While scanning my Facebook newsfeed, I happened upon two clips on the same AM news story out of Huntsville, AL. Apparently, a young woman had made a rape claim a few nights ago and a police investigation unit - followed by a WAFF Channel 48 camera crew - had been dispatched to the scene. Here's what resulted:
Now, upon first viewing, I admit I reacted the way I assume most of you did. I laughed uncontrollably and thought:
- Is this real?!? Are these people seriously speaking and acting this way?
- Wow, that guy is funny! If he rolls his neck one more time I'm going to die! I can't breathe!
- And the reporter and anchorman were able to keep straight faces?!? Man, this is hilarious!
But after I stopped ROTFL, I thought, "Why did two people I know think it was appropriate to post this on their profiles? And could only do so because someone before them thought it was cool to post on Youtube? Why is this slightly bothering me?" Nevertheless, I then went about my day - moving on to other Youtube clips and then, oh yes, those morning news reports :o)
Later, however, I found myself still thinking about those clips. Something about them disturbed me, and I showed them to my roommate when she got home. Her reaction was much the same as my initial one. But then, with her to bounce my thoughts off of, I realized what had continued to bother me.
I asked, "Do you think this story would've been as funny if it had been a white woman in a trailer park accusing a man of rape?" She replied that she didn't think it would, because "a white woman wouldn't react the same way". Reluctantly, I agreed.
The humor lay in the manner in which the woman, and more so her brother, recounted the incident and vented their frustration. The rape allegation itself - the reason the video had been made in the first place - was no laughing matter.Regardless, the gravity of the situation was lost because of the angle the news crew (reporter, camera person, producer, etc.) chose to use in covering this crime story. When I mentioned as much to my roommate - who is a market researcher's dream by the way - she said that she could see that. "Why did they include the woman's opinion that her perpetrator might be a crackhead? Why does that matter?," she wondered. I, once again, agreed.
The idea that black women's sexual morality is viewed as having little value in the U.S. is well known. Thus, so is the same for the notion of violations against it.*[Note: This is not to say that this line of thinking is correct. As a black woman who knows more than a fair share of black women - and women in general, I fervently disagree...To put my opinion plainly, with a modern reference: Whorish tendencies know no race, ethnicity nor creed. Just watch any VH1 dating reality show; the United Nations are well represented. And more importantly, when rape comes into play, promiscuity should not be a consideration. Legal consent should be. Case, point, period.]
At first I couldn't place the source of my disappointment. Was I upset with my Facebook friends who posted the clips - one a white male and one an Asian female, by the way - or the Youtube users who uploaded them...or myself for finding the footage funny?
Ultimately, I decided most of my ire should be reserved for the professional journalists who chose not to edit out the most colorful, unnecessary parts of the alleged victim and her family member's interviews.
In j-school (scratch that - high school newspaper club), one of the first things I was taught is to preserve the integrity of the story, get the details, but do so in a manner that does not unduly paint sources in a bad light or add bias. Oft-used example: If the mayor says 'ain't' instead of 'is not', and as long as it is within the guidelines of the news organization, it is acceptable to correct for grammatical purposes - given that the correction is denoted. Another example: if the race of an interviewee is not germane to a story, don't include it.
So, where do all these thoughts leave me, as I step off of my soapbox? They leave me wanting everyone - including myself and the producer who ok'd the story package to run - to pause and think about the historical and social contexts of issues like this before taking action. Some might discount my views as overly sensitive, but there's something to be said when we can publicly laugh at an alleged rape victim who just so happens to live in government-aided housing.
Articles on This Topic:
- "The Sociocultural Context of African American and White American Women's Rape" by Gail Elizabeth Wyatt
- "Black Women and Rape: The Shocking Secret No One Talks About" by Kelly Starling
- "Trying to Break a 'Culture of Silence' on Rape" by Jennifer Lenhart
- "Twitter Used to Trivialize Rape" by Clutch Magazine
To my broadcast journalists, please share your thoughts. How does it work in TV? Do you think the edit job was a fair one?
ReplyDeleteA woman was attacked in her home. The person responsible hasn't been caught. That is the story.
ReplyDeleteI think that is lost because people are amused by her brother's colorful commentary.
Reporters are told to find characters-people who can flesh out the facts with emotion and make the viewer care. I don't know how long the interview was, but if the 30 seconds of Antoine in the pkg are any indication, chances are the rest of the interview was as colorful as the bite. That reporter probably felt she hit a gold mine., "He's fired up!! He's angry about the intruder attacking his sister!! That 'Runteldat' is the money soundbite!!"
It makes me cringe, because I hate to see representations that reinforce negative stereotypes, but that's what lazy reporters do.
There are ways to get different characters or balance, but that would mean more legwork, ie- finding other people who would be affected by an attacker running around, READ: a neighbor. Some reporters don't want to put in the work, or worse yet, don't see the need to.