As journalists, we are often tasked with reporting the worst times in a person’s life. During these times, it is essential to balance reporting and the prevention of re-victimizing the person whose story we are telling. This is what separates a journalist from a simple reporter. 

Recently, I reported one of the hardest stories I have had to write about three child sexual assault victims. I received a call from the mother of one of the victims who was livid about the graphic accounts of the trial placed in the the other newspaper by a the “editor” at Areawide Media.  I was angered and shamed as a journalist by the way, through his words, this child was re-victimized. 

The mother explained how his action in graphically detailing, even quoting the deeply personal testimony of  her 10-year-old daughter’s rape, had forced her to move backward in her healing process.

A trial with a guilty verdict had given the mother and victims a feeling of triumph over their offender. It had given them hope to open a new chapter in their lives and begin healing… until his newspaper report came and she read the words. The mother explained this type of haphazard reporting or, regurgitating of words, as I like to call it for those who seek the low hanging fruit instead of actually reporting, is a prime example of why many rape victims choose to never tell of their abuse.

This sickened me to know that, as media, while our job is to inform the public, a person falling under the umbrella of journalism, due only to a job title, had caused far more harm than good to a child who had already been victimized in such a brutal way. 

This is one of the reasons journalists get bad names. There are very professional ways to document a trial of this type without identifying the victim’s relationship to the offender or detailing the crime. A rape is a rape, details are irrelevant. 

By the time these victims make it to trial, they have already been through about two years of telling their painful story to police, child advocates, prosecutors, and are finally at the stage that cause many to break and choose not to testify. Often this choice is the difference between a conviction and an offender being set free to reoffend. This child did make it the witness stand. It is when, for the first time since she reported the crime,  she was forced to face her offender, eye to eye, in a courtroom. The victims hope their testimony will prevent another child from enduring what they have had to, regardless of the personal humiliation and pain the testimony causes. Telling the painful details in a newspaper serves no purpose except to victimize the child further. 

Many wonder why trial coverage is even done by the media. It is a valid question. The answer is simple. It documents the testimony. When and if the offender comes up for parole, the parole board often reviews news stories and the victim’s advocate letters at the victim’s request, not often the volumous trial transcipts. A news story’s documentation can prevent an offender from being paroled. I have had two cases documented in my stories that prevented the offenders’ release. So, yes, effective journalimsm serves an important purpose. 

It is challenging to explain to an upset mother on the other end of the phone line why the “other newspaper” wrote in such a way, other than simple unprofessionalism. But, it didn’t even stop there. 

I was already angered at the black eye the story gave to true journalism. As I went to deliver my newspapers, I entered the school one of the victims attended, and the receptionist told me after she had received the paper from the other newspaper she was careful who to hand one to for fear  the child would see it. This is a crying shame. 

Several other people I encountered also had similar unfavorable things to say about how graphic the article was with no apparent purpose. Those of us who choose to be professional and report the truth, realize  offenders are often embarrassed by their arrests. But when and if they are found not guilty, we cover that too.

By nature, real journalists stick together and fight hard for the Freedom of the Press. But this was a slap in the face to all  journalists who fight a daily battle for legitimacy against things like this and social media. We know that when a person breaks the law, it is public record.  Everyone deserves to know if a drug dealer, child predator, thief, violent offender or rapist lives in their neighborhood. However, NO ONE wants to know details of a ten year-old child’s rape. 

As cliche as it the saying “common sense is not that common”,  I have always held out hope that a person’s lack of common sense would always be trumped by journalistic integrity…  not in this case. 

Shame on you for the disservice you did to this child and anyone else who claims to be a journalist reporting in such a way. Perhaps the National Inquirer has an opening.

srchronicle11

See Full Bio