Interesting Additions to my Previous Entry
First of all, this in no way changes any of my previous entry about the way the article was framed, especially in regards to the victim-blaming that I still feel was very prevalent in the NY Times article. However, more information has come to light making the reporting more complex, as there are several more issues at play.
BUT LET'S BE CLEAR. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT GIRL WAS NOT HER FAULT. QUOTES ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING, WHERE HER MOTHER WAS, AND TREATING HER LIKE AN OBJECT IN THE ARTICLE AS A WHOLE IS UNJUST, UNPROFESSIONAL, AND JUST PLAIN MESSED UP.
But I can start to understand why there was such a focus on the community in the article. When shogunhb first told me the rapists were all were all black, we were puzzled over why we were surprised by this revelation. Looking back over the original articles, we realized that none of them had specified the race of the rapists, and we went with the 'white is default' assumption. The reason their race was so downplayed (besides the fact that it is incidental to the crime that took place, ie, the gang rape of an eleven year old girl) is because Cleveland, TX, is already a hotbed of racism and racial tension*:
"Even before the alleged** gang rape of an 11-year-old girl divided Cleveland, tensions were already simmering here. Accusations of racism had been flying over the looming recall election of three black City Council members. Those targeted for removal have expressed concerns that the election could be racially motivated, while their opponents accuse them of mismanagement and squandering tax dollars."
"...And national online forums for the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood are buzzing about the rape of the Hispanic girl, who recently turned 12. The sites show photos of those arrested next to pictures of an assault rifle."
"...On Thursday, a Houston Chronicle reporter saw a group of white men with shaved heads in the back of a pickup driving along a Cleveland street shouting, "Kill all the (expletive N-word)."
...Turmoil over the investigation, recall election, and racism allegations is making residents anxious."
Does it make sense, then, that people would legitimately be concerned about the effect this crime will have on the community? Absolutely. There are tensions on every side and plenty of people willing to make a horrible situation a hundred times worse. The family has been forced to leave their home and go elsewhere for their own safety, as there had been phone calls and the like with people demanding to speak to the victim. For a town this small, one already frothing with racial tensions, the act of 17 black men raping a young, Hispanic girl can have many far-reaching consequences for everyone.
HOWEVER, this does not actually negate my previous entry. I can understand why the race of both the victim and the rapists has been suppressed, no need to add fuel to the situation already perilously close to being out of control. I don't necessarily agree with that decision (I don't believe in the suppression of information) made for that reason (I do think that unless there is a proven racial component to the crime, listing the races of the individuals involved is unnecessary), but I can understand why the decision was made. However, by including the concerns for the community without explaining why they are concerned only further muddies the water. This all goes back to McKinley's lack of framing; a few words about "This incident further heightens tension in an already besieged town and locals worry that violence may ensue" or something along those lines would give a sense of something larger without explaining everything. Otherwise, it simply reads as people rating the well-being of a brutalized little girl below their property values or the town's good name or somesuch.
McKinley's crappy framing has a lot to answer for. As rgfgompei points out in her comment to my previous entry, there are several reasons that the first quote could mention being concerned about the effect this crime will have on the rapists, rather than the victim. She rightly points out that we have no idea of the context for this quote and why she, as a psychologist, is also interested in the effects will have, if for no other reason than she "...would like to live in a world where we pay attention to the psychology of transgressors and do something to make them unlikely to be transgressors again. If being a victimizer has an effect on our ability to do that, then I think it is important to look at the effects of being a victimizer." This, I feel, is a good point. But we have NO IDEA if this is what the quote in the article meant. Since it would be impossible to include the entirety of the conversation in the article, it is up to the journalist to explain to those of us not privy to the details just what the context was and why. Otherwise, it sounds a whole lot like a woman who sympathizes more with grown men who raped an eleven year old girl than she does the child-victim of this awful crime. Does she? Who knows? I sure don't. But lack of evidence to the contrary (which, if he had, McKinley REALLY ought to have provided), people are still going to be much more likely to draw the obvious conclusion and wonder why the hell McKinley would choose to put something like that in his already nigh-indefensible article.
As for the passages talking about what the girl looked like, how she dressed, questions of where her mother was, those I still can find no acceptable reason to include them. I highly doubt there is one. Granted, those were quotes from others and not McKinley's actual writing, but he still chose to include them, chose to ignore any contextual framing, chose to write about the incident's effect on a community instead of on the crime, reducing the victim to an object. These things all raise serious questions about McKinley's competence as a journalist; not only was his writing and reporting sloppy, he used an odd angle that only made sense when viewed in conjunction with other information he did not provide.
Color me utterly unimpressed.
____
*h/t to that_xmas for the article link
**The article's word and not mine. But I believe it does have a place in the article. Until the trial, both the rape and rapists are only "alleged." Does it suck that the girl has to hear/read a truly traumatic event spoken/written of in those terms? Yes, absolutely. At the same time, we're talking about a basic civil right: innocent until proven guilty. There's video footage. They're guilty as guilty can be. But by virtue of being human beings, they still deserve their fair trial. You can argue that what they did removed them from the human race, but that's NOT a line I'm ready to draw, because once you do, there are plenty of others who are willing to shift that definition. So alleged they are and alleged they will remain until their trial when the prosecution nails their ass to a fucking wall.
I don't have to be nice in my own private LJ. I can call them rapists and assholes and anything else I want. But at the same time, I understand and respect the article's use of "alleged" because, dammit, civil rights are important. For everyone. Even miserable rat-bastards who could do something like this.
