« 'A Woman in Berlin' | Main | Morning ritual »
September 14, 2005
Rape trial
Two readers whose letters will appear in tomorrow's Monitor criticize our coverage of the rape trial of magazine salesman Joseph Haniffy in Merrimack County Superior Court. One complains about the headline “Woman says she danced for rape suspect” on Tuesday’s story. The other says we are giving the story too much play and questions our naming the defendant but not his accuser.
The complaint about the headline mentions the 1988 movie The Accused. Jodie Foster plays a rape victim in the movie, and her behavior before the rape becomes an issue at trial. As I remember it, the movie was disturbing and challenging.
Although all the details in the Concord case are not yet known, it parallels the movie in some ways. The Haniffy defense is that the sex was consensual. Considering the testimony, the jury will clearly have to consider the accuser’s behavior before the sex.
I did wince when I saw our headline “Woman says she danced for rape suspects,” but on reflection I thought it accurately conveyed the most important aspect of the previous day’s testimony.
Likewise I believe our play of the story reflects its importance. When the story was first reported, it was absolutely chilling. Public interest in the case remains great, and not for prurient reasons. The public needs all the facts it can get to evaluate the investigation, the decision to bring charges, the testimony and other evidence, the conduct of the lawyers and, ultimately, the jury’s verdict.
Whether newspapers should name accusers in rape cases is the subject of ongoing debate. The Monitor follows tradition here.
We do name the accused even though they are innocent until proved guilty. Readers know an arrest is not proof of guilt, and they have a right to know who has been arrested, not just that someone has.
Unless the accusers in sex crimes request to be named, we grant them anonymity in print. Society still attaches a stigma even to those who allege such crimes. And, as in the current case, questioning the character and the actions of an accuser is standard defense procedure. If we named accusers, fewer victims would come forward.
People I respect in journalism make the opposite case, arguing that not naming rape victims actually enhances the stigmatization and makes it easier for defense lawyers to assail their character in court (for more on this argument, click here). Philosophically, I can see the logic of this point, and as a journalist, for the sake of credibility, I would prefer that we name everyone we write about.
But practically – especially in a small community – I think naming accusers would hurt them more than it would help readers.
Posted by Mike Pride at September 14, 2005 05:44 PM
Comments
Dear Mike,
You read into my letter the usual question about the naming of accusers in rape cases, not the question I tried to raise. I salute your decision to withhold the woman's name in this case. What I question is your decision to not only name those accused, but to provide detailed information, some of which is certainly hearsay, about the defendents. I believe the accused are deserving of more privacy pending the outcome of the trial, especially in a he-said, she-said case.
I understand that publishing what you have about the accused is pretty much standard policy for local newspapers, but that doesn't make it right. We are in a long-term trend in which Americans are more and more fascinated by celebrity and sensation, and are thinking less and less critically about the real issues that confront society.
Ted Turner was asked recently his thoughts on CNN as it has evolved since he sold the company. He said something to the effect that he wished there was less coverage of "the pervert of the day." That was exactly what I had been thinking, and when you published the "traveling salesmen" story front page, above the fold, that was my thought about the Monitor.
My question to you, Mike, is, does the Monitor want to "go with the flow," or does it want to work to challenge all of us to think critically about the problems and challenges facing society? (I ask this as one who has a high regard for the Monitor, but also one who believes it can do better.)
Posted by: John V. Kjellman at September 15, 2005 08:12 AM