Here’s a scene from an episode of the extremely smug HBO show The Newsroom from about a month ago. In it, a producer from Newsnight (Don) attempts to convince a college student NOT to go on the show and name the student she accused of raping her, and to take down a website she created where women can publicly name accused rapists.
This scene was roundly criticized. For instance, [The Onion AV Club](The Onion AV Club) gave the episode a D+, mostly due to that one storyline. (There are a few other scenes in that storyline, I couldn’t find them all on youtube… in particular, when Don first meets here there are several exchanges along the lines of him saying “I understand that you’re in pain” and her saying “you can’t possibly understand” and him saying “you’re right, i can’t”, which I think makes him a little more sympathetic.) Various other media outlets also covered the scene negatively, and a female writer on The Newsroom got into a twitter fight with Aaron Sorkin about it.
So, I guess I have a few questions for debate (mods move this to Cafe Society if you like).
(1) On first seeing the scene, I though it did an unusually good job of presenting good arguments on both sides of the issue, and was a bit surprised to find many other people viewing it as Aaron Sorkin clearly endorsing Don’s position. I’m honestly not sure that I think he ends up winning the argument. What do others think? Is that scene a balanced discussion of an issue without a clear right answer, or is it condescending mansplaining?
(2) What about the issues under discussion. Is a web site where women (presumably at a college) can log on and post the names of people the claim have raped or assaulted them a good idea? What about a rape victim going on a national news program and accusing someone by name of rape? Is a society in which that frequently happens better or worse than one in which it doesn’t?
(3) One thing I do think is definitely odd about Don’s position is his claim that he has to use the same innocent-until-proven-guilty formula that the justice system does. Since when are journalists not allowed to have opinions and positions, as long as they are careful not to present them as absolute truth?
I can’t get the clip to play, but from the commentary it seems as if the primary issue is that the show makes it seem as if the woman needs a man to “mansplain” the risks of her plan, as if she’s somehow missed the massive retaliations we’ve seen against rape accusers in recent news. It’s not really the perception that Sorkin agrees with Don, as much as having that character make that speech to begin with is condescending. Especially givent hat this show is not airing in a vacuum.
A website as described, of course, would immediate lose credibility as trolls, jokers, crazies and the rest would take over.
A journalist reporting does have an obligation to present “both sides of the story” outside of the op-ed section. But of course they can personally hold whatever opinions they have.
That’s not how it feels to me… her reactions to what he’s saying is not “oh, wow, what an amazing point, I never would have thought of that with my little girlish brain”, it’s “sure, that’s relevant, but as for me, the person who actually was raped, my priorities are clearly different than yours”.
But I wonder if a large part of what’s going on is that in the perception of the audience, having a *man *make those points creates a negative reaction and makes it look like “mansplaining”? The question is in my mind of what-if it had been a female character – would the audence then react along the lines of that it’s not credible that a woman would take that position?
I also agree with even sven’s second and third paragraphs. The website would not last as a credible source, and outside the court nobody has to observe judicial standards of evidence. The journalist does have to avoid getting so caught up in making the point as to overlook whether the story holds water (e.g. Rolling Stone/UVA), but he most definitely does NOT have the same duty as the court.
It’s absolutely allowed, but in anglophone press circles it’s sort of frowned upon. An American or English press release is naturally opinionated (ain’t no such beast as objective), but the writer will use the unspoken, the innuendo, the necessary conclusion and similar “soft” rhetoric to march the reader to his or her own point through their writing, choice of quotes, vocabulary and so on. Ostensibly however, the article “should” be 100% facts. It’s a stylistic choice, not an ethical one.
An extreme (and unsubtle) example of this would be Anything Rupert Murdoch - where the journos will almost never out and out say “Obama is a bad president, also a nigger”, but everyday you’ll have weasel pieces like “Why is the President setting fire to baskets of puppies, and is that a good way to balance the budget ?”
Here in France articles often are 80%-90% author’s opinion, clearly stated and “honest”, or at least in-your-face, “I’m X and here’s what I think of this, because…”. The facts being summarized or mentioned somewhere in there, often at the tail end of the piece. We don’t rely on quotes so much, unless they prove a point or provide more details about given facts.
Neither method is the “right” one of course - again, it’s just a matter of style and tradition. We have Zola’s J’ACCUSE! as our gold standard, y’all have… I’unno, whoever pioneered the ostensibly neutral reporting I guess
This is one of the reasons I dislike the word “mansplain.” All too often I’ve seen the opinions of men dismissed as mansplaining when women give similar opinions with no backlash. It’s simply a way to dismiss someone’s opinion on the basis of their gender. Sexism isn’t acceptable when applied to any gender.
And let’s not forget Richard Jewell who ended up suing NBC because they said he must be the one who set off the Olympic bomb otherwise law enforcement wouldn’t be so interested in them.
So basically, even though it is balanced and intelligent, because it is the opinion of a man on an issue involving rape it is immediately offensive and invalid.
I would certainly think that had she set up that website, she could face libel suites if an innocent man were ever named.
Lawyers would probably know better, but she certainly seems to be engaging in “reckless disregard for the truth”.
I only saw part of the episode, but I did like the moment where she angrily complains about how the system was clearly “failing rape victims” and he responds, “Yes, but in fairness it wasn’t set up for victims” and she understandably gets angry at what he’s saying.
It’s actually a common fight since at least the '80s when people complained about criminals “getting off” because of “technicalities”.
Don’s point is the system was set up not to “protect” victims but to ensure that the accused only get thrown in cages if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt.
Then why just never prosecute anyone, ever? Seems as though that’s the perfect way to make sure that no innocent people are incarcerated… if that’s the system’s sole purpose, that is.
That would make the “thrown in cages if found guilty beyond a reasonable doubt” part a bit difficult.
Justice is not revenge.
Does the system and cultural view of rape need to be fixed, yes. Does the fact that it needs to be fixed justify removing access to the legal system for the accused, no.
The idea is that, when the system fails, it is preferred to allow a guilty individual to walk than it is to jail an innocent person.
Absent physical evidence, rape usually comes down to a he-said-she-said situation.
I don’t want to live in a country where a lone accuser’s statement, absent any corroborating evidence, is enough to convict someone of a crime. If you think rape is a unique instance in which one woman’s accusation is enough to convict, then you are bending the rules of rational legalism to suit your agenda. I do not support that.
What a bad-quality review. I couldn’t get the link in the OP to work, but found it here.
There’s this portion:
…which, to me, seems like the reviewer is rolling her eyes at the notion that the accused might be innocent. Never mind that “everything to hide” is just the accused not wanting to be found guilty (which is consistent with both guilt and innocence). Never mind that being “sketchy” (whatever that means) is immaterial to guilt or innocence. The reviewer thinks Don is in the wrong for not believing Mary by default.
The review then goes on at length that Sorkin is a bad guy who needs to check his privilege. The only other interesting part is the mention that Don ends up lying to his superiors; that he said he couldn’t find Mary, so he can’t do the story. Now, I haven’t seen the episode, so I can’t tell whether Sorkin thinks that Don was right to do that. I don’t, and the reviewer doesn’t, but she says that Sorkin is a bad guy for writing that because he definitely wrote it in the sense that Don did the right thing. Would anyone who’s seen the episode care to weigh in on this?
As for Don’s moral obligation to abide by “innocent until proven guilty”, are we sure that he meant that he’s obligated as a journalist? He doesn’t say so in the scene. He may think that it’s a good rule of thumb for any given person to use, because it allows one to disengage and avoid the whole crime-as-entertainment shitshow that is the court of public opinion.
I don’t agree that the scene presents both sides of the issue fairly. Mary’s argument boils down to, “I’m afraid, and the system won’t help me, so it’s okay for me to take whatever steps I see fit in order to feel safe, even if that means making you (said to Don) afraid. I don’t care how many innocent people are caught in the crossfire.” We can’t fault Mary for feeling that way, but it wouldn’t be a good argument for someone to make in a detached discussion.
Wait, MaxTheVool is a different poster than Max The Immortal??
Having watched the clip, it didn’t seem to me like the show was trying to give the impression that the victim needed a man to “mansplain” to her how justice works, especially if this Don guy is supposed to be a good guy in the show. I think he’s more working as the viewer substitute, where the default position is the one where we’re distanced from the event, not the accused or accuser, and must look at things from an objective standpoint. That he was a man is secondary. I don’t watch the show so I don’t know if they have a female character that can be put in the same role. Certainly the victim’s assertion that he wanted to meet her at a public place so she wouldn’t cry rape wouldn’t fare as well against a female character.