BUT LET'S BE CLEAR. WHAT HAPPENED TO THAT GIRL WAS NOT HER FAULT. QUOTES ABOUT WHAT SHE WAS WEARING, WHERE HER MOTHER WAS, AND TREATING HER LIKE AN OBJECT IN THE ARTICLE AS A WHOLE IS UNJUST, UNPROFESSIONAL, AND JUST PLAIN MESSED UP.
But I can start to understand why there was such a focus on the community in the article. When shogunhb first told me the rapists were all were all black, we were puzzled over why we were surprised by this revelation. Looking back over the original articles, we realized that none of them had specified the race of the rapists, and we went with the 'white is default' assumption. The reason their race was so downplayed (besides the fact that it is incidental to the crime that took place, ie, the gang rape of an eleven year old girl) is because Cleveland, TX, is already a hotbed of racism and racial tension*:
"Even before the alleged** gang rape of an 11-year-old girl divided Cleveland, tensions were already simmering here. Accusations of racism had been flying over the looming recall election of three black City Council members. Those targeted for removal have expressed concerns that the election could be racially motivated, while their opponents accuse them of mismanagement and squandering tax dollars."
"...And national online forums for the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Brotherhood are buzzing about the rape of the Hispanic girl, who recently turned 12. The sites show photos of those arrested next to pictures of an assault rifle."
"...On Thursday, a Houston Chronicle reporter saw a group of white men with shaved heads in the back of a pickup driving along a Cleveland street shouting, "Kill all the (expletive N-word)."
...Turmoil over the investigation, recall election, and racism allegations is making residents anxious."
Does it make sense, then, that people would legitimately be concerned about the effect this crime will have on the community? Absolutely. There are tensions on every side and plenty of people willing to make a horrible situation a hundred times worse. The family has been forced to leave their home and go elsewhere for their own safety, as there had been phone calls and the like with people demanding to speak to the victim. For a town this small, one already frothing with racial tensions, the act of 17 black men raping a young, Hispanic girl can have many far-reaching consequences for everyone.
HOWEVER, this does not actually negate my previous entry. I can understand why the race of both the victim and the rapists has been suppressed, no need to add fuel to the situation already perilously close to being out of control. I don't necessarily agree with that decision (I don't believe in the suppression of information) made for that reason (I do think that unless there is a proven racial component to the crime, listing the races of the individuals involved is unnecessary), but I can understand why the decision was made. However, by including the concerns for the community without explaining why they are concerned only further muddies the water. This all goes back to McKinley's lack of framing; a few words about "This incident further heightens tension in an already besieged town and locals worry that violence may ensue" or something along those lines would give a sense of something larger without explaining everything. Otherwise, it simply reads as people rating the well-being of a brutalized little girl below their property values or the town's good name or somesuch.
McKinley's crappy framing has a lot to answer for. As rgfgompei points out in her comment to my previous entry, there are several reasons that the first quote could mention being concerned about the effect this crime will have on the rapists, rather than the victim. She rightly points out that we have no idea of the context for this quote and why she, as a psychologist, is also interested in the effects will have, if for no other reason than she "...would like to live in a world where we pay attention to the psychology of transgressors and do something to make them unlikely to be transgressors again. If being a victimizer has an effect on our ability to do that, then I think it is important to look at the effects of being a victimizer." This, I feel, is a good point. But we have NO IDEA if this is what the quote in the article meant. Since it would be impossible to include the entirety of the conversation in the article, it is up to the journalist to explain to those of us not privy to the details just what the context was and why. Otherwise, it sounds a whole lot like a woman who sympathizes more with grown men who raped an eleven year old girl than she does the child-victim of this awful crime. Does she? Who knows? I sure don't. But lack of evidence to the contrary (which, if he had, McKinley REALLY ought to have provided), people are still going to be much more likely to draw the obvious conclusion and wonder why the hell McKinley would choose to put something like that in his already nigh-indefensible article.
As for the passages talking about what the girl looked like, how she dressed, questions of where her mother was, those I still can find no acceptable reason to include them. I highly doubt there is one. Granted, those were quotes from others and not McKinley's actual writing, but he still chose to include them, chose to ignore any contextual framing, chose to write about the incident's effect on a community instead of on the crime, reducing the victim to an object. These things all raise serious questions about McKinley's competence as a journalist; not only was his writing and reporting sloppy, he used an odd angle that only made sense when viewed in conjunction with other information he did not provide.
Color me utterly unimpressed.
____
*h/t to that_xmas for the article link
**The article's word and not mine. But I believe it does have a place in the article. Until the trial, both the rape and rapists are only "alleged." Does it suck that the girl has to hear/read a truly traumatic event spoken/written of in those terms? Yes, absolutely. At the same time, we're talking about a basic civil right: innocent until proven guilty. There's video footage. They're guilty as guilty can be. But by virtue of being human beings, they still deserve their fair trial. You can argue that what they did removed them from the human race, but that's NOT a line I'm ready to draw, because once you do, there are plenty of others who are willing to shift that definition. So alleged they are and alleged they will remain until their trial when the prosecution nails their ass to a fucking wall.
I don't have to be nice in my own private LJ. I can call them rapists and assholes and anything else I want. But at the same time, I understand and respect the article's use of "alleged" because, dammit, civil rights are important. For everyone. Even miserable rat-bastards who could do something like this.