• Welcome to OGBoards 10.0, keep in mind that we will be making LOTS of changes to smooth out the experience here and make it as close as possible functionally to the old software, but feel free to drop suggestions or requests in the Tech Support subforum!

Media Policy on Releasing Names in Assault Cases

jhmd2000

Unacceptably correct
Joined
Mar 26, 2011
Messages
21,040
Reaction score
1,448
Does it make sense to have an inconsistent policy of the media identifying the names of the accused but concealing the name(s) of the accuser(s)? I'm not sure what the right answer is (disclosure or not), but having inconsistent policies within the same accusation doesn't seem right. It should be consistent.

Thoughts?
 
Not really sure what you're getting at. Like some sort of summit where media companies get together and adopt a standard? It doesn't work like that.

A lot of news outlets model their ethics policies off what SPJ has. I can't recall whether they have a sexual assault policy, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.
 
Not really sure what you're getting at. Like some sort of summit where media companies get together and adopt a standard? It doesn't work like that.

A lot of news outlets model their ethics policies off what SPJ has. I can't recall whether they have a sexual assault policy, but I'd be surprised if they didn't.

It seems inequitable that editors have caved to pressure from certain groups to withhold the name of the person who filed the complaint, but the presumed innocent person who is accused has his or her name reported.
 
Caved? Please. She's going on national TV tomorrow, so you'll get her name then.
 
Caved? Please. She's going on national TV tomorrow, so you'll get her name then.

She might get the "Kennedy Witness Blue Dot". Either way, it seems like a chicken snot thing to do to name someone else but try to hide your own. A shake down artist's dream come true.
 
I mean, she's scheduled to go on national TV, so she's not doing that. I guess it's possible she could be obscured, but I doubt that. If reports are true that a civil suit is forthcoming, that'll have a name if you're THAT interested in who this girl is and haven't found out yet.

Word leaked about the TV appearance, and journalists did their job to figure out what happened. Then they followed protocol about releasing the name of a victim of a sex crime.

Not sure what's so outrageous about how this has been handled.
 
Also, the girl's name was used in the letter her own mom sent around to members of the media, so she's not hiding her name.
 
There is a good reason for this practice.
 
There is a good reason for this practice.

I don't have a problem with the practice, but I do have a problem with the inconsistency (particularly in a presumption of innocence environment).
 
I don't understand the inconsistency you keep talking about. Can you give an example?
 
I don't understand the inconsistency you keep talking about. Can you give an example?

Maybe that's the disconnect. For example, we know Gary's name (in this case), but not hers. It should be both or neither, in my opinion.

In that environment, there is nothing to deter a malicious actor from threatening a powerful, innocent person with extortion via a fraudulent charge. The accused receiving anything close to competent legal advice isn't going to talk to the reporter to rebut the charge, so they have to wear it, but the accuser is free to allege behind a curtain of anonymity dropped by editorial policy decisions: an assymetrical equation.
 
"Inconsistent" isn't the word you're looking for.

Not naming accusers is pretty much SOP for all media. It's also codified into most law in this country. It prevents victims from being being punished for stepping forward to report a crime, and it helps encourage a safer environment for other victims who might want to step forward.

If you want to try to lead the charge to have states change their laws and the entire newsmedia retreat on a longstanding ethical policy, I'd say that's an interesting choice, but go for it.

Again, this is all moot since the accuser's name was released by her own mother, AND she's going on the frickin "Today" show to tell her story.

Also, thinking that any of the media outlets are "caving" to outside interests by not publishing this woman's name? That's ridiculous. I'm sorry.
 
One upside to keeping accuser's names private while naming alleged perpetrators is that the level of scrutiny of the accuser's story actually went up compared to years ago when all would be published.

Law enforcement and legal authorities are much more in-step with protecting victims rights but they're also much more interested in knowing they actually have a victim. Investigations are much more in-depth and the penalties for false accusations and lying are stronger and enforced.

As with anything grounded in human judgment, however, people will still be falsely accused just as some victims will still not see justice. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternative.
 
One upside to keeping accuser's names private while naming alleged perpetrators is that the level of scrutiny of the accuser's story actually went up compared to years ago when all would be published.

Law enforcement and legal authorities are much more in-step with protecting victims rights but they're also much more interested in knowing they actually have a victim. Investigations are much more in-depth and the penalties for false accusations and lying are stronger and enforced.
As with anything grounded in human judgment, however, people will still be falsely accused just as some victims will still not see justice. It's not perfect but it's better than the alternative.

HAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAHAAH!

Sincerely,

Crystal Mangum
 
Btw, 94, you made me lol in the damn law library.
 
Maybe that's the disconnect. For example, we know Gary's name (in this case), but not hers. It should be both or neither, in my opinion.

In that environment, there is nothing to deter a malicious actor from threatening a powerful, innocent person with extortion via a fraudulent charge. The accused receiving anything close to competent legal advice isn't going to talk to the reporter to rebut the charge, so they have to wear it, but the accuser is free to allege behind a curtain of anonymity dropped by editorial policy decisions: an assymetrical equation.

Just use the search function and quit bitching dammit! Her goddam name is in the thread in the sports forum!
 
Just use the search function and quit bitching dammit! Her goddam name is in the thread in the sports forum!

This is a thread about the policy, and is only using this case as an example. Thanks for your suggestion.
 
This is a thread about the policy, and is only using this case as an example. Thanks for your suggestion.

OK, but I bet you went right there. Search for "Margaret".
 
You guys misconstrued my post. Compared to decades ago, the penalties for false accusations of most crimes but especially those which are particularly reputation-harming have gotten more pronounced especially considering in many places they were non-existent in the first place. You see more and more charges brought against people who make false accusations. It's still an uphill climb due to PC but it's happening compared to decades past.
 
Back
Top