.5. b: Lwr

n

. kw
. grim;
as J...

*i
gal
Ii

9“

:Nnbn.ul..
, m: V .
1 ‘luh‘al‘: .2."

:5 ‘ , ‘
Hakka .
... ,

immw

629' .2115 :
gay?
n. 3:.

..¢

{.va

n

 

o
h
.u

“mass

6._/'

Date

0-7639

MICHIGANS

IIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIIII IIII IIIIIIII

 

LIBRARY

Michigan State
University

 

 

 

This is to certify that the

thesis entitled

Naming Names: A Survey of 0.8. Daily Newspapers Regarding

Identification of Rape Victims

presented by

Linda A. Norlock

has been accepted towards fulfillment
of the requirements for

M.A. degree in _Jnnmalism_

W

Major professor

/Q-”76

MS U is an Affirmative Action/Equal Opportunity Institution

PLACE ll RETURN BOX to remove thb checkout from your record.
TO AVOID FINES return on or beiore date due.

DAJEQQE DATE DUE DATE DUE

 

APR01199
01310

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

MSU to An Nflnnetlve Action/EM Opportunity lnetltuion
mm:

N AMING NAMES:
A SURVEY OF US. DAILY NEWSPAPER POLICY
REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF RAPE VICTIMS

By
Linda A. Norlock

A THESIS

Submitted to
Michigan State University
in partial fulfillment of the requirements
for the degree of

MASTER OF ARTS

School of Journalism

1996

ABSTRACT
NAMING NAMES:

A SURVEY OF U.S. DAILY NEWSPAPERS
REGARDING IDENTIFICATION OF RAPE VICTIMS

By
Linda A. Norlock

In 1990, an editorial by Des Moines Register editor Geneva Overholser
advocated that newspapers change the way they refer to victims of rape and
identify them as they do victims of other crimes—by name. The editorial
prompted an Iowa rape victim to tell her story to the Register. The five-part
series that identified Nancy Ziegenmeyer by name received the Pulitzer Prize.

Several subsequent rape cases that received wide media coverage
continued the debate: the Central Park jogger case, the William Kennedy
Smith case, and the Mike Tyson case.

In this study, a mail survey of ranking editorial managers of US. daily
newspapers polled editors about their policies and policy-making processes
for identifying rape victims. Nearly all the 168 respondents continue the long-
standing tradition of shielding the names of rape victims, although many are
willing to publish names if the victim requests publication or unusual

circumstances arise.

DEDICATION

To my parents,
Nick and Geri Norlock

ACKNOWLEDGMENTS

To the members of my committee—Dr. Bill Coté, Dr. Sue Carter, and
Dr. Steve Lacy—in appreciation of their effort, their expertise, their support,
and, most of all, their patience.

And to Dee Dee Johnson, who has been my cheerleader.

iv

TABLE OF CONTENTS

LIST OF TABLES ........................................................................................................... vi
CHAPTER 1 — INTRODUCTION .............................................................................. 1
CHAPTER 2 — THE EFFECTS OF RAPE

AND ITS TREATMENT IN THE PRESS ............................................................. 6
CHAPTER 3 — REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE .................................................. 24
CHAPTER 4 — METHOD ........................................................................................... 65
CHAPTER 5 — RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS ................................................. 68
CHAPTER 6 — CONCLUSION ................................................................................. 102
APPENDICES

SURVEY .................................................................................................................. 110

LETTERS .................................................................................................................. 112

ENVELOPE .............................................................................................................. 114

SURVEY COMMENTS ......................................................................................... 115
BIBLIOGRAPHY .......................................................................................................... 119

LIST OF TABLES

TABLE 1 — Participants, by size of circulation ....................................................... 68
TABLE 2 — How practice resulted, by size of circulation .................................... 71

TABLE 3 — Instances that affect decisions to publish a name, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 72

TABLE 4 — When a newspaper publishes rape victims’ names, by size of
circulation ................................................................................................................. 73

TABLE 5 — Whether local law enforcement agencies provide newspapers
with names of rape victims, by size of circulation .......................................... 75

TABLE 6 — Length of time practice has been followed, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 77

TABLE 7 — Newspaper management’ 5 plan to review existing policy within
six months, by size of circulation ........................................................................ 78

