Although countless people on Twitter, Facebook, in blogs and articles, and more than 27,000 people on Change.org have declared their outrage over the way in which the New York Times reported on the gang rape of an eleven-year-old girl in Texas, the Times‘s response so far has been mostly silence. Except for a single, completely unsatisfactory reply to The Cutline.
The Cutline pointed out that the only acknowledgment of this issue by the Times was their publishing, of all that they must have received by now, a single letter to the editor. Responding to The Cutline’s request for comment, spokesperson for the Times Danielle Rhoades Ha only dug the Times in deeper:
Neighbors’ comments about the girl, which we reported in the story, seemed to reflect concern about what they saw as a lack of supervision that may have left her at risk. As for residents’ references to the accused having to ‘live with this for the rest of their lives,’ those are views we found in our reporting. They are not our reporter’s reactions, but the reactions of disbelief by townspeople over the news of a mass assault on a defenseless 11-year-old.
“Rhoades Ha also stressed that the paper stands by the controversial piece,” added The Cutline. In Ha’s words:
We are very aware of and sensitive to the concerns that arise in reporting about sexual assault. This story is still developing and there is much to be learned about how something so horrific could have occurred.
Much to be learned, indeed. What Rhoades Ha and the New York Times fail to understand is that the backlash is not about readers misinterpreting these quotes as belonging to the reporter, James C. McKinley Jr. It is about everything else. It is about the quotes they chose, and the quotes they left out, the angle that the piece takes from the title straight to the finish—that the child and her mother have, in their lax behavior, brought terrible consequences down on this little girl and her entire town. It is about our culture of victim-blaming—in Cleveland, TX, across America, and around the world—on which the article, the reporter and the editors seem to have no perspective at all. Was there consideration to balance the story by selecting quotes from other people? Or—if the entire town is lost to a victim-blaming mentality as McKinley’s reporting suggests—did they consider finding an expert to comment on such a situation? Did they consider taking an objective and serious point of view on the nature of the quotes they chose to print? Are they “very aware and sensitive” to how, by failing to balance this reporting, the article tacitly endorses a hostile and rape-sympathetic mentality toward women? Toward prepubescent girls? If so, they had better start talking.
Let’s be clear: what the Times has done here pales in comparison to the actions of the boys and men who committed this crime. But as a newspaper with worldwide readership in the millions, the Times, in the careless way it has brought this story to the world, has amplified and participated unchecked in a dangerous culture that indoctrinates people of all genders to the idea that holding a rape victim responsible for the crime committed against her–especially an 11-year-old child–is ever acceptable. It is just such a culture—our American culture—in which the men and boys who have committed such a hideous crime can somehow justify it in the first place.
For more about how the New York Times could have handled it better, read this by Mac McClelland and this by Libby Copeland. Then read Roxane Gay’s piece on “The Careless Language of Sexual Violence.” And then tell the Times what you think with your own letter to the editor or op-ed.
***
Update: The New York Times public editor has issued a better response.
12 responses
Wow. Thanks for bringing attention to this, Julie.
Amen, Julie. Great summary and response.
You say: “It is about everything else. It is about the quotes they chose, and the quotes they left out, the angle that the piece takes from the title straight to the finish–that the child and her mother have, in their lax behavior, brought terrible consequences down on this little girl and her entire town.”
What quotes did they leave out? Do you know what was said that they didn’t put in the story? If this is what people in the town were saying, then that’s what the paper should report. The news pages are for reporting, not for commentary: that belongs in editorial sections.
The article says: “The attack’s details remained unclear. The police have declined to discuss their inquiry because it is continuing. The whereabouts of the victim and her mother were not made public.”
How far would you want reporters to go in finding them and interviewing them?
Yes, Julie. Well said. Thank you.
That’s what’s up.
Thanks for bringing this to light, Julie. Well written, as always.
@Urttakkadigakku I, too, wonder what quotes were left out, or never obtained, or what questions weren’t asked, or what sources weren’t pursued. Like I said, I think if McKinley and Guerrero were truly unable to find people, anyone, who could speak sympathetically–or even objectively–about what happened to the child victim in this crime, they should have given careful consideration to how they would otherwise balance this reporting to fairly represent the victim. How far would I want them to go? I don’t know–for a kid who’s just been gang raped by 18, possibly more, guys? Go far. Very, very far.
@Urttakkadigakku: Reporters and editors bring their perspectives to bear in the news they provide, and it is these frightening perspectives that have been revealed and are being questioned in the debates around the Times article. No journalist is ever the neutral conduit for neutral information. This is the most basic fact for any reader of any news.
Here’s a thought: if the bulk of the town wouldn’t talk on the record and only the girl’s/mother’s critics spoke up, or the majority of townspeople seem far more preoccupied with the fate of the rapist boys/men than with the girl’s plight, that really says something terrible about the town AND IT’S PART OF THE STORY and should have been noted in the published report.
Just from the two quotes that were published, I get the distinct impression that the town has its priorities wrong … but then, the sons of many town fathers appear to be involved, so there may be considerable bias or favoritism there on the rapists’ side. And that, too, is part of the story and should have been highlighted in the report. I certainly would have made it a major part of the story, being a journalist myself — but then, I’m a woman and the town would probably see bias there in the mere fact of my gender. So who’s 100-percent pure and unbiased about this? Nobody — including the readers — but we reporters and editors can and should still do our damndest to try to stay objective. And BTW, objective **doesn’t** mean even handed: to get at the truth *doesn’t* mean you give equal weight to all sides; it means you take all sides into account, knowing that not all facts or all sides deserve equal weight and that it’s your job to figure out which is which, and then you assume that despite your best efforts you’ve still missed an angle somewhere anyway by the time you hit deadline. So the reporting will always be imperfect. But that’s what follow-up stories are for, not that they get the same amount of attention, of course.
I mentioned this in the comments on Roxane’s post, but I’ll reiterate it here (where it will probably get lost as well). The AP reporter who covered the story managed to do a much better job of not blaming the victim while covering pretty much the same ground. He even managed to find a quote from someone who thought, GASP! that there was no excuse for what the alleged rapists did. See?
“She’s 11 years old. It shouldn’t have happened. That’s a child,” said Oscar Carter, 56, who is related to an uncle of one 16-year-old charged in the case. “Somebody should have said what we are doing is wrong.”
So the town isn’t made up on monsters, and obviously there were other quotes to be found on the matter. That the NY Times reporter didn’t find them or didn’t seek them out says tons about him, and that the editor didn’t push the matter when given this story says tons about him, and that the NY Times is dying on this hill rather than simply acknowledging that they might have done a little better is, well, pretty fucking depressing.
What’s missing is the reporting of the physical damage done to an 11 year old child. The reporter lamely mentions she’s at another school like it’s an after thought. Certainly she was injured and he makes it sounds like nothing more than a playground incident where she transfers as a result and goes merrily on her way. That is really lame and I got the impression that to him it was no big deal.
Another site directed me to this article, with the first article being well written by Roxane Gay. The part that no one seems to bring into perspective is what we were all doing at age 11? I was a happy enough boy in the 6th grade and loved playing with my friends, reading, playing with my toys and watching cartoons…what passes through your minds when you think of what your own Daughters, Wives or Mothers were doing at age 11 and try to fully bring this into perspective. I know personally, no punishment I could dream up would be severe enough for this group of “men/child rapists” and there will hopefully be a special place in Hell for all of them.
Click here to subscribe today and leave your comment.