knew, and then abandoned by her family and friends. Her book is a portrayal of the predicament of young girls in the poor, outlying suburbs (banlieue) of French cities.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Samira_Bellil

---

And these guys go to the same schools as your daughters, with them being the dominant majority. Welcome to 2011.

I would pay a high proportion of my income to ensure my daughter didn't come within a few hundred metres of those individuals either at school or afterwards. Sorry, I would not ask my children to associate with them to help normalise these persons into mainstream society. Until the parents have a family that they can supervise (i.e. 3 children max) then I don't see things going well. Then until the police and schools have a positive relationship with the locals who discipline their children it isn't going to work.

I'll do my bit with mine and accept a haircut on my salary which supposedly sorts out the rest.

~:smoking:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by rory_20_uk

I'll do my bit with mine and accept a haircut on my salary which supposedly sorts out the rest.

---

Tsh, if I can have a comfortable lifestyle on an income which is less than your taxes (with my own tax reduction), then you giving that line is a load of tripe. :tongue: