If you have a suggestion for a Current Issue, please write it up and send it to Laura. 06-November-06 According to the Feminist Daily News Wire (November 1, 2006), "A three-judge panel of the Maryland Special Court of Appeals reinforced the provision of Maryland's rape law that says a woman who gives consent prior to intercourse cannot withdraw her legal consent during the act." In a recent ruling, the Special Court of Appeals said "if a woman consents prior to sex, she may not withdraw her consent during the act and accuse her partner of rape if he continues the act." What do YOU think about these statements? Email us your respsonses for publication in this column! Joaquim from Austria wrote: First, the statute "cannot withdraw her legal consent" clearly implies this sort of abuse is a man's right. Will courts find a woman guilty of battery if she resorts to force--protecting herself because the law won't protect her--and gives her assailant a (well-deserved) bloody nose or black eye in the process? Second, compare these two scenarios. Bedroom: She: Please stop. You're hurting me! He: Tough. You consented before. I get to keep going. Harder. This is fun. Boxing ring: Referee: I'm calling a technical knockout. This competitor is too tired/fainting/injured. Other competitor: He consented to mutual combat until the bell rings. I get to keep going. This is fun. Difference? Anyone? The second question is a tad facetious, but unfortunately, the first is dead serious. Do those of us interested in women's self-defense need to design a new course? One with techiques that don't leave marks? Anastasia Webb of New York wrote: Absurd, horrific, soul-crushing. The Maryland law is all of that and more. Unfortunately, I've heard that this ruling is in effect in other states as well. I don't know which or how many, but since I heard about this, I've just felt devastated. I had no idea things were this bad in the US. Christine St. John of New York wrote: So, theoretically, I could consent! to sex and not be able to withdraw it even if the other person decides to continue having sex for an hour, three hours, the whole day? Decides to bring in another person? I all of a sudden need to go to the bathroom? ARGGH! So absurd... Brandi White of New York wrote: Wow. This is truly the scariest thing I have heard in a long time. You would almost expect to have holdings like this in foreign nations where women's rights are virtually unheard of, but to hear this in a progressive democracy like the United States scares me to death. Email your comments today! 05-November-06 The following op-ed was written by Anastasia Webb in response to the film "Deliver Us From Evil." Sexual abuse remains one of societies' most prevalent, but undiscussed, crimes. The new documentary film, "Deliver Us From Evil", goes some way towards exposing the pandemic of institutionalized rape and sexual abuse. But it does not go far enough. The Catholic Church is one of the worst perpetrators of sexual abuse. Amy Berg, writer and director of "Deliver Us From Evil" has bravely sought to uncover the insidious lies and betrayal of church officials at all levels, and to expose the criminality of their actions. Our society holds deep misconceptions about these crimes, and Ms. Berg was not immune to these prejudices, perpetuating some of them in her film. In "Deliver Us From Evil", one of the victims in her film is quoted saying that if you haven't experienced rape yourself or had someone close to you get raped, then you can't comprehend the terrible pain and destruction that it causes. Ms. Berg's portrayal of the former Catholic Priest Oliver O'Grady and the nature of his crimes - the rape and sexual abuse of hundreds of children of different ages - legitimates that claim. Amy Berg seems to have been manipulated by O'Grady. The way he is depicted in the film strongly suggests that she has been duped into thinking he is more of a hapless, bewildered, and sick man than an evil, monstrous predator. At a post-screening Question and Answer session at Village East Cinemas in New York City on October 11th, 2006, Berg responded to questions about O'Grady's nature, calling him "like a child." O'Grady took advantage of hundreds of families and brutally violated hundreds of children for decades. He destroyed and obliterated lives and futures. He pathetically attempts to excuse himself, saying, "it never should have happened." And Ms. Berg allows this explanation to go remarkably unchallenged. A psychologist interviewed in the film states that the psychosexual growth of pedophiles in the church has been stunted. She likens their comprehension of sex to that of a child's. Amy Berg misunderstands and illogically takes this to an extreme in calling O'Grady child-like, and using that as a defense for his actions. She implies that O'Grady has only the mental capacity of a nine-month old baby?the age of O'Grady's youngest victim. But a nine-month old baby would not have been able to fool and manipulate so many people with the calculated treachery which O'Grady exhibited. Amy Berg is deluded in equating O'Grady's actions with the sort of innocent blamelessness that society acknowledges in actual children. She should have recognized that though there is developmental obstruction in these perpetrators, the psychologist followed up her statement by saying that O'Grady is not just stunted emotionally; he is an extremely dangerous, assaultive, and manipulative predator. It would serve to protect society to hold O'Grady and all other sexual predators accountable for their malevolence. The other grossly biased element of the film is the length of time provided for O'Grady to ramble on about his side of the experience. He repulsively sexualizes and romanticizes his assault of children. In uncritically filming O'Grady's views, Berg perpetuates the myth that the crimes of rape and sexual abuse are motivated by sexual desire. No victim of sexual assault experiences these crimes as sexual; they experience horrific, dehumanizing violation. Like other sexual predators, O'Grady was not motivated by sexual desire. He was motivated by the sadistic impulse to control, terrorize, and therefore, dehumanize another person. His ejaculating during these episodes is a result of his conditioning and deranged pathology. O'Grady intellectually seduced Amy Berg to accept his explanations, and her film perpetuates the fallacy that his violent actions were motivated by sexual desire. Ms. Berg appears naively intrigued and entranced by O'Grady, like other journalists who are over-zealous when they land an exclusive interview. From this position, Berg's film fails both the victims of institutionalized sexual abuse, and society as a whole. More time and focus should have been given to the victims to tell their stories and share what they wanted about what the aftermath of suffering these abhorrent crimes has been like for them. By focussing on O'Grady's psychotic delusion, Ms. Berg distorted the reality and traumatic effects of rape and sexual abuse. This does a disservice not only to her own work, but to the general public, who desperately lack honest information about the reality of sexual abuse within the Catholic Church and beyond it. 20-October-06 Recently, Americans were devastated to hear that 10 young girls were shot in Amish country. Mike Hendricks has written an intelligent article pointing to this as a gender-based crime. 03-October-06 Take Back The News, in conjunction with NOT IN OUR CITY! is proud to announce the launching of the NYC Media Response Project, a streamlined system of tracking and responding to misrepresentations of rape in New York City newspapers. We ran a pilot of the project in September with the help of twelve volunteers, and wrote several letters to the editors. Anastasia Webb had a brilliant letter published in Newsday, calling for writers to stop referring to the rape of children as "sex". Congratulations to Anastasia! If you would like to volunteer to help monitor or write letters, please contact emily@takebackthenews.org. 19-September-06 Posted by Julia B. With reference to the September 18 article, Santa Rosa Couple Plead Guilty To Sex Abuse of Their Children, I commend the Bay City News Wire for reporting on this tragic incidence of a couple sexually assaulting their two children. The Justice Department has estimated that one of every six victims of rape is under the age of 12 (see RAINN for more information). Sexual assault is one of the most underreported of crimes, both by the victims to the authorities and by the media to the public. While it is distressing to read a news report about parents sexually assaulting their own children, it is important that the media provides coverage. The public must be informed of the insidious nature of rape, and that the perpetrators are, more often than not, not strangers to the victims. 10-September-06 Posted by Laura. An ongoing news story involves four U.S. soldiers in Iraq accused of raping a 14-year Iraqi girl and murdering her and her family. See below for a letter to the New York Times by a woman who felt passionately that this case was wrongly being portrayed by the media as an isolated, freak occurrence. Although the letter was not published, the author shared it with us. Rape in the military setting is yet another example of the epidemic nature of rape that is hidden from the public by the media. Take Back the News thanks Anastasia Webb for sharing her important insight with us. Dear Editor, I have noticed that several articles have been written that seem to weigh on the side of the defense in citing explanations why the soldiers may have committed the alleged murders and rape. Reporters are really not mentioning that rape is a common, all too frequent occurrence in any military environment. Instead they are explaining away the incident as singular and provoked by "combat stress". It would help clarify the issue to note some of the alarming statistics about the frequency of rape in the military, regardless of wartime stress. Women in the military have a fifty percent higher chance of being raped than civilians. Actually, the pervasiveness of sexual assault among female veterans has been estimated as high as 41% (Military Medicine, 1996.) Reporters should be aware that good, balanced reporting includes contextual support. Anastasia Webb New York City 09-September-06 Posted by Julia W. A big salute to the Burlington Free Press and Cathleen H. Wilson for publishing the article today, It’s Time to Blow the Whistle on Rape. In this op-ed, Wilson challenges victim blaming: “Let's shift the focus to questions such as, why do men rape? Why is there still such silence and shame around the issue of rape? Why do perpetrators of sexual abuse still get such lenient sentences? Why do we still engage in victim blaming?” The writer then continues to spell out the societal and legal repercussions of victim blaming, saying “rapists are counting on us to ensure that when a victim does reach out for help she is disbelieved or blamed. They tell their victims ‘no one will believe you, you were asking for it.’ Consequently, many survivors are hesitant to report to law enforcement.” Finally, Wilson leaves the reader with a fine piece of advice: “If a victim comes to you, believe her. Most important, tell her that it is ‘not her fault’”. Putting an end to victim blaming, and challenging societal misconceptions about rape is the essence of Take Back The News. Thank you Ms. Wilson for joining in the common goal. 28-August-06 Posted by Emily. On August 25, The New York Times printed an article, Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details But No Answers, that contained detailed coverage of the alleged rape by Duke lacrosse team members.  Unlike most previous articles in papers around the country, reporters Duff Wilson and Jonathan D. Glater reviewed the evidence without bias, reported on its strengths and weaknesses, and actually explained discrepancies in the alleged victim’s early accounts of what occurred. The article offers some evidence and accounts that support the victim’s story. With 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution, there is bound to be some facts that discredit the defense’s claims. For instance, the nurse who examined the victim after the alleged assault said that “the ‘blunt force trauma’ seen in the examination ‘was consistent with the sexual assault that was alleged by the victim.’” Evidence that is murkier is also described. In addition, the reporters point to the fact that the defense attorneys portrayed the victim’s allegations as a “national scandal”, acknowledging the media circus that surrounded the alleged assault, and fueled the tensions of gender, race, and class inherent in this case. While this article could benefit from a contextualization of the rampant number of rapes on college campuses, it did do a fine job of educating the public about both sides of the story. Perhaps people will begin to understand the serious likelihood that, regardless of the court’s findings, this woman is not lying after all. 20-August-06 Posted by Maria. In an important 16 August 2006 Newsday article titled Privacy Laws Scrutinized in Rape Case, staff writers Michael Frazier and Olivia Winslow at least implicitly expose some of the problems surrounding rape shield laws, especially in relation to campus rape. As Frazier and Winslow explain, the victim in the February 2006 Adelphi University sexual assault case told university officials about her rape immediately after its occurrence but also expressed her decision not to notify police. Two months later, when she went to the police and the case was made public, both the police and the public began pointing fingers at the university for failing to notify the police right away-at the very least because this failure may make the police investigation, which hinges on evidence gathered shortly after the crime is committed, more difficult. "At issue," Frazier and Winslow clarify, "is the interpretation of federal laws dealing with college students-one governing who is responsible for reporting a crime such as an alleged rape to local police, and another that dictates the circumstances allowing colleges to release its incident records to police." At Take Back the News, we commend Newsday reporters Frazier and Winslow for exploring the details surrounding this complicated issue so carefully and objectively. For example, rather than blame Adelphi University, even implicitly, Frazier and Winslow point out the fact that the university was complying with federal law, that they had encouraged the victim to contact the police, and that they had immediately identified and suspended the accused student. Nonetheless, Frazier and Winslow also make clear that the police were not contacted until two months after the incident and that the trial of the accused may be affected as a result of this delay. The real question, therefore, surrounds the efficacy of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act, or FERPA. And the larger question, at least for Take Back the News, surrounds the efficacy of rape shield laws in general-which (like FERPA) protect the victim, but sometimes at the victim's own expense. 13-August-06 Posted by Julia B. The article "Department of Correction Retaliates Against Officers, Says ACLU: Female Officers Who Were Sexually and Physically Assaulted Sue Over Discrimination", written by Erica Pelletreau and published by the ACLU on July 13, 2006, is an example of fair and accurate coverage of two sexual assault cases. Both victims are female New York City correction officers; each was assaulted by a co-worker. Both victims reported the crime to the New York City Department of Correction (DOC), expecting an investigation into the matter, and discipline of the perpetrator. And both victims were disappointed by the DOC's failure to take any substantial action to address either of these situations. The author of this article, Ms. Pelletreau, stated the facts of the case, without delving into the personalities and circumstances of either the victims or the perpetrators. Furthermore, her focus of the article was not on the perpetrators having committed such violent acts, but rather on the lack of institutionalized response by the DOC, an organization expected not only to uphold anti-rape laws, but also expected to abide by its own regulations. "In violation of DOC regulations, [the victims] have been discriminated against and have suffered retaliation as a result of their complaints. Both women have been treated with hostility and suspicion by supervisors and have been subject to multiple disciplinary actions." Ms. Pelletreau ended her article with a quote by Caroline Bettinger-Lopez of the ACLU Women's Rights Project: "These women have had the strength to stand up to their attackers, to confront them and report their abusive conduct up the chain of command. Their courage has been rewarded with harassment, discrimination and retaliation by the Department of Correction. This institutional pattern of abuse must be stopped." Take Back The News commends this reporter for including such a statement. It is our hope that such institutionalized irresponsibility towards the issues of rape and sexual assault will continue to be confronted by the media with such criticism in the future. 09-August-06 Posted by Laura. By now we all know about the several Duke University lacrosse players who allegedly raped a single mother and college student hired by the lacrosse team to dance at an off-campus party. We even may know that after weeks of hearing only the defense's side of the story, many people seem to believe that no rape occurred, that the woman is lying, and that the accused young men are the actual victims in this case. So prevalent is this belief that Steve Monks, a local attorney, is considering running against the District Attorney prosecuting the case on the platform that he would "rethink the Duke University lacrosse case if elected." According to Monks, "I would re-discuss the matter with the person who reported it.... [Such a discussion] would not be nice for her, but it's necessary" (Monks to Run for DA if Funds Come, Durham Herald-Sun, August 2, 2006). Meanwhile, in what will likely be a virtually unnoticed news story, on August 2, 2006 the Herald-Sun reported that a female Duke student said that a man sexually assaulted her in a campus laundry building at 11:10 p.m. ("Woman assaulted on Duke Campus"). Both alleged crimes involve sexual assault; both are devastating, shocking, and scandalous. Why will only one be the subject of vociferous public debate? The assailant in the "laundry room" case was described in part as in his late teens to mid-20s, black, with a light to medium complexion and braided hair. This case involves a Duke student as the victim, an alleged assailant who is black and a stranger to the victim, and a crime that occurred in a deserted building late at night. The lacrosse case involves a black victim; alleged assailants who are wealthy, white Duke students; and a crime that occurred at a party where the victim was present by choice. The former case will receive little to no media attention: there will be no defense lawyers loudly proclaiming the innocence of the alleged assailant, nor will we hear about all of the character flaws and the sordid details of the sexual history of the victim. Nor will there be internet discussions as to whether a rape in fact occurred. That is because the laundry room story fits in neatly with people's preconceived notions of what rape is, and the Duke lacrosse story does not. What many people do not realize, however, is that most rapes that occur on a college campus more closely resemble the Duke lacrosse case. Most involve victims who were in the company of the alleged assailant by choice, and most are not done by an intruder in a laundry room late at night, but by a male student at the college. According to a study surveying more than 6,000 students at 32 colleges and universities in the U.S., 1 in 4 women had been victims of rape or attempted rape, and 84% of those raped knew their attacker (Warshaw, "I Never Called It Rape," 1994). Most of these rapes will never be reported to the police or make it to the newspapers. Whether or not the Duke lacrosse players actually did rape a woman at their party, the fact of the matter is that it is not as far-fetched as the defense team would like us to believe that college boys rape their peers, especially in situations fueled by alcohol and/or peer pressure. It is certainly more prevalent than the rapist lurking in the bushes. Yet the former situation rarely makes it to the newspaper-and judging by the reaction in the Duke lacrosse case, it is unfortunately understandable why. One needs to look no further than the Duke case which has been sensationalized by the press, with the fires fueled by attorneys double-teaming as public relations reps. These actions only revictimize survivors, and can discourage them from seeking justice through our legal system. These are precisely the attitudes that Take Back the News hopes to change, starting with the way that such situations are reported in the media. As hard as it may be to reach a public who persists in maintaining false stereotypes about rape, media sources have a responsibility to pursue coverage of all rape cases-and to contextualize this coverage, to abide by the most stringent ethical standards in journalism today. We must work together to find a way to coax the public towards a more honest understanding of this invisible, life-altering crime. Otherwise, public disbelief will continue, making it more difficult for journalists to do their jobs, more painful for victims to step forward, and more likely that more rapes will occur. 28-July-06 Posted by Julia W. A Lakeland, FL newspaper, The Ledger, published an article entitled “Lawyers Try to Pull Out Of Suit: Partners in civil case against Christopher Fontaine cite differences” on July 23, 2006. In this article, Jason Geary reports on a rape case against Christopher Fontaine. The title of the article leads the reader to believe that it will be about the plaintiff attorney's filing of a "motion to withdraw" on June 21, due to irreconcilable differences among the attorneys of the plaintiff. However, the article devotes approximately five paragraphs to this issue, one of which gives the defense attorney, Robert Puterbaugh, free media space to spout his speculation of why this occurred. Geary reports: “Court records don't provide much insight into why the woman's lawyers are backing away from the case. But lawyers for Christopher Fontaine, whose family founded the Discount Auto Parts chain, claim in a 48-page legal document that her lawyers know she has ' . . . fabricated this entire saga for one reason and one reason only: to extort money out of Fontaine and his family.'" The remainder of the article includes useless biographical information about the perpetrator (including the death of his father by cancer) and the defense attorney’s opinion of the plaintiff: “Robert Puterbaugh, portrays the woman as a lying, promiscuous gold digger with eyes on Fontaine's fortune, court records show.” "She was thinking about the money," Puterbaugh wrote. "It was on her mind. Yet, she was trying to turn it around in her conversations with the detectives by saying that her delayed report was caused by her concern that someone might just think that she was after Fontaine's money." The article also includes the victim’s name, which is illegal, though the writer attempts to justify this decision. What the article does not include: 1- statements by the plaintiff's attorney 2- arguments by the plaintiff's attorney 3- attestments to the victim’s good character, as it does about the defendant This article represents not only unethical, biased, illegal reporting, but it also blatantly ignores the heinousness of rape and sexual assault. It serves the defense, undermines the plaintiff's civil suit, and perpetuates a tolerance of rape in our society. 23-July-06 Posted by Maria. On 18 July 2006, Michael Roston filed the article "Pentagon Shoots Down Office for Sexual Assault Victims" on the Raw Story website. Roston responds to a 7 July report in The Washington Times about the Defense Department's rejection of a proposal to establish an "Office of Victim Advocates" for victims of sexual assault in the United States military. Roston's article is important not only for the insight it offers into the Pentagon's treatment of sexual assault, but also for its fairminded approach (Roston points out steps the Pentagon has taken to address the needs of sexual assault victims even as he offers commentary from critics of these steps) and its wide contextual reach (the article pulls from a personal interview with the Pentagon, a Defense Department congressional report, and direct commentary from a variety of experts)--two qualities necessary for responsible coverage (editorial or otherwise) of any news story. At Take Back the News, we invite your comments: What about Roston's style most impresses you? Most disappoints you? After reading Roston's article, why do you think the Pentagon has rejected this proposal? Do you think such an office would work better than the Pentagon's current system? Or do you think the proposed office would cause too many problems, either by draining funds for a redundant cause (i.e. sexual assault victims are already being addressed) or by further dividing the sexes in an already charged military environment? 21-June-06 Posted by Maria. Lis Wiehl recently published an important article with FOX Fan Central addressing current rape shield laws. She reminds readers that rape shield laws were adopted in the 1970s to "protect the integrity and reputation of rape victims," and she laments that the victim in the Duke case lost this protection. According to Wiehl, these laws were passed for a straightforward reason: "before the laws were passed, it was everyday practice for defense lawyers to attack rape victims on the stand by painting them as promiscuous liars." Not only do the rape shield laws prevent this kind of irresponsible testimony, but they also encourage rape victims to step forward without fear of having their entire histories dragged through the mud, causing them metaphorically to be "raped all over again in the courtroom." Wiehl also makes the point that the defendents in the Duke case lost the protection that rape shield laws provide as well. She highlights the fact that photos of the two indicted lacrosse players bombard public media, arguing that "even if they are acquitted, those two will always be known for having been accused of raping a 27-year-old stripper." Wiehl's suggestion is for policy makers. She urges not that rape shield laws be better enforced for victims, but that they be expanded to protect defendents as well. In her words, "Under this expansion of the law, prosecutors would be 'gagged' from revealing the identity of the accuser and the accused before trial." And her reasoning is as straightforward as she describes the reasoning for the original laws: "this would curtail the pre-trial publicity that is often so devastating for both sides of the case." Wiehl's article is important for at least two reasons: (1) she returns readers to the controversy surrounding the original rape shield laws: is it fair to prohibit the publication of an alleged rape victim's identity? does this violate the First Amendment? and does this actually do more harm than good in that these victims emerge identity-less, a blank space for media and readers to fill in with their hunger for gossip and intrigue? and (2) she offers an intriguing and controversial solution: would shielding the identity of alleged rapists make for a fairer trial? fairer representation in public media? or would this lead to even more exaggeration, guesswork, and hearsay? What do you think? Send your responses to any of the above questions to laura@takebackthenews.org. 20-June-06 Posted by Laura. Take Back the News is not the only one that has noticed the distorted media coverage of the Duke rape case, and the fact that news outlets have allowed themselves to become a public forum for the defense team to present its one-sided, self-interested theories of what happened that night, creating the impression that these spin-doctored theories are facts. Durham's Herald Sun published a series of email traffic between Prosecutor Mike Nifong and Newsweek magazine dealing with just this issue. According to Nifong, "[i]s anyone surprised that the defense attorneys are spinning this case in such a way that things do not look good for the prosecution? Their job, after all, is to create reasonable doubt, a task made all the easier by an uncritical national press corps desperate for any reportable detail, regardless of its veracity." (Emphasis added.) He also wrote to Newsweek, "[i]f . . . you and other 'journalists' want to continue your speculations in the competition to come up with the most sellable story -- and that seems to be everyone's bottom line -- then please spare me the recriminations when you get things wrong, as you inevitably will." He admitted that his refusal to address the press after the indictments has opened the door for the defense team to distort public opinion of the case. However, according to Nifong, "[w]hat has surprised me is the utter lack of any degree of skepticism on the part of the national media with respect to the claims of defense attorneys, many of which are misleading and some of which are absolutely false." See April 22 below for a letter written by Take Back the News that was printed in the Herald-Sun discussing these very same issues. 01-May-06 Posted by Laura. Two news/talk shows aired on CNN on Saturday, April 29, dealing with how the media is handling the Duke situation. The first, Reliable Source, airs at 10 a.m. (Eastern Time) every Sunday and describes itself as "one of television's only regular programs to examine how journalists do their jobs and how the media affect the stories they cover." The show's host is Howard Kurtz of The Washington Post and each week he interviews media representatives about "how the press is covering the major stories of the week." The second airs later in the day and featured Mark Lamont Hill from Philadelphia who argued that if press headlines had read "Mother of Two Gang-Raped by Duke Lacrosse Team," the public outcry would have been very different. The CNN anchor Alina Choi, who is in Durham covering the case, admitted that getting the "scoop" and thus the ratings has come to drive much of how the media responds to cases such as this. She also admitted that the Duke story, in particular, is so one-sided because defense lawyers are talking to the press every hour on the hour, but the press does not have the woman's side of the story. 26-April-06 Posted by Emily. The following Letter to the Editor, written by the director of our Media Response Project, was published in this week's Newsweek. I am a director of a not-for-profit organization that addresses the misrepresentation of rape in mainstream media. I am writing regarding the headline to your recent cover story, "Sex, Lies & Duke." This headline is a perfect example of how the media misrepresents the crime of rape. There was no sex in the Duke case. If you believe the defense, nothing at all happened at the now infamous house on Buchanan Street. If they are lying, then a young woman was brutally raped, sodomized and beaten. Rape is a brutal, vicious act that is about violence, power and control. Because it happens to involve the penetration of another using one's sex organs does not make rape "sex." Laura Blasberg Duke Law School, Class of 1996 Co-Director, Take Back the News, Inc. 24-April-06 Posted by Emily. Click here to read a great op-ed that contextualizes the rape allegations against the Duke lacrosse team. 22-April-06 Posted by Emily. The following Letter to the Editor, written by the director of our Media Response Project, was published today in the Durham Herald-Sun. One-sided platform In your recent article "Lawyers claim police entered dorm illegally" by John Stevenson (April 14), as in other articles, your newspaper has successfully provided defense attorneys with a public forum for them to tell the Duke lacrosse players' side of the story regarding the recent rape allegations made against them. I have yet to see your newspaper provide the woman with an opportunity to do the same. As such, the public is only hearing one side of the story, and what people read in a newspaper leaves a powerful impression on them. These attorneys are likely being paid $300-400/hour to defend these young men. Anything that they say about the case is completely biased and it is in their interest to distort what actually occurred that night. The defense team will cherry pick anything that is helpful for their case when talking to the press, and will hide from the press facts that could be damaging. They will also twist the facts to suit their clients. Regardless of what occurred, the public should hear both sides of the story. When you are so generously providing newspaper space for the defense attorneys to spout their theories of the case, be sure to make clear that these theories have not been proved. LAURA BLASBERG Hewlett, N.Y. April 22, 2006 17-April-06 Posted by Laura. As you probably have heard, a 27-year old woman has accused members of the Duke University lacrosse team of raping and beating her at an off-campus party. As a result of these allegations, Duke University cancelled its men’s lacrosse season. The allegations have garnered a tremendous amount of news coverage, in part because of the racial and class overtones to the story (the woman is a black single-mother working as an exotic dancer in order to put herself through college; the accused players are white student-athletes at the elite university). Recently, the results of a DNA test were made public by the lawyers hired to represent the lacrosse players; the results were negative. The ramifications of the negative results have not been adequately explained in the news stories (i.e. if the players were wearing condoms, would they have left behind any DNA?). Instead, the test results have caused a serious change in tone of news coverage of the alleged assault. For instance: (1) In nearly all of the news articles, the female victim is referred to as “the stripper” or “the dancer” and not “the victim” or even simply “the woman,” immediately triggering stereotypes and tainting public opinion of her character. Meanwhile, the accused are generally referred to as the “lacrosse players,” rather than the “exotic dancer’s patrons,” which, if relying on stereotypes, would make more sense in the context of this case. (2) A recent Associated Press article bore the headline “Cop: Duke dancer was ‘passed-out drunk’.” This headline is biased. The description of the woman's medical exam taken the night of the alleged rape states only that the woman's injuries and behavior were consistent with having been raped, sexually assaulted and having suffered a traumatic experience. However, this headline which screams that the woman, or “dancer,” was at fault, is based on the fact that a police officer who first saw the woman stated, "Um, the problem is ... it's a lady in somebody else's car and she will not get out of their car. She's like, she's like intoxicated, drunk or something. She's, I mean, she won't get out of the car, period." It is possible that the woman would not get out of the car because she was still in traumatic shock from being raped and did not want to be near anyone. This possible misunderstanding should not be a headline, which only misleads the public. (3) The shocking tone of the early reports (i.e. that young, educated, privileged men could possibly have raped someone) belies the fact that rape by male college students is actually extraordinarily prevalent. 1 in 4 college women will be sexually assaulted before they graduate, in most cases by their male peers. Not one reporter that we know of has chosen to use this incident as a chance to educate the public to the grim fact that college men rape women with alarming frequency. When the DNA test came out negative, the tone of the coverage significantly changed. Reporters are now resorting to implications of lying for personal gain by the accuser. Such implications further perpetuate the myth that lying about rape is a common practice among women. (4) The broad scope of the coverage of the incident, whether or not it occurred, is fraught with stereotypes of men, women, and the act of rape itself. Much of the coverage has taken a gossip-column tone and has not addressed the situation as but one example of what is a grave problem on our nation’s college campuses and in our society in general. If you are similarly outraged by the coverage you’ve read about this incident involving the Duke lacrosse team, please email us - we would like to hear your thoughts and opinions on this subject. And, as always, we encourage you to write a letter to the editor of the paper printing the article.