TABLE 8 — If policy review is planned, likelihood that newspaper will
change policy, by size of circulation ..................................................................... 79

TABLE 9 — Newspapers prohibited by law from publishing names of rape
victims, by size of circulation ................................................................................ 81

TABLE 10 — Newspapers with representative boards that give input on
newspaper policy, by size of circulation .............................................................. 84

TABLE 11— Newspapers with representative boards that participated in
discussion leading to policy decisions regarding publication of rape
victims’ names, by size of circulation .................................................................. 85

TABLE 12 — Newspapers that sought input from victims of rape in
formulating policy regarding identification of rape victims, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 87

TABLE 13 — Newspapers that sought input from rape counseling services in
formulating policy regarding identification of rape victims, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 88

TABLE 14 — Newspapers that encourage staff input regarding the decision to
publish names of rape victims, by size of circulation ...................................... 90

TABLE 15 — Newspaper practice followed for national stories, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 92

TABLE 16 — Newspaper practices involving identification of rape victims in
several well-known cases, by size of circulation ............................................... 93

TABLE 17 — Newspapers that identify rape victims by name, by size of
circulation .................................................................................................................. 98

CHAPTER 1
INTRODUCTION

Unlike their practice in reporting other crimes, most American
newspapers have reserved special treatment for victims of rape. While they
routinely identify those who have been murdered, robbed, and assaulted,
newspapers are more guarded toward individuals who have been raped.
Historically, American newspapers have omitted the name of the rape victim
from news pages. Shielding the victim’s name, the argument went, protected
the victim from additional trauma caused by exposure to public attention.

While some newspapers refrain from printing victims’ names as a

courtesy, others are prohibited by law from doing so. In 1989, the United
States Supreme Court reversed a Florida court’ 5 judgment against a
newspaper that had been found in violation of the state statute. In The
Florida Star 0. B.].P., the Supreme Court weighed the media’s First
Amendment rights against a sexual assault victim’s right to privacy. The
Court refused to uphold an award for civil damages that was based on a state
statute that placed Ilimitations on publication of truthful and lawfully

obtained information.‘

 

1Morgan David Arant In, "Press Identification of Victims of Sexual Assault: Weighing
Privacy and Constitutional Concerns,” Journalism Quarterly 68, no. 1/ 2 (Spring/Summer 1991):
238.239.

In an essay responding to the Supreme Court’s decision, an Iowa
newspaper editor suggested that newspapers begin the reversal of this practice
and publish the names of rape victims. Geneva Overholser’s essay appeared
in the New York Times and was printed in her newspaper, the Des Moines
Register, in July 1989. Identifying victims by name, she reasoned, would begin
the process of eliminating the social stigma associated with the crime of rape.

Just months before OverholserI s essay was printed, two rapes that
occurred in different parts of the country would be widely reported in
newspapers across the nation. One was the very public gang rape of a woman
who was jogging alone at night in New York’s Central Park. The other
incident, which took place in a town near Des Moines, involved the rape of a
woman who was studying in her parked car.

Overholser’s essay inspired the Iowa rape victim to tell her story, which
was printed in a five-part Register series. The series, which was published
following the conviction of the woman’s attacker, identified victim Nancy
Ziegenmeyer by name. Although Register management expected backlash,
none came. Instead, readers expressed support, both of the newspaper and of
Ziegenmeyer. The series earned the Register a Pulitzer Prize for public service
in April 1991.2

These cases and their coverage renewed public discussion of whether rape

victims should be identified by name in published reports. That discussion

 

zDebra Gersh and Tony Case, "75th Annual Pulitzer Prize Winners,” Editor 8 Publisher, 13
April 1991, 41.

increased when two well-known men were charged with rape and their
alleged victims were identified by name in the national media. In these cases,
the media did more than supply coverage of the rape trials; it also covered
itself covering these stories. Reporters interviewed wire service executives
about their decision not to identify the woman who accused William
Kennedy Smith of raping her. Newspapers and magazines interviewed New
York Times staff who objected to their management’ 5 decision to identify the
woman. Following publication of the prize-winning series, Overholser and
the Register were the subjects of intensive media coverage.

Events such as these have sparked renewed discussion about identifying
rape victims by name in news reports. One side supports continuing the
practice of withholding names. Identification, this group says, is like being
raped twice—once during the attack and again when the name is revealed in
the media. A divergent viewpoint holds that individuals who have been
raped should be encouraged to reveal that they have been victims of a crime
for which they bear no guilt. In cases that go to trial, some question why the
name of the alleged rapist is revealed in media reports while the name of the
alleged victim is omitted as a ”courtesy.”

The continued attention to identification of rape victims in press reports
made the public aware of an issue that perhaps was once of primary concern
to reporters, editors, and victims. An overriding consideration of any
proposal to alter press practice regarding publication of victims’ names seems

to be the welfare of the victim. Critics fear that publishing names of victims of

sexual assault will discourage them from reporting this crime to law
enforcement agencies.

That concern presents an ethical problem for the media. The press is
protected by the First Amendment, which prohibits government from
interfering with the freedom to publish. The media, however, must balance
that sanction against the rights of the individual. Reporters and editors need
to be sensitive to these rights and may decide to withhold details—or
publication altogether—if disseminating that information may endanger
someone.

Overholser believes that public sensitivity will develop as media practice
changes.

This is a time of transition in rape reporting. I say transition because

I believe that we should be moving toward a time when we treat the

victims of rape as we do the adult victims of all other crimes: by

naming them. I think that is the appropriate policy because it is
evenhanded, because it precludes subjecting the accused to

anonymous charges and because it best contributes to public

understanding.3

While she advocates a change in policy, Overholser said that she is not
willing to move into it coercively. ”I accept as true the contention that rape
victims bear a special stigma,” she said.‘

Certainly the press cannot be examined as an entity with one set of rules,

laws, and policies governing it. One newspaper may routinely withhold from

 

3Geneva Overholser, ”Covering rape: A time of transition,” ASNE Bulletin, no. 726
(October 1990): 13—14.

‘Ibid.

publication the names of rape victims while another paper in the same
coverage area reveals the identity of those victims.

How do newspaper managers decide whether to publish the names of
these victims? Have newspapers adopted policies that determine when a
victim’s name will be included in reports, or do they make these decisions on
a case-by-case basis? Do newspapers adhere to this policy implicitly, or do
events that occur in the national media affect a publication’s decision to use
the name of a rape victim?

It has been seven years since editor Geneva Overholser called for the
press and the public to eliminate the social stigma attached to rape. Following
the publication of that essay and through the days of several well-publicized
trials, the media and the public debated the issue of identifying rape victims
by name.

The goal of this research is to determine if these events that resulted in
national media coverage have influenced daily newspapers to examine and
alter their policies governing rape reporting. Through a survey of ranking
editorial managers of US. daily newspapers, this study will attempt to
identify whether the debate has prompted newspapers to adopt a process in

which they continue to examine the issue or if it is now merely old news.

CHAPTER 2

THE EFFECTS OF RAPE AND
ITS TREATMENT IN THE PRESS

Any examination of policy regarding the identification of rape victims in
the press must take into account the incidence of rape in society and the effect
of the crime on its victims.

Most individuals would concur that rape is a traumatic experience. They
realize that the invasive nature of sexual assault causes both physical harm
and emotional distress. Given the inherent secrecy that surrounds many
incidents of sexual assault as well as the current law enforcement practices for
recording these crimes, many people may not realize that their family,
friends, and acquaintances have been victims of rape.

It is impossible to formulate a universal legal definition of the word rape
that will apply in every jurisdiction.

Most state statutes rely on the traditional common law definition of rape:
A man commits rape when he engages in intercourse (in old statutes, carnal
knowledge) with a woman not his wife; by force or threat of force; against her

will and without her consent.s

 

5Susan Estrich, Real Rape (Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987), 8.

While rape law has receive considerable attention and revision over the
past 30 years, some rape laws have not changed significantly in the modern
era. Some statutes fail to define rape succinctly—or to define it at all.

States that have reformed their laws have struggled with a variety of
factors: the exemption from rape for married people, the requirement that a
rape conviction cannot be obtained on the victim’s testimony without
corroboration by a third party or by physical evidence, and the difference
between objective demonstrations of force, that result from the defendant’ 5
conduct, and the subjective concept of the victim’s nonconsent.

The amended statutes tend to be adaptations of one of three models: the
Michigan statute, which focuses almost exclusively on the defendant; the
Model Penal Code, which downgrades the offense of sexual assault where the
individuals were voluntary social companions; and the New York statute,
which is an adaptation of the Model Penal Code. Most states combine
elements from the three models.‘

For example, some state laws indicate that marriage is ”not a defense” in
some instances of rape, which leaves it ambiguous as a defense in other
circumstances. Other states are more explicit about spousal exemptions from

criminal law.7

 

”Richard A. Posner and Katharine B. Silbaugh, A Guide to America’s Sex laws (Chicago:
University of Chicago Press, 1996), 5-7.

7Ibid., 35.

Because each state defines rape differently, the number of rape incidents
reported by law enforcement agencies may vary. What is considered a
reportable offense in one state may not be in another.

On a national level, the Uniform Crime Reports bases its findings on
reported cases of actual or attempted forced sexual intercourse. On both state
and national levels, rape defense is dependent on the victim’s lack of consent
or inability to give consent because of mental incapacitation due to mental
illness, retardation, alcohol, or drugs.“

In gathering statistical data for crimes that have occurred in the United
States, researchers often turn to reports released by agencies of the US.
Department of Justice. The Uniform Crime Reports, which are compiled
annually by the Federal Bureau of Investigation, include the number of
forcible rapes reported to law enforcement agencies across the nation in a
given year.9 The Sourceka of Criminal Justice Statistics, which is issued
yearly by the Bureau of Justice Statistics, provides information about crime
and criminal justice that is drawn from a variety of sources. Data are collected
through public opinion polls, surveys of individuals and households,

tabulations of individuals who have been arrested, counts of illegal goods and

 

’Rob Hall, Rape in America (Santa Barbara, Calif: ABC-CLIO, 1995), xii.

'05. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for
the United States 1994 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995), 24.

seized assets, judicial processing numbers, and reports of criminal justice
agencies and correctional programs.lo

Because different sources and methods are used for data collection, these
reports vary. For example, the 1994 Uniform Crime Reports found that
104,806 forcible rapes were reported to law enforcement agencies throughout
this country. This number represented 79 of every 100,000 females in the
United States." For that year, the Sourcebook of Criminal Justice Statistics
estimated that 160,380 rapes occurred in the United States. This number was
based on data gathered for the National Crime Victimization Survey, a
sampling of approximately 93,000 persons ages 12 and older. Additionally, the
Uniform Crime Reports consider rapes that involve females only; the
Sourceka of Criminal Justice Statistics includes male victims. The
sourcebook projected that 5,950 males were raped; this estimate, however, was
based on about 10 or fewer samples.12

While these governmental reports draw their information from different
sources, both may grossly underrepresent the number of rapes that occur in

the United States each year.

 

"us. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistim 1994 (Washington, DC: GPO, 1995), iii.

"US. Department of Justice, Federal Bureau of Investigation, Uniform Crime Reports for
the United States 1994, 24.

12US. Department of Justice, Bureau of Justice Statistics, Sourcebook of Criminal Justice
Statistics 1994, 230-231.

10

For 1990, the Uniform Crime Reports stated that 102,560 women in the
United States had been raped, while the US. Department of Justice estimated
that 130,000 individuals had been raped. Yet another federally funded study
placed the number of rape victims in the United States as much as six and
one-half times higher.

The National Women’s Study 1990, which was conducted by the National
Victim Center in Arlington, Va., and the Crime Victims Research and
Treatment Center at the Medical University of South Carolina, estimated that
683,000 adult American women were raped during the same period.13 If the
findings are accurate, more than 12 million women have been raped at least
once."

Some experts believe that FBI and Justice Department figures on rape are
much lower because relatively few victims report their rapes to police.15

Researchers estimate that 40 to 90 percent of all rapes are not reported.
Incomplete data, estimates, and reporting factors that differ by jurisdiction
affect figures compiled by the government. Data collected from rape crisis
centers indicate that many do not report their rapes to the police, which
excludes them from any governmental count. Some estimates are affected by

sample size, survey methods and language, and research bias. ‘6

 

1"Sarah Glazer, ”Violence Against Women," CQ Researcher 3, no. 8 (Feb. 26, 1994): 173.
“”Looking Behind Rape Statistics,” Christian Science Monitor, 5 May 1992, 20.
“Glazer, 173.

1‘Hall, 87-88.

11

Researcher Neil Gilbert challenges the discrepancies in rape reporting
numbers. He attributes these differences to the various definitions and
methods used in gathering data.

Gilbert points out that some studies use incidence rates (the number of
cases reported per year) while others rely on prevalence rates (the proportion
of women who will be victimized at some time in their lives). Some studies
use data from police reports; others use random surveys of individuals who
may or may not have been raped. And some studies, he says, are misleading
in their efforts to capture the full extent of sexual molestation.17

Gilbert also attributes the disparate numbers to the data collection
methods and definitions used by feminist researchers. Gilbert calls these
figures advocacy numbers—numbers that are less an effort for scientific
understanding and more an attempt to persuade the public that the problem
is far larger than commonly recognized. By using a broad definition of sexual
assault, Gilbert says the problem becomes a vessel into which nearly any
human difficulty can be poured. He calls for more objective analysis to dispel
what he terms ”the phantom epidemic of rape!“

Victims have many reasons for failing to report rape to law enforcement

agencies. Some fear reprisal from their attackers, and others are concerned

 

”Neil Gilbert, ”The Phantom Epidemic of Sexual Assault,” The Public Interest, no. 103
(Spring 1991): 57-59.

"Ibid., 63, 65.

12

that information about their private lives will be made public. Some victims
also fear the stigma that society attaches to the crime of rape.

A manual for police sex crime investigators describes rape as a severe
crisis-inducing experience. Victims of rape, the report says, undergo three
different phases: an acute phase, an adjustment phase, and an integration
phase.

In the acute phase, victims are frequently in a state of emotional shock.
They cannot believe that a rape could have happened to them, and they may
be unable to comprehend what has occurred or how they should react. As a
result, some victims act illogically or irrationally. Victims may repeatedly
bathe or wash their clothes, or they may display other unexpected behavioral
responses.

In the adjustment phase, which is a denial phase, victims often appear to
be coping. This may, however, be a superficial and temporary adjustment.
Some victims do not fully come to terms with their experience; for them,
fundamental problems may emerge at a later time.

The integration phase, which is the final phase in dealing with rape
trauma, occurs over a long period of time. It requires the victim to integrate
the rape experience into daily living.

Victims often respond to their rape with a significant amount of guilt.
Some individuals exaggerate their own responsibility for not avoiding a

potentially dangerous situation or for failing to resist successfully.

13

Victims may perceive themselves differently following a rape because
they feel stigmatized. Many find it difficult to return to their normal
responsibilities of classes or work and revert into a state of dependence or
helplessness. For some, this means changing schools or finding a new job.19

Public exposure of the intimate details of rape may be embarrassing or

| .

humiliating for the victim. Many victims fear a loss of privacy, but the extent X14?
of the privacy problem is difficult to assess because of significant variation in 1
local practice.20

Some believe that sexual assault victims need special protection from
identification in the courts and in the media. They argue that the privacy
concerns of rape victims outweigh the First Amendment claims of access to

information. One commentator contends that ”the public has no First

Amendment interest in the publication of a victim’s name, whereas the "
victim and her family have a compelling privacy interest in preventing
publication.”21
These conflicting interests—the press’s First Amendment rights vs. the
victim’s right to privacy—have scuttled most efforts to enact laws that shield

the rape victim from public scrutiny. While lawmakers in several states have

 

"US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,
Forcible Rape: A Manual for Sex Crime Investigators, Police Volume III, (Washington, D.C.,
March 1984), 9.

”US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,
Forcible Rape: An Analysis of Legal Issues, (Washington, D.C., March 1978), 34.

21Arant, 238.

14

drafted legislation to prohibit news organizations from identifying victims of
sexual assault, none has been enacted.

In New York, Gov. Mario Cuomo signed a bill that prohibits police from
disclosing the names of sex crime victims.22

Three states—Florida, Georgia, and South Carolina—have established
criminal fines or prison sentences for identifying sexual assault victims in the
media.23 But US. Supreme Court decisions in cases based on these laws have
critics questioning their effectiveness.

In Cox Broadcasting Corp. v. Cohn, the Supreme Court recognized the
conflict between privacy interests and freedom of the press in victim
confidentiality cases that arise from publication of information that, in spite
of its truthfulness, causes embarrassment or humiliation.

In the case, a 17-year-old woman had attended a party where she
consumed a large quantity of alcohol, lost consciousness, and died. In an
autopsy, the medical examiner found that the young woman had been
sexually assaulted. Six young men who had attended the party were indicted
for rape and murder. From court documents, an Atlanta television reporter
learned the name of the victim and identified her in a news broadcast.

Invoking a Georgia statute that forbids publication of a rape victim’s name,

 

aTraci Bauer, ”When to name names,” Quill, October 1991, 21-22.

”Florida Statute s 794.03 (1976); Georgia Statute § 12+23 (1988); South Carolina Statute
§ 16—3-730 (1976). Wisconsin Statutes Annotated § 942.02 also prohibited publication of a rape
victim’s identity; it has been repealed.

15

the young woman’s father brought suit against the broadcasting company for
invasion of his right to privacy."

In deciding the case, Justice Byron White discussed the role of the press in
informing the public of governmental operations, including judicial
proceedings. Allowing a privacy action for the publication of information
obtained from public records could interfere with the press’s ability to fulfill
this function. The public’ 5 interest in information is presumed from the
state’ s having placed it in the public domain on official court records.25

In Cox, White wrote:

If there are privacy interests to be protected in judicial proceedings,

the States must respond by means which avoid public

documentation or other exposure of private information. Their

political institutions must weigh interests in privacy with the

interests of the public to know and of the press to publish. Once true

information is disclosed in public court documents open to public

inspection, the press cannot be sanctioned for publishing it."

In the Cox decision, the Supreme Court found that the Georgia statute
unconstitutionally restricted the right of the press to disseminate information
that was available in public documents. In response, the state amended the

statute, specifically exempting the publication of rape victims’ names that

appeared in court records that were open to public inspection.

 

a‘Jerrold K. Footlick, Eleanor Clift, and Diane Camper, ”The Right to Privacy,"
Newsweek, 17 March 1975, 66.

”Cox Broadcasting Co. v. Cohn, 95 S.Ct. 1029 (1975), 1047.
1‘Susan Cohn, ”Protecting Child Rape Victims from the Public and Press after Globe

Newspaper and Cox Broadcasting,” George Washington law Review 51, no. 2 (January 1983),
282. .

16

While the exemption aligns the statute with the requirements established
by the Supreme Court, it defeats the original statute’s purpose. Georgia has
taken no steps to prevent information regarding rape victims’ identities from
appearing in documents open to public inspection. As a result, the statute
offers victims no protection from unwanted publicity.”

In The Florida Star 0. B.J.F., the court weighed constitutional
considerations against state interests in prohibiting publication of
information that was obtained outside of court records.

A Florida Star reporter-trainee had copied the name of the victim and the
details of her sexual assault from an incident report placed in the press room
of the sheriff’s department. The information was used by another reporter,
who wrote a one-paragraph story for the paper’s ”Police Reports” section. This
report named the victim, B.J.F., in violation of the paper’ 5 internal policy.
The woman filed suit against the sheriff’ s department, alleging it had violated
its statutory duty under Florida law to refrain from allowing the release and
publication of her name in the media, and the Florida Star, alleging the paper
had negligently violated a state law that prohibited identification of sexual

assault victims.”

 

”Ibid., 271.

”Atom, 242.

17

The trial judge held that the Florida Star was negligent per se in violating
the statute, and the jury awarded $75,000 in compensatory and $25,000 in
punitive damages.

In its review of the case, the US. Supreme Court reversed the decision.

It was this decision that revived discussion of the treatment of rape
victims in the media.

In the Florida Star case, the court held that the state may not punish a
newspaper that publishes lawfully obtained information about a matter of
public record if there is no need to further a critical state interest. Justice
Thurgood Marshall, who wrote the majority opinion, indicated that the
newspaper had lawfully obtained information and produced a news article of
significant concern to the public: the commission and investigation of a
violent crime. While the Florida public records law exempts the identity of
rape victims from public disclosure, the court said it is not unlawful for the
media to receive the information from officials who release it by mistake.29

The Supreme Court called the commission and