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

[Louis VI the Fat]

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!

[Xiahou]

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.

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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:

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.

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Ironside]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.'

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Greyblades]

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

:blinks:

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.

[Meneldil]

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.

[Crazed Rabbit]

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

[Meneldil]

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.

[Scienter]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Louis VI the Fat]

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

Tell Meneldil about it....

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.

[rory_20_uk]

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.

[Beskar]

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.