"CNN's “Journalism” is a Fool's Paradise"

[bloom]

by Gail Dines http://www.dissidentvoice.org/Jan07/Dines21.htm

(linked at http://womensspace.wordpress.com/ Left- and Right-Wing Men, Black and White Men, Bond Publicly Over the Terrorizing of the Duke “Stripper” (and All Women)
January 21st, 2007 by womensspace

What happened to her, to another guest, journalist Kristal Brent Zook, who was a guest on the show, to the Duke “stripper,” to feminists and feminism, and to women in the United States and everywhere when Dines went on that show was yet another display of male terrorism, of the way men on the Right and men on the Left, men of color and white men, are more than willing to set aside any political differences they have when it affords them an opportunity to bond over the brutalized bodies and lives of women, women of color, white women, all women.

...I'm not naive about these kinds of shows -- which I know are not really about journalism but about ratings, most easily obtained through sensationalism and playing to the prejudices of the audience. But over the past 20 years I've gone on a number of them to discuss my work as a sociologist on issues of racism and sexism in media. Like many progressives, I do that with eyes wide open, knowing the limits but realizing it's one of the few shots we have at a mass audience... In the green room, Peterson went into a tirade against the black leaders for destroying the black community with their leftist views, and then thanked God for Fox News. When I started to argue with him, CNN producers in the room explained to us all that news media in America are doing their job -- Fox's right-wing views are balanced by CNN's left-wing shows. About this time, I know I am in big trouble...

My anger at the way the media humanized these men as victims and dehumanized the woman as the perpetrator of a lie clearly stood out from the rest of the show. And this was, I am now convinced, the producer's goal. I was set up in the show to be an example of the problem -- white liberal elites who have taken political correctness too far.... This is truly an example of how mass media construct reality. The so-called "facts" of the case have mainly been planted by the defense as a way to spin the case. The prosecution can't reveal all their evidence by law, but we do know, as law professor Wendy Murphy has pointed out, enough evidence was presented that "police, forensic experts, prosecutors, and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought." The truth is that we actually have access to very little evidence about that night, yet every man who has emailed me is convinced that all the facts are out there and only a feminist fool would believe otherwise. This is because the "facts," or lack of, speak for themselves and tell their own story in a society where racist and sexist ideology is internalized by a good percentage of the population and subsequently writ large onto a black woman's body. Let's not forget that this woman was bought and sold in the white male marketplace of sexual entertainment.

This obsessive focus on the woman is not particular to this case; routinely the media focus on the women victims, with a certain prurient interest. Instead, we should put some of the focus back on the men in this case, as we know much about their behavior that night that is not under dispute. They saw the hiring of two black women to strip as a legitimate form of male entertainment. They didn't see the commodifying and sexualizing of black women's bodies as problematic in a country that has a long and ugly history of racism.

One of the team buddies, Ryan McFadyen, sent out an e-mail on the night of the event where he wrote "ive decided to have some strippers over and all are welcome . . . I plan on killing the bitches as they walk in and proceed to cut their skin off while cumming in my duke spandex." Later that night, 911 got a call from a black college student out walking with her friends who was called "nigger" as she walked past the team's house. And to top it all, not one lacrosse player has come forward to express any regret at that night's events or offered any apology for being part of a drunken strip party that humiliated and degraded two black women.

It would seem to me that all of this undisputed information would make for a compelling CNN program. On such a show, I would be happy to share these e-mails calling me a bitch, whore, and cunt. That wouldn't be a rush to judgment, but instead an acknowledgement of what women know -- any one of us could be the next victim turned celebrity whore.

[Branjor]

1. That McFadyen guy is vicious....

but not atypical.

I posted the link to the article in feminists group but did not link to womensspace even though I knew she blogged about it (really don't know if she wants a DU invasion). As a matter of fact, that is where I found out about the article. As I am really not internet savvy, was that OK or a breach of internet etiquette?

[Triana]

3. I'd say the way you did it makes more sense,

actually. And is within any netiquette I know of.

[Branjor]

4. Thank you! n/t

[Donald Ian Rankin]

2. Nothing these men did is anywhere near as serious as making a false accusation of rape.

There is increasingly strong evidence that the stripper in the Duke case deliberately and knowingly tried to have several men wrongly convicted of rape. That's an incredibly evil thing to do.

Whatever her alleged attackers may have done apart from raping her (which it appears very likely they didn't) they've been punished far, far more than enough for it (N.B. punished may be the wrong word there, because it implies an element of desert).

Trying to cover the tracks of this witch-hunt with "oh well, they were bad people anyhow so it doesn't matter" is unutterably contemtible.

[bloom]

5. It's like this.

This article is about the kind of propaganda/skewed coverage that makes you think that what the defense team says is the truth. And that the victim is lying. When you don't know enough to know.

That is what is utterly contemptible.

[Branjor]

6. Yes...

and as the article also points out, "the prosecution can't reveal all their evidence by law" but "enough evidence was presented that police, forensic experts, prosecutors and a grand jury comprised of citizens, all agreed that charges should be brought."

[Donald Ian Rankin]

8. That's one of the bits I find most dishonest.

It has been repeadedly and as far as I can tell with good evidence alleged that the prosecutor was convinced not wholly by the evidence, but largely by his desire for reelection. The grand jury were convinced by the prosecutor.

[bloom]

10. "It has been repeadedly and as far as I can tell..."

Of course the defense and people who are on that side are going to repeat that. That doesn't make it true - or anything that the defense says or FOX or CNN or any of that true.

That is the point.

The grand jury had evidence to look at. It wasn't just the opinions and reelection desires of one person.

I think people who desperately have to believe the defense WANT to believe it.


I also think that the pressure put on by the media is intended to derail the case. If the case is NOT prosecuted - we would never know if it was just because of the pressure (from a skewed media and therefore public) or if it was because of a lack of convicting evidence or because of actual innocence on the part of the alleged perpetrators.

[mongo]

7. True, but

Nothing these men did is anywhere near as serious as making a false accusation of rape.

Yeah, but the focus of the article was how the defense has been favored in the media in this case, and in cases of this type, where powerful men are accused of rape. There is a kernel of truth there, even if IMO the article goes over the top in the other direction at times.

[Donald Ian Rankin]

9. The media shouldn't generally be reporting rape cases at all until the verdict is in, I think.

And usually not even then, unless there's a particular reason it's in the public interest to know about

It harms the alleged victim, the accused, the witnesses and everyone else involved. It makes getting a fair trial harder. It benefits no-one except attourneys trying to make a reputation for themselves, and the people who want to sell papers.

I'm not sure it's something that should be legislated, but I have nothing but contempt for people who sensationalise this kind of story to sell papers.