More Failure from The New York Times

(A warning: This post is a follow-up to yesterday's story on rape and violence. Trigger and sensitivity warnings apply.)

Further info on yesterday's In Which Your Heart May Break:

 The New York Times has offered an explanation of sorts to Tuesday's story under the understated headline, "Gang Rape Story Lacked Balance."

 Shakesville presents the passive response of  The New York Times' public editor Arthur S. Brisbane, and breaks down the myriad ways in which it fails. I encourage you to read the whole thing.

In brief, The New York Times, forced to say something in regard to the public outcry, admitted the story by James C. McKinley, Jr. (and yes, I will continue to write his full name in case he has a Google alert set up for it, so that he may see the full measure of his failed journalism) lacked a "critical balancing element." Ya think?

Let's look at a snippet of McKinley's language, shall we? Mr. B (who in full disclosure is an editor at a newspaper, obviously not the Times because he would not let this unconscionable drivel go to print), wrote me this on McKinley's language:

[McKinley writes:] "How could their young men have been drawn into such an act?" Not "How could their young men have committed such an act?" but "drawn into," as if they had no choice in the matter because some powerful unseen force was behind their odious action.

I will repeat that James McKinley needs to be held accountable for perpetuating such blatant victim blaming that has no place in a paper as influential as The New York Times. Such lack of journalistic integerity and flat-out human decency sicken me, both as a writer and as a human being.

In further upset, Jezebel reports that racial tensions are now playing out in the small Texas town, and encouraging the blame to be placed on the victim and her parents rather than the boys and men who committed this heinous crime.

I will post further updates when/if they become available.