Is this scenario racist?

[Villainaire]

On Fox News today (that's the only channel that's on at work) the anchorman was discussing the Duke rape scandal. He was arguing that since the public knows the identity of the accused, they should also know the identity of the accuser.

Huh?

I've never heard people argue for the accuser's information to be public in any rape instance. Ever. I don't remember news anchors talking like this when Kobe Bryant allegedly raped the [censored] in Colorado.

Is this a race thing?

Maybe I don't watch the news enough and this happens with every other rape case.

[sushijerk]

Disclosing the identity of rape victims is a huge taboo. Whoever said this on Fox is a total idiot. I doubt this was a race thing.

[RacersEdge]

I heard that today too - Sheperd Smith.

I thought he made legit points and the woman didn't really have any counters. I don't think it's fair to these 2 guys to have their face blasted on national TV over just an indictment.

And from a legal perspective, why should rape be an exception as far as keeping the woman's identity hidden? Soem will say to not discourage the alleged victim from coming forth, but don't the guys have a reputation/life too?

I say let them both keep their identities hidden.

[CheckRaise]

Why would you think this scenario is even remotely racist?

[Villainaire]

[ QUOTE ]
Why would you think this scenario is even remotely racist?

[/ QUOTE ]

When I saw it I immediately thought about the Kobe Bryant situation. The public wasn't wanting to know anything about the accuser so soon in that instance.

[Villainaire]

Here's the transcript of Jim Gibson's show today.



[ QUOTE ]
So now we know who the two Duke lacrosse players are who are accused of raping an exotic dancer.

Reade Seligmann of Essex Fells, New Jersey, and Collin Finnerty of Garden City, New York, have been indicted, arrested, made initial court appearances and paraded before the cameras.

Here's the reality: They are halfway to ruin. They are done as athletes. Their academic career — if they had one — is probably toast, and they are for the foreseeable future accused rapists.

We know who they are and within minutes we'll know all about their families, their years growing up, what their friends think about them and whether they like Cheerios or Wheaties.

We will all make judgments about their guilt or innocence based on stuff we deduce from knowing all these little facts.

Some people are going to say: "Oh, he went to that high school and that's enough for me," or "Oh, he didn't have a job in the summers and that's all I need to know."

You know how people are.

So then there is the matter of the accuser, also known as the alleged rape victim.

The convention in the news business is we don't identify a rape victim, an alleged rape victim. Fine, as far as it goes.

But in this case you've got two young men whose lives will be ruined by the fact they are out in the open as the accused, and the accuser is shrouded in protective secrecy.

Why?

I could find out her name in one phone call. Everybody down there knows her name, but they're not going to tell you — at least not yet — because, as I just told you, we don't identify alleged rape victims. At least for now.

Here's the opening paragraph from a backgrounder on the accuser from newsandobserver.com:

She is a 27-year-old mother of two who married young, served in the Navy and was once in serious trouble because of an episode of drunken driving and assault that left her with a criminal record.

The News & Observer said she may be the nation's best-known unnamed person.

There are more details that will doubtless be the subject of testimony when this case comes to trial, including her marriage, her divorce, her two children by a man she left her husband for, her jobs, including a failed attempt to work as a lap dancer at an establishment called Diamond Girls. She didn't get the job, the owner said, because she was acting "funny."

Bottom line: We know the names and faces of the accused. We are going to know their backgrounds, warts and all.

Shouldn't we know the same information about the accuser?


[/ QUOTE ]

[jba]

[ QUOTE ]

When I saw it I immediately thought about the Kobe Bryant situation. The public wasn't wanting to know anything about the accuser so soon in that instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow really?

you don't remember all the titty pics leaking?

[MelchyBeau]

[ QUOTE ]


wow really?

you don't remember all the titty pics leaking?

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't. Do you have links?

Melch

[Villainaire]

[ QUOTE ]
[ QUOTE ]

When I saw it I immediately thought about the Kobe Bryant situation. The public wasn't wanting to know anything about the accuser so soon in that instance.

[/ QUOTE ]

wow really?

you don't remember all the titty pics leaking?

[/ QUOTE ]

Of course I remember all of that.

My point is that this Jim Gibson guy is pretty much siding with the athlete's which seems crazy to me. There were no anchormen siding with Kobe when he went through this.

[bort411]

Wow. I don't think it's racist so much as it is the worst argument ever: 'If someone's going to be unjustly subject to media criticism, EVERYONE should be unjustly subject to media criticism'. Clearly, two wrongs would make a right here.