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

[Don Corleone]

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...

[Tellos Athenaios]

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.

[a completely inoffensive name]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

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

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

[Viking]

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.

[Don Corleone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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.

[Rhyfelwyr]

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?

[Beskar]

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".

[Crazed Rabbit]

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:

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.

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

The NYT disagrees with you:

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

[HoreTore]

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?

[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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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

[Don Corleone]

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.

[HoreTore]

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...

[ajaxfetish]

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