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. "

We don't need to go into specifics here, but we know what we're talking about. I think most people would understand this in a general sense.

On this board maybe, however recent high publicity cases have shown that many many people in this country still have the opinion/belief that unless you are battered it not real rape. Reporters (IMO) have a responsibility to use language correctly, as do the police when discussing a crime.

No, inserting a penis into a vagina is not the same as inserting a knife into the body. Why? a penis inserted with force can cause lacerations. The act of inserting a penis in a vagina that is not lubricated will cause inflammation, at the least, and pain.

It is a foreign object that has been forced in to someone else body. It is a physically violent and aggressive act. Waving a gun in someone's face is a threatening act, but the act of waving a gun will not cause physical harm.

What's with the complaint about the white earphones, some sort of "woman wearing fashionable earphones objectification" angle?

vanilla no. Victim blaming....as in she should have been more alert....headphones make her unable to hear.

That's quite a bit of a wild conclusion to jump to.

Who said it was mine?

Vanilla a lot of it is on the original thread which is linked up there ^.

OP's OP was:

"Did anyone see a report about a woman being raped in Edinburgh on the 6pm news tonight ? I was absolutely furious at the way it was reported. One of the first things police officer said was that she was wearing headphones - thereby implying she should have been more careful. Secondly the reporter then did a piece to camera in which he said ' the women was not physically hurt but was badly shaken' Not physically hurt???!!!!! I don't know if it was on BBC or STV so if any Scottish mumsnetters can tell me which one I am going to contact them and complain. I'm so sick of women getting the blame for being raped."

which explains the headphones thing.

People need to understand that in our victim blaming times statements like "she was wearing headphones at the time" will get a reaction of "well then she wasn't watching out for herself was she" and "she was not physically hurt" will get a reaction of "well that's good it wasn't too bad then".

This one news report one time - not the end of the world if it wasn't in the context of victim blamey attitudes in society which are promulgated by this type of thoughtless reporting in the media. The media have a responsibility not to minimise this type of crime, they have a responsibility not to report in ways that can so easily be casually interpreted as "oh well not that bad and anyway she should have been more careful". Because most people won't think on it hard, it will go in one ear, oh rape oh headphones not paying attention silly woman, oh not hurt that's good" and move on with their having consumed just another drop of bit of victim blamey minimising content. And the drops all add up.

Stop putting those drops out there and the mood of society about these crimes starts to shift.

That is why the OP is angry.

Sorry I don't accept that most people will interpret the mention of headphones as a reason to blame the victim. A very small low-iq minority maybe but not more than half the population.

Statistics repeatedly say that large % of UK society believe that women need to take some part of the blame if they are raped under certain circumstances. Here is the one that came up on google it's from 2010

However.

The great news is that we don't have to agree! The OP felt how she did, and complained. Many others on the thread she posted felt that she had a reasonable complaint. You don't. That's OK, you don't have to agree with her, and happily for you, neither do STV.

Hmm

That should probably say surveys rather than statistics.

Just in case there are any pedants on the thread.

Um, right.

However, the Police wouldn't agree with you, and on most Police websites, they suggest that if you are walking or jogging and have headphones on, to be aware that you won't hear someone approach you.

It's pretty basic stuff, most people with high IQs have heard it, so about half the population.

It would therefore be fair to think that, if the fact she was wearing headphones, rather than say, she was wearing earrings or a bracelet, it could be seen as suggesting she wasn't aware of her surroundings. This could be construed that had she not been wearing the headphones, she might have been aware that the man was about to rape her and take evasive action.

Not suggesting that it should be, just that it could. Based on personal safety advice given out by the Police.

Ah, but that's it vanilla. This isn't for we intelligent folk here on FWR; we understand. This is about the stupid people out there in RL. We, the guardians of public morality must be vigilant, for people are essentially evil, bad and violent and if we don't treat them all like the criminals they have the potential to be, they'll run riot.

Having said that, when I wrote before I hadn't seen the 'badly shaken' bit. That does seem wholly under-representative. One might be badly shaken after having your handbag stolen, not a rape ffs.

Ah so you would say that she was not being diligent with her personal safety and so that needs to be mentioned in this report as, what, a lesson to us all?

Meanwhile the response to the OP which is in fact in the opener of this thread says that they included the information in case anyone might recognise her.

Meanwhile the report itself said neither "she was wearing white headphones so couldn't hear and thus was attacked" (was the fact that she was wearing headphones instrumental in the attack? We have no idea - YOU are guessing) nor did it say "she was wearing white headphones and a green jacket and yellow trousers please get in touch if you saw her".

In fact if I were going to issue information in order to identify someone I would not be citing the colour of their headphones and not bother mentioning their clothes, bags, or any other let's face it more identifying information than "white headphones".

If it is the case that the STV person has told the OP that they included it for identification purposes rather than because they wanted to issue a warning about the dangers of wearing headphones (something that millions of people do every day), I would still argue that using this actual rape as an opportunity to warn women people of the general dangers of wearing headphones is an inappropriate time to do it.

Given that we know no circumstances of the rape whatsoever I find it odd that anyone would assume that a. her wearing headphones was key to her being attacked and b. this was included in the report to give out a safety message of some kind.

I ALWAYS wear my headphones when I walk from the station to work.

Am I asking for it?

What a stupid statement.

Oh and just spotted this: "she might have been aware that the man was about to rape her and take evasive action."

LOL yes what women and girls need to do is "take evasive action" very good

Why mention the headphones at all? Seems irrelevant. Unless of course you are are saying they played a part in the circumstances of her rape.

The only person mentioning intelligence is you Damsilli. Awareness and intelligence aren't the same thing.

ZombiePuffinsAreREAL that is incredibly tenuous reasoning to try to suggest that more than half of people being aware that earphones make it harder to hear other things equates to more than half of people believing a rape victim to be at fault for wearing earphones.

The explanation from the reporter seems to make a lot of sense, white headphones are distinctive, and I don't think it's helpful to make a list of every unmemorable piece of clothing and accessory the victim was wearing to ensure nobody jumps to the wrong conclusion about why distinctive headphones are mentioned.

Sorry Seven, I was responding to Vanilla, not having a go at you at all.

I agree that mentioning the headphones was a really odd thing to do. It's even odder in light of the STV explanation that it was for identification purposes.

I actually think that a lot of Police personal safety advice is a) a load of cobblers and b) leaves people women open to blame if they don't follow it.

I think you're grasping at straws there vanilla. You have made an enormous amount of assumptions in your posts, and apparently have completely changed your mind as to why they mentioned the headphones without acknowledging that a few posts back you made a completely different assumption as to why they mentioned them.

I would still think that, if hoping to get members of the public to remember a person they saw in a day, the report would say something like "We would like people to try and remember if they saw this person and if so contact X" and then list characteristics such as sex, age, race, attire, and finally accessories such as bags, scarves or indeed headphones.

I would not think it likely that, if hoping to get members of the public to remember a person they saw in a day, the report simply say "she was wearing headphones" and leave it at that.

Now I'm guessing that no-one except the OP saw the piece. However, based on what the OP says, which is all we have to go on, it seems odd to first state that they included it because it's police safety advice (erm OK), and then when realising that the people who made the report said something quite different, to immediately say "yes that makes a lot of sense, they obviously wanted people to come forward and so to do that mentioned one aspect of her appearance only I think that's quite normal".

There are a lot of stretches there.

I also wonder why it matters to you. It matters to the OP and to others as they see it as victim blaming and because of that are upset. It matters to you that you argue against that point - why? For what purpose? Just for the sake of disagreeing? You are happy with what the piece said so that's fine. The response to the OPs complaint was get stuffed so that's fine. So what is it that you want here? Just to argue the toss? With people who think that this sort of thing directly contributes to low levels of rape reporting etc? Why? What do you gain?

vanilla what are you hoping to get out of this thread?

Is it that you want the OP to withdraw her complaint / not respond to their response?

Is it that you have links with STV / the media and feel they are being unfairly maligned?

Is it that you think we are all fucking stupid and are trying to show us the error of our ways?

What does it matter to you if about 5 people on a website think that one report on one crime was reported a bit poorly by one reporter?

Sorry but I find your response absolutely baffling and wouldn't know where to begin replying to it, so I'm not going to try.

Is it that you want women / feminists not to complain to media outlets when they hear or see things that they think add to the atmosphere of victim blaming in society?

One thing suddenly struck me about it. Why do they want people to identify her? They know who she is, presumably? She wasn't 'physically injured' so presumably saw her attacker and would be able to describe him. Unless he was very careful, he would have left DNA/forensic evidence on her. So, why the need to have the public identify her?

There might be a good reason for it, anyone know?

Are you just bored and like poking feminists with the verbal equivalent of a stick?

Because god knows that's an original motivation

I'm the only person mentioning intelligence Scallops? Oh.

What does IQ stand for then? I must have got confused.

We only have what the OP told us puffins.

I think the "they said it to identify her" reason was made-up. Although we only have what the OP says to go on, she probably wouldn't have got annoyed if they had said that as part of a "please get in touch if you saw her" thing. The fact that OP got so annoyed and from what she said sounds like it was just a throwaway (victim blamey) comment.