I lifted this from Ace.
In short, the Lt. Gov. of Virginia is threatening legal action against a major newspaper (The Washington Post) for reporting details of "an allegation of sexual assault against him from 15 years ago". Yes, he also accuses them of "smearing" him, and various other grandstanding statements about how this has never been done before (*gag*), but none of that is relevant to what I find interesting about this.
I fully support the Lt. Gov. in lambasting the Washington Post, and actively encourage him to sue them and just about every other news organization that repeats the details of an allegation of crime with no factual basis other than one person's story. Now, I'm not saying he'll win, but I think he absolutely ought to sue. Because this idea that an accusation is something that we must blindly accept as factual (i.e. "believe victims") and therefore report-able is toxic to responsible reporting. If literally anyone can say "Person X sexually abused me" and that story makes the newspaper, then we've entered an era of sexual McCarthy-ism wherein an accusation is just about as good as a criminal conviction as far as a person's public reputation is concerned.
Now, I want to be crystal clear. I'm not saying the Lt. Gov. is innocent, or that his accuser is a liar. I'm saying a responsible news agency should not publish such an accusation unless there's either a criminal report, or a civil lawsuit filed with the accusation (i.e. a legal filing of some sort). And yes, I absolutely believe that Brett Kavanaugh ought to have sued anyone repeating Dr. Fords' accusation unless and until some form of legal filing was made (though I will consider the argument that the accusation being read into Congressional Testimony may very well count as a legal filing). And the reason is simple. Reporting based upon uncorroborated accusations is nothing more than rumor-mongering. If the news organization reports on a legal action, then that is responsible and in line with the public's interest.
Now, of course, the surest defense against libel or slander is that the accusation is true, but if Lt. Gov. Fairfax knows he is innocent, then he should have no fear of that defense working (likewise for Justice Kavanaugh). But if the veracity of the accusation simply cannot be ascertained (i.e. "he said, she said" and no further evidence) then the responsible way to report the story (absent any other form of legal filing) is simply not to report the story. And I absolutely do want newsrooms to fear a lawsuit when they publish rumors and unsupported accusations. Because I think in the Trump era far too many news organizations (both major and minor) have become comfortable with posting the most scurrilous of accusations with no more concern for the actual truth of the matter than they have concern for the heat death of the universe. A little fear of having consequences for reporting those accusations would go a long way to cleaning up that problem.
7 comments:
I agree. Let’s be done with the anonymous and/or implausibly dubious accusations.
I don't think Fairfax is a hill you want to die on. The reporting on this has been an abysmal example of the media covering a story ... with a pillow, until it stops moving.
When he spoke with reporters on Monday, Fairfax confirmed meeting the woman and having sexual activity with her that was "100 percent consensual," but he repeatedly and vehemently denied sexually assaulting her.
https://www.google.com/amp/s/www.cbsnews.com/amp/news/justin-fairfax-virginia-lieutenant-governor-denies-sexual-assault-allegation/
Of course you have to read to almost the end of the story to find out he admits having a sexual encounter with her.
This is about as far from the Brett Kavanaugh allegations as you can get.
As AVI says, you never get to pick your hill. You have to fight for the bad ones, too.
My proposal has exactly nothing to do with whether Lt. Gov. Fairfax sexually assaulted that woman or not. It has everything to do with smothering this "an accusation was made by one person, so it is a valid news story". One of the old saws about J-school was "if your mother tells you she loves you, get a corroborating source". Well, clearly that is no longer true, as they will publish stories based upon nothing more than an unconfirmed anonymous source with an axe to grind against the target. Something has to be done to slap some reality back into newsrooms, and only by facing legal consequences for their fast and loose concern with journalistic integrity will that ever happen.
I'm absolutely not saying this woman is lying. I'm saying that neither the Washington Post nor I know if she's lying, but only one of us wrote a story on it. Yes, I know they tried not to at first (after all, it's not like she was accusing a Republican), but they did eventually do so. Because the social pressure to "believe all women" dictates that they must. That witch hunt philosophy must stop.
"Person X sexually abused me" and that story makes the newspaper, then we've entered an era of sexual McCarthy-ism
To my knowledge, no one has accused Joe McCarthy of having sex.
LOL! I was more referring to the social stigma a mere accusation could bring in that era (again, the actual veracity of the accusation being irrelevant to the issue, most of those Joe McCarthy accused actually WERE communists, but innocents DID get caught up in the furor).
That's true, Grim, but this instance is neither anonymous or implausible. We know who she is, and it's plausible at least. That said, if there's no corroboration, it shouldn't be a story, by the old rules (as Mike pointed out), but I'm afraid that ship has sailed, journalism (at least the ideal that used to exist- not sure about the reality) seems to have become just a rumor mill at best. I've been thinking of late that the Enquirer is maybe the more trusted source- at least they didn't expect you to believe them all the time.
Post a Comment