Overdue Follow-Up

(Previous coverage of this story can be found here and here. As always, Trigger Warnings for the discussion of rape, and victim blaming in the media.)

The New York Times finally published a follow-up story to the victim-blaming piece insinuating a young child was partly responsible for being raped by up to 19 men. The story comes almost three weeks after public outrage forced editor Arthur S. Brisbane to feebly admit the original Times story was, perhaps, lacking balance. To which the Internet replied, "Duh."

The Times did not, however, see it in their best interest to assign another journalist to the critical follow-up, and allowed biased writer James C. McKinley, Jr. to try to redeem himself. Fair enough. But as sources have pointed out, McKinley still throws bones to the ravenous victim-blamers and rape apologists (and I dare say we could count him among that blood-thirsty crowd) by letting racist and classist language "slip" into his descriptions. As pointed out by Shakesville, the use of subtle stereotypes (such as the young girl's Hispanic father sleeping in the afternoon) are a personal style that McKinley clings to. The story is also full of disturbing details that were missing in previous coverage. (So again, I urge caution in reading.) It may leave the reader wondering: Is this balance or over-compensation for victim-blaming?

To be fair, the delay in printing the story could have come from a judge issuing a gag order which prohibits those involved talking to the media. Active cases such as this can change, so it is the journalist's responsibility to keep up. The delay could also be part self-fulfilling prophecy; the Times created a media circus around an already troubled case that makes reporting new information difficult.

A troubling aside to this story is that the Times itself is changing: On March 28 they released a new paywall program for Internet accessibility. The paywall allows readers free access to 20 articles a month, but after that the reader must pay for a digital subscription. Has this story been delayed due to the changes being implemented? Will fewer readers see it because of the paywall? Only time and the Times will tell.

Sadly, there seems to be a bit of media fatigue on this story -- the only response seems to be let justice prevail. Three weeks is a long time to wait in the world of push-button publishing. I am late to this story, since it broke yesterday and I am writing about it late Wednesday afternoon. In journalism, and in blogging, timing is everything. If I wait until after 5:30 p.m. to hit publish, I'll lose half my readers as they leave work for the day. But I'm just one woman, with one keyboard, and a life to lead. The professionals at the New York Times should have a staff of editors, writers and interns to cover their bases. 

Media criticism of this whole debacle can serve as a case what NOT to do for current journalists and J-School students. But even that is a pale, minuscule silver lining in a horrific and tragic story that was mangled from day one. My thoughts are still with the little girl, and I can only pray she is being given the support she needs to work through this tragedy despite the failings of the community and the media.