| A Tale of Two Covers; how NEWSWEEK covered another rape story | |
|---|---|
| Tweet Topic Started: Mar 9 2010, 10:10 AM (252 Views) | |
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2010, 10:10 AM Post #1 |
|
Here's how NEWSWEEK handled a rape accusation which made a cover story : October 13, 2003 http://www.newsweek.com/id/61746 The Editor's Desk New Window (by Mark Whitaker) Every Tuesday morning, we have an editorial meeting that starts with a short conversation about the cover. But when we started talking about this week's story on Kobe Bryant, we didn't finish for almost an hour. [How long did they spend discussing the lax cover? Five minutes? ] Some of my colleagues wondered whether by simply putting the basketball superstar accused of rape on the cover, we would imply his guilt and play into pernicious stereotypes about black men. Others worried about the opposite: that by running a profile with details about his personal problems, we might be seen as trying to excuse a serious sex charge. Still others asked if we should focus on the alleged victim, and warned about buying into a "he said, she said" narrative when her version was serious enough to have led to a sexual-assault indictment. Although the conversation suggested that we needed to be exceedingly careful, it also showed how deep a nerve the Kobe Bryant story has touched. And ultimately, everyone agreed that we should do the cover for another reason: we could shed new light on the case and on the man himself, thanks to L.A. correspondent Allison Samuels. ------------------------- And here's how NEWSWEEK handled another rape accusation which made a cover story : http://www.ajr.org/Article.asp?id=4379 The mug shots reflected the indictments, Thomas says. (Evans was indicted May 15.) "But I had a twinge at the time, and I wish I'd had a stronger twinge. My advice at the time was we should think about this, but I did not--and I want to be clear about this--I did not bang my hand on the table and say, 'We can't do this.' It was merely, 'Are we comfortable with this?'" [For more than five minutes? I guess everyone was "comfortable" with this...] (snip) "We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players," says Newsweek's Evan Thomas. "It's complicated because there is a strong stereotype [that] lacrosse players can be loutish, and there's evidence to back that up. There's even some evidence that that the Duke lacrosse players were loutish, and we were too quick to connect those dots." [Can we ask what evidence that was? And why an editor at one of the chief publications in the country does not fact-check? An internet post saying this would be fact-checked or else it would be "corrected" promptly by other posters. Is this just another example of Thomas' blind eye when it comes to the lax case? ] But he adds: "It was about race. Nifong's motivations clearly were rooted in his need to win black votes. There were tensions between town and gown, that part was true. The narrative was properly about race, sex and class... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong." Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 9 2010, 10:11 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2010, 10:15 AM Post #2 |
|
http://fds.oup.com/www.oup.co.uk/pdf/bt/looking/pol-chapter01.pdf Practices of Looking Images, Power, and Politics (snip) We live in a society in which portrait images are frequently used, like fingerprints, as personal identification--on passports, driver's licenses, credit cards, and identification cards for schools, the welfare system and many other institutions. Photographs are a primary medium for evidence in the criminal justice system. . . Often these images stay within the realm of identification and surveillance, where they go unnoticed by most of us. But sometimes their venues change and they circulate in the public realm, where they acquire new meanings. This happened in 1994, when the former football star O.J. Simpson was arrested as a suspect in a notorious murder case. Simpson's image had previously appeared only in sports media, advertising and celebrity news media. . . The mug shot is a common use of photography in the criminal justice system. . . The conventions of the mug shot were presumably familiar to most people who saw the [O.J. Simpson] covers of Time and Newsweek. Front and side views of suspects' unsmiling, unadorned faces are shot. These conventions of framing and composition alone connote to viewers a sense of the subject's deviance and guilt, regardless of who is thus framed; the image format has the power to suggest the photographic subject's guilt. (snip) In addition, because of the codes of the mug shot, it could be said that simply taking Simpson's image out of the context of the police file and placing it in the public eye, Time and Newsweek influence the public to see Simpson as a criminal even before he had been placed on trial. (snip) ----------------- At least some newspapers have a policy of publishing a disclaimer : Newsday: "These are arrest or booking photos provided by law enforcement officials. A criminal charge is merely an accusation. A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty. Newsday.com will not be updating the status of these cases." Chicago Tribune: "These arrest and booking photos are provided by law enforcement officials. Arrest does not imply guilt, and criminal charges are merely accusations. A defendant is presumed innocent unless proven guilty and convicted." ---------------- And introducing a mug shot into a trial and showing it to the jury is often grounds for defense lawyers to ask for a mistrial, since mug shots tend to imply guilt. But the editors of Newsweek claim that to put mug shots on its cover, is NOT to imply the guilt of the parties portrayed, but only to report the fact of the indictments? |
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2010, 10:18 AM Post #3 |
|
http://www.time.com/time/magazine/article/0,9171,164705,00.html?iid=chix-sphere To Our Readers By James R. Gaines Managing Editor [Time Magazine] Sunday, Jun. 24, 2001 [apology for an OJ cover which "darkened" OJ's image] (snip) "Nor did we intend any imputation of guilt. We were careful to avoid that in our story, but for at least some people, this cover picture was worth several thousand words." (So how many words was the Newsweek cover worth? Could the story undo the implications of the cover?) Edited by Quasimodo, Mar 9 2010, 10:18 AM.
|
![]() |
|
| Quasimodo | Mar 9 2010, 10:24 AM Post #4 |
|
Some ELEMENTARY RULES FOR JOURNALISTS : 4B. Avoiding Defamation http://communitylink.reviewjournal.com/servlet/lvrj_ProcServ/dbpage=page&GID=01009010550952642370887141&PG=01010010550956164783185458 4B1. Spotting Defamatory Content The first line of defense against defamation is the careful reporter and editor. When the story involves material which is defamatory per se, you should be especially careful. A good test is to ask yourself, "Is this the sort of story I would want published about me?" If not, ask yourself, "Is there anything about this statement which causes me to doubt its truthfulness?" As to any part of a story, including headlines, photos, cutlines, and introductions, look to see if taken alone that part might be defamatory. Is a photo reasonably subject to a derogatory misinterpretation? Does a headline fairly relate to the story? Asking questions at the copy desk may save you trouble later on. [I would think a mug shot is reasonably subject to a derogatory misinterpreation...] 4B2. The Role Of Your Lawyer From time to time you will handle a complex or potentially defamatory story where your attorney can be a tremendous asset. Lawyers can assist in several areas: (snip) 3) To the extent you have reasonably relied on your attorney as a source, you may be insulated against any claim . . . [Did the seasoned editors of Newsweek consult with legal counsel before approving a derogatory cover which included a headline linking mug shots to a story?] What A Retraction Should Contain You should publish the retraction in substantially as conspicuous a manner as the original defamation. Try to publish to the same audience who received the original untruth. If the story was broadcast on the Monday news at 6:00 (unless time constraints forbid it) publish your retraction on the same day and time. If the defamation was in a headline, you may need a headline correcting the mistake followed by an appropriate story. [OK, so according to this, the LEAST Newsweek owed the defendants was another cover.] |
![]() |
|
| 1 user reading this topic (1 Guest and 0 Anonymous) | |
| « Previous Topic · DUKE LACROSSE - Liestoppers · Next Topic » |







7:14 PM Jul 10