I know as well as anyone that a good headline can make or break the success of an article. In the journalism world, headlines are designed to do one of three things: make the reader click, make the reader feel (whether that be anger, sadness, or belonging), or make the reader identify (with one party or another). These techniques are used to pique the reader’s interest, and to compel him/her to share the article. Unfortunately, these techniques are also responsible for much of the sexual abuse that happens today.
Wait…what did she just say?
Hear me out. Sexual abuse (especially in high-profile cases) is a sexy (no pun intended) topic. Why? People see an article about it. They’re intrigued. They click. They read. They share. People comment. “How disgusting.” If the article does well, the publication does well, and the writer gets rewarded. Moreover, the writer feels a sense of importance and responsibility for writing about it.
Years ago, sexual abuse was an issue to be avoided. It was kept hidden because talking about it was uncomfortable. Today, exposure is becoming more prevalent and people want to talk about it. Yet the way the media is handling it is wrong. Point blank. The media is hurting—not helping—the cause.
On one side, we have poor reporting. For instance, Rolling Stone's coverage of the UVA “Rape” Case. As the Washington Post reported, here we have “a wanton journalist who was more concerned with writing an article that fulfilled her preconceived narrative about the victimization of women on American college campuses, and a malicious publisher who was more concerned about selling magazines to boost the economic bottom line for its faltering magazine, than they were about discovering the truth or actual facts.”
Articles such as the one originally written by Sabrina Rubin Erdely may have had pure intentions, but ended up harming those whom they were trying to help. Once the truth unraveled (that the allegations against the accused fraternity men at UVA were false), a new problem was created; the problem being that attention-seeking women realized they could gain exposure through similar allegations, and those women (and men) who really have been negatively affected by sexual abuse were now labeled as attention-seeking liars.
Case in point: Bill Cosby’s victims. Thirty years have gone by, and this story has only just recently been gaining momentum. Why did it take so long for these women to come forward? As Time reported, “…almost all say they didn’t come forward for fear that they would not be believed.”
On the other side, we have headlines that glorify the abuser (and his/her enablers). When the Jerry Sandusky scandal occurred in 2012, the media stormed in, causing outrage and disbelief across the nation. From there, it was reported that Joe Paterno was aware of the sexual abuse occurring. He was fired, and his 409 wins were nullified. This series of unfortunate events was intended to help Sandusky’s victims, but once again, had the opposite effect. Horrifyingly enough, some Penn State fans could be heard saying, “Seriously, f**k that kid who told. Football is going to suck my year.”
Sandusky’s and Paterno’s names were buzzing everywhere, as people debated whether or not Paterno was to blame, and wondered how long Sandusky’s sentence would be for. The debacle was more about Penn State football and these two now notorious coaches than it was about the issue at hand. Children—who had originally been afraid to come forward—now had valid fears. Their abuser’s face could be found splashed across newspapers and magazines, and their own had been replaced by remarks about what would happen to Penn State. Other victims—those who had nothing to do with Sandusky—sat at home wondering what would happen to them if they came forward. Would they receive recognition or validation? Probably not.
At this point, I have reason to believe that ferocious, protective mothers are of more assistance to their children than the media is. While the media is only concerned with selling stories, what we all need to be concerned about is humanity. The victims—the real ones—where are their stories? Surely they are not contrived, and surely they are more important than their abusers. If sexual abuse is going to be reported, it needs to be done so accurately.
That is, facts need to be checked. These stories should not be shared until the truth is known. Otherwise we will have people like Jimbo Fisher—defending people like Jameis Winston who was accused of rape—with the infamous quote that, “This country is based on being innocent until proven guilty, not guilty until proven innocent.”
These writers, those who write these stories; they’re not even championing a cause. What they’re doing is dishonoring a cause. People who fabricate a story harm those who truly need validation and reassurance, and champion those who make the headlines. What about the people who really have been sexually abused, who are now called liars and continue to be abused due to fear of coming forward? They shouldn’t fear ostracism, but poor reporting has made sure that they do. What about the victims of high-profile cases? Why should they have to see an accused criminal on every news station? Why does their emotional well-being not take precedence over a football coach’s or an actor’s standing?
The fact of the matter is that sexual abuse is a problem in our society. It’s a problem that is nothing new, yet has continued to be dishonored due to multiple accounts of bad journalism. Unless journalism changes, the ones who truly are suffering from such an atrocious act will continue to suffer.
