When traveling in London with my family, we began our days
watching the morning show “Breakfast” on BBC. We got regular updates on the
weather and Tube conditions for that particular day, as well as other recurring
updates on local stories and events. One such story followed the trial of Rolf
Harris, a prominent artist and television personality. Harris was accused in March
of molesting a string of young girls and women. Thanks to both generation and
culture gaps, I didn't recognize Harris by name or face, but I still found
myself following the coverage of his trial from day to day. Several
news outlets reported the allegations when they first came to light in late
March, but most of the coverage took place during the duration of his trial. Even
trial coverage was done so with a large degree of discretion; The
Guardian simply provided verbatim transcripts of testified statements with
little journalistic commentary. The coverage was typically limited to several
minutes of on-air updates, and a few days it was not discussed at all.
One particular segment on the BBC morning show invited
journalists to share their opinions about media coverage cases of this nature receive.
One journalist raised the typical concern of ruining the alleged criminals’
names no matter the sentence received in court, but another contributor argued
that British media does not give cases of this nature enough attention. He
believed that more women would have the courage to stand up against the
offenders if they are more aware of the case through the media.
During a conversation I had with one of our Oxford Dons at
the high table reception last week, we discussed Rolf Harris’ case, and she was
surprised to hear that American media often gives even more attention to cases
like this than British media does. She argued that by focusing so strongly on the
alleged criminals before the case has gone to court, the media gives victims (in
this case women) the power to ruin a man’s name with little to no legitimate evidence.
I found this to be an interesting example of the differences in framing between
American and British media. The coverage of Harris’ case that I encountered
seemed to try to eliminate the effects of journalistic influence on the story,
both in the amount of coverage and how they covered it, more so than American
media typically does.
I think that raises a really interesting point, especially when the United States is the country that's famous for the "innocent until proven guilty" legal system. It definitely depends on the crime, but I rarely hear the argument you heard from the don -- that is, that public scandals like this Harris case can ruin the reputation of the accused. When we talked about scandals in class, we only addressed the issue of giving the offender attention in the sense that it might end up being exactly what he wanted. There isn't a lot of talk, at least in the media, about protecting the accused.
ReplyDeleteAmerican newspapers are so careful with their language to avoid lawsuits, and early crime reports from reputable sources will always involve the word "alleged," even when it's something like a school shooting where it is clear who committed the crime. But when it comes down to it, I think a lot of the time we overlook words like "alleged." They seem like formalities. It's no longer really politically correct to doubt the testimony of a victim in a case like this one. It makes me wonder how much of her point of view is influenced by British culture or media (as opposed to, say, age or personal beliefs or experience). The U.S. is pretty infamous for its social conservatism, so it surprises me that I don't encounter much of this same emphasis on the alleged nature of similar crimes in America, especially in the case of male-on-female abuse.
This comment has been removed by the author.
ReplyDeleteI agree with Erin. Within the US legal system people are innocent until proven guilt, but the American media often treats people as if they are guilty until proven innocent. In my introduction to journalism class, I remember we spent a week on this issue. Our professor raised the question: Which is worse not informing the public because you might be wrong, or informing the public on an issue without knowing what’s right? That is a difficult question, and I don’t know if there is a clear answer to it.
ReplyDeleteIf this man did molest those girls doesn’t the public have a right to know about it?
But if he didn’t, doesn’t he have the right to maintain his good name?
Should news media wait to cover a story until the accused has either been proven innocent or guilty?
This area in journalism is somewhat grey - there isn't a right or wrong answer. As a journalist it is your job to inform the public about stories like this, and I think it is our duty to be as unbiased as possible. We also need to be balanced in our reporting of these stories. A journalist can’t just focus on the victims – they need to give equal time to the accused. It is surprising that in the UK they seem to put less emphasis on stories of this nature. I think that the United States could learn from them in these instances. We shouldn’t sensationalize stories like this. It is not our job to influence the public opinion of these people – it is our job to inform them, so that they are able to make their own judgments.
I think a good, relevant comparison here is the case of the Duke Lacrosse players who were accused of Rape years ago. It was a case loaded with racial implications and class implications, where we ultimately found out that the players were innocent and the media had made some dire mistakes on the way, tarnishing the reputations of the innocent players. But...this is example is a bit of an outlier.
ReplyDeleteThere is also an added dimension to cases of sexual violence, victim blaming. In the Jameis Winston case, the alleged victim was, in some cases, dragged through the mud for possibly making bad decisions leading up to her alleged rape. Obviously, the charges on Winston were dropped, but no one came away better from this trial thanks to the media. Winston looks all the worse in the eyes of the public for the heavy media scrutiny he faced, and the girl involved, while remaining anonymous was put under scrutiny as well. In the end, there is the chance that victims of rape might not want to come forward anymore because they are afraid of the media attention, even when there's anonymity.
I honestly think that, regardless of the degree of impartiality of the reporting, it would be best if the media stayed out of court proceedings until their conclusion. I think the negative consequences of reporting the proceedings often, though not always, outweigh the positive consequences (although I could probably easily be convinced to change my opinion by a good argument).
This post reminded me of a CNN article that I read earlier in the month about the Oscar Pistorius trial. The article (link below) seemed very different from all the previous articles on CNN about the Pistorius trial because it was extremely neutral and unbiased about the case. All of past CNN articles I read conveyed a guilty toned, some more extreme than others, but after reading them I definitely felt persuaded that he was without a doubt guilty.
ReplyDeleteAfter reading this post, I actually looked the article back up and saw that the dateline read London which I found a little off because all the other Pistorius trial articles were datelined Pretoria, South Africa. I did a little research on the writer and found out that he was a British news writer working for CNN, and that he had previously worked for BBC. I felt this explained why the article seemed almost foreign because it was so neutral.
I agree with Ashlyn when she said that, "[Journalists] shouldn’t sensationalize stories like this." The news media should be unbiased, especially when reporting on trials, so why is the American media so sensationalized?
I think that it is the fact that American media is ran by private companies which are funded by advertisement. The advertisers want more sensational stories so it will drawl in more readers. Where as in the UK, BBC is funded by the government, so in essence, it is funded by the people. Therefore, they are able to give the people the unbiased stories that they deserve from the news media.
CNN article: http://edition.cnn.com/2014/05/14/world/africa/oscar-pistorius-trial/
This was a really interesting point because I feel like in the U.S. no one really tries to think about how these cases are portrayed. We love to prosecute those on trial because we want to believe that they actually did something bad. Two cases that I can think of are Casey Anthony and George Zimmerman. While I don't necessarily agree with those rulings I still understood that the media beat these two individuals to death and made sure that they looked guilty before any evidence mounted up.
ReplyDeleteThe media needs to play its role in ensuring that they are remaining as unbiased as possible and simply giving the public the facts and letting them come up with their own conclusions instead of framing the public's opinion for them. There will always be a fine line between what is right and what is wrong, as Ashlynn said, but the media has to learn how to walk on that line and decrease the amount of casualties that their coverage can bring.