Reporting on the BBC (and elsewhere)

[SevenZarkSeven]

Just noticed something on the BBC today.

There have been many thread where it has been raised / touched on about media reporting of sex crimes and how many on here feel that a lot of reporting seems to imply that the accusation is all a bit dubious, because of the whole woman "raped" type headlines, with the "".

And noted that often it seems to be that "proper" victims will be described as having been raped, while other victims will have been "raped".

Others say that while it is an accusation it needs to have the "" and this is a legal thing and in no way is meant to imply that anyone might be making anything up however that doesn't stack up for me as I'm sure the "" are not applied consistently in situations or across crimes.

In my heart I feel that many reporters, when reporting sex crimes, think well I need to put it in "" as these often turn out to be untrue. Not consciously even, maybe.

Anyway, today on the BBC is an article about victims right of appeal that says this:

"Among the 146 successful victims' appeals were 80 cases of violence and 27 involving alleged sexual offences."

It just made me so mad! What do you feel about this? Given that the media shape public opinion, this sort of stuff sends a strong message, right? What can be done?

[Misfitless]

I'm not sure I understand, sorry. I won't to know what you mean, but am struggling.

Am waiting to read responses, though.

[AuntieStella]

I'm not sure which reports you refer to.

If it is a case if the difference between reporting after a guilty verdict, and a report when, legally, it remains an allegation, I can see a rationale for this (to avoid prejudicial reporting). But I agree with you completely that the use of " " is a very bad way to do this. It would be far better instead to insert the word 'alleged' into the sentence.

It will never be the same across all offences though, because for many there is quite a different body of evidence that a crime has been committed (corpse, injuries, damage). But to me, that is an argument for greater care in the wording of reports on sexual offences is required.

[SevenZarkSeven]

Ah this

"Among the 146 successful victims' appeals were 80 cases of violence and 27 involving alleged sexual offences"

So the violence is reported straight - not alleged.
The sex crimes are however alleged. Because they haven't been proven yet.
Subtext to that is discomfiting.

Other reporting - you will often see that "proper" victims - children, the elderly, men, are raped. Women and girls between about 11 and 60 are more likely to be reported as "raped", again the implication heads in one direction (this stuff accumulates). People are rarely "defrauded" or "mugged" - they are more likely to be defrauded or mugged.

DYSWIM?

Oftentimes people will say that the reason for "raped" is legal - until proven it is merely an accusation. However I have always noticed and felt that the "" are applied inconsistently across victims, situations and crimes.

This one in the BBC is quite stark though I think, no room for saying it's legal reasons that the violence is violence and the sex crimes are merely "alleged".

I find the way sex crimes are reported concerning, I guess, and this is a solid example of why.

Does that make more sense?

[Misfitless]

Yes, thanks OP.

I'm going to watch out for this from now on.

[Bifauxnen]

I was reading an article the other day reporting a man who had pleaded guilty to rape and it still described them as alleged rapes.
There's also the use of the phrase "had sex with" when the word rape should be used.

[caroldecker]

I think that where the offence is proved, but not the perpetrator, they do not need to use alleged. I would suspect for the majority of rape cases not involving "proper" victims, the alleged offender is claiming consent, therefore there is doubt to whether a crime took place. If you are punched, there is violence, even if the perpetrator is unknown.

[scallopsrgreat]

But there is often plenty of evidence rape has taken place too caroldecker. It isn't an invisible crime. I'm pretty certain that it wouldn't be alleged burglaries either. Yet often you've got to take the victim's word that a burglary has taken place. So not buying that.

Plus they are confirming that these people are victims of the crime they state, otherwise why would they have been successful in their appeal?

[SevenZarkSeven]

You can wallop yourself in the face carol, and look like violence has been committed against you.

You can say your lost stuff has been stolen when it hasn't (and indeed people do for insurance purposes).

I don't think your argument holds much water really.

The difference of course is that people including reporters are primed to disbelieve females of childbearing age when they report sex offences, in a way that does not tend to occur for sex offence victims outside that group, or other crimes full stop.

The person writing this article didn't look at the detail of the 80 crimes they classified as violent and see that each one had evidence of violence, and then at the detail of the 27 categorised as sex offences and see that in all cases there was no evidence and the defendant was arguing consent. That just didn't happen. Maybe you are making some of the same assumptions as the reporter? Worth thinking about.

[SevenZarkSeven]

Justtherightbullets i agree it's got to be all or none in the reporting, consistent. Otherwise you are sending quite strong messages to your readership which are quite dangerous messages.

I am so sorry for what was done to you.

[SevenZarkSeven]

Yes true. I don't think you're going to get a sorry but a guilty verdict would be a good start.

[fejexu]

www.herefordtimes.com/news/regional/herefordshire/11086362.Herefordshire_woman_jailed_for_having_sex_with_eight_year_old_boy/

Why is it when a woman sexual assaults an 8 year old boy it it's called "sexual activity" and not "sexual assault" or "molesting"?

Oh yeah I forgot, under the "patriarchy" women aren't responsible for their own actions. According to feminism she isn't a pedo she's just a victim of the patriarchy rolls eyes

The judge gave her leniency because she stopped molesting "sexual activity" with the child on her own terms (after 5 years). Perhaps the child was getting too old for her she realized the error of her ways and deserves leniency?

And that pic they posted of her grinning with a tab in her mouth sickens me.

I wonder What would happen if the genders were reversed? Would a pedo man be afforded leniency if he stopped after 5 years?

[fejexu]

She was jailed but can be released after only 12 months.

Her lawyer said " "Her immaturity at 21 means she cannot accept the facts yet.".

What is that supposed to mean? 21 year old women aren't mature enough to take responsibility for their own actions?

[fejexu]

One more thing the url says she is jailed for having sex with an 8 year old (shouldn't that be rape, or are women unable to be rapists?)

Yet the article doesn't say sex and only says sexual activity.

So did she or did she not have sex with an 8 year old child? Is she a rapist as well as a pedo? If yes, shouldn't she spend more than 12 months in prison??

[AuntieStella]

I agree that the linked news article could have been better written. But I'm not sure that including a basic guide to the law on sexual offences would have clarified any particular aspects.

You seem very interested in this specific case. Has there been a transcript / case report (or whatever it's called) on it?

[SevenZarkSeven]

There were threads about this case at the time with a lot of posters concerned about leniency. I shared the contact details for the government office that you can complain about unduly lenient sentences.

I am surprised to hear that the judge on this case was a leading feminist, although I guess it's not that surprising given the huge numbers of feminists in positions of power in the UK. I mean I can't think offhand of any judges who aren't feminists

[Bifauxnen]

At least she did get jail time, instead of eg. Being told to buy the child a bike as compensation.

[caroldecker]

I was only positing a potential reason for the difference in reporting, not my position on the matter

[caroldecker]

I was only positing a potential reason for the difference in reporting, not my position on the matter

[MontyGlee]

It's rarely a disputable aspect of violence that the act itself occurred; the question of consent to violence is highly unlikely. However, rape may or may not have occurred when the act of penetration took place. There's a clear difference and Carol is correct to highlight it and shouldn't be flamed.

fejexu, on the other hand, is clearly just being a prat.