#subjudice

[newsanreviewzhd]

Real News. Really. 23/2016

[journalismnow]

Lies, media, image management and subjudice

originally published early July 2011

Is Trail By Media ever fair?

by Anthony Sherratt

Have you ever lied? Of course you have but the next time you consider telling a porky about that extra slice or your university years, stop and consider whether it's really worth it.

After all your future credibility may rest on it.

In the last few days we've seen the high-profile rape allegations against Dominique Strauss-Khan virtually dismissed (at least in the eyes of the media and public) because the accuser/victim has lied in the past.

Trial by media is a complicated and horrible thing but the public perception - created by a media that is either being lazy or wilful - is turning against a woman who should be given the benefit of protection. 

Phrases like "shattered credibility" have popped up in several publications and there appears to be an air of inevitable dismissal about it all.

Why? Because - according to reports - the woman:

a) didn't report the rape straight away as she first claimed

b) has "possible links to criminal activity"

c) lied as part of the application process to get into the US

d) is said to have told her jailed boyfriend that the guy has a lot of money and she knows what she is doing.

They also emphasise he's been released from custody without specifying the conditions.

Here's what wasn't widely reported:

* She didn't lie to her lawyer or prosecutors. She herself came forward to them voluntarily with the information before news broke. Her lawyer said she wanted to be upfront. 

* The case hasn't been dismissed. His bail restrictions have simply been lifted.

* They have medical evidence that sex took place. The argument is about whether it's consensual or not. The woman's attorney, Kenneth P. Thompson, has publicly spelt out in great detail the evidence they have. Youtube it and you may start to remember that it isn't about her past - it's about what happened here.

As for what was reported? Apart form being highly sub-judicial it's circumstantial at best. Let's address them quickly:

a) she'd just been through a traumatic experience. Yes she did clean another room before reporting the incident but shock does funny things and it's actually quite common to revert to routine and have the impact delayed.

b) she has a boyfriend in prison for possessing 180kg of marijuana. He has put money in her bank account previously. Oh the horror.

c) this is up there with fudging your CV

d) this wasn't in english and anyone who accepts a translation without context or nuance is going to get burned.

There is also an unconfirmed report that she has previously made rape allegations before later admitting them but it's proving surprisingly difficult to source it so it might be PR rather than fact so let's leave that out of the discussion for now.

But quite simply, the whole case seems to be "she's done bad things before so this needs to be dismissed". So only the virtuous can press charges now? Great  - that should clear up our clogged legal system quick smart.

High-profile rape allegations are a mess. People on both sides of the fence jump to conclusions, emotions run high and often the truth is forgotten or ignored. It's disturbing that in this highly media-managed world they're becoming more like elections where smearing your opponent is an accepted tactic.

Attack their credibility and it goes away.

But that is childish and simplistic. Just because someone has been dishonest about something else before in their life doesn't mean they're being dishonest about something happening now. 

Both the law and the media have obligations to protect the victim.

To be fair in situations like this it isn't obvious who the victim is but that only reinforces a need to be extra diligent in reporting all the details. Not just the juicy ones or a sensationalised simplification.