Reporting of Renfrewshire rape - reply from STV news, finally.

[mimithemindfull]

I hope some of you will remember my post about this a few weeks ago. I wrote to complain about the reporter saying the woman was not physically injured. Editors reply below . I am furious at the sheet arrogance of it, the patronising tone and the fact that he is shifting the blame on to the police. I will write back to him but in the mean time I would be interested in your thoughts.

"First of all apologies in the delay in responding to you. I have been off on annual leave. Secondly I would like to emphasise how seriously STV News takes reporting of such crimes.

The piece to which you refer was based on information received directly from the police. The reporter asked officers if the victim had been physically injured and they emphasised she hadn't been and hadn't required treatment in hospital. The police also offered other information regarding the incident which was off the record and I am not at liberty to detail this information further.
The reference to the woman wearing distinctive white earphones was included in the report in case somebody recognised the woman at that time of day which may help find the attacker.
STV News editorial policy means reporting on such cases with accuracy and sensitivity. It is regretful that you have been angered by our report, but I would say that the package was aired in good faith and based on information received by investigating officers. "

I think that's a pretty reasonable response.

Pathetic reply and he clearly doesn't "get it," does he? As far as he's concerned, this woman didn't need hospital treatment, therefore wasn't hurt.
Apart from the violent attack on her genitals, of course.

WhAts the problem with it?

I remember. He doesn't get it at all does he? [Sad]

It's a crap reply because he hasn't addressed the issue, which was the crass wording of the original article. Why did they think it was appropriate to say the woman "wasn't physically harmed?" As I say, he doesn't get it.

They've said the woman was raped but had no physical injuries requiring hospital treatment.

Is that right?

I remember the thread op.

Shit response.

Thanks Catkisser and Pourquoi.
The problem TheBogQueen is that rape is a violent act and should never be described as ' not physically injured'

The police also offered other information regarding the incident which was off the record and I am not at liberty to detail this information further.
You know what, I could be wrong but I wonder if the "other information" was something like "it was her ex and they'd had a row," or similar. Hence the apparant lack of gravity around this case.
Oh, who knows, just a bit depressing.

Thanks Seven . Glad that it's not just me. They haven't heard the last of this.

original thread

"The police also offered other information regarding the incident which was off the record and I am not at liberty to detail this information further."

To me that reads "shut up and fuck off". As it has nothing to do with what the OP complained about.

You may have a point Cat. Yep its depressing. But in the spirit of the thread re feminist things to do it won't stop me trying to do what I can.

Those asking what's wrong with it...... she was RAPED and they said there was no physical injury.

What's rape then? A passing fancy?

Me too Seven . They may as well have said that. The fact that if what they say about the info coming from the police is true then that actually makes it worse coz it means the police don't see rape as physically injury.

i missed the original thread, but reading that response it was the reporter who asked (presumably knowing that the woman had been raped) whether she was physically injured. so it's the reporter who started down that road of separating the rape from physical injury and the police are complicit in that, if the editor's account is true. so the reporter definitely needs to be educated about that and how that subsequently made it into the final report

as well as the police in not responding "physically injured? she was raped you nitwit"

Yy Pumpkin. I thought I would reply to the editor something along those lines. Thanks

I think most people would sensibly interpret this as bodily damage in addition to the rape.

language is important damsilli, most sensible people know that too

Yes. Semantics. Quite.

Language is completely the issue here Damsilli. There is absolutely no other way to describe rape except as a violent act.

Erm a lot of people would think oh well she was raped at least she wasn't hurt though.

Not a great message to get out there, that there is a category of rape which doesn't involve harm. Which is where this goes.

To many people think that rape is just a bit of an accident no harm done unless there is additional excessive physical violence as well, as it is.

I'm not disagreeing. You're not saying something that contradicts my first post.

I think this is the sort of pedantry that has people rolling their eyes. The reporter clearly did not mean that the rape was not a violent act, they wished to communicate that there were no additional factors like - well, I won't spell it out.

Well what he communicated was that the rape was not a violent act.

He said that the victim was not physically injured.

That is a very straightforward statement and no reason to think that people in general will ponder on it further than "oh that's good she wasn't hurt".

And language is vital if we as a society are to change our attitude towards perpetrators and victims of sex crimes.

Language is terribly important, framing is terribly important. If it weren't political parties around the world wouldn't spend ££££££££ on people who advise them how to turn the tide of public opinion to where they want it to go.

Anyone who doesn't think this stuff is important is extraordinarily naive IMO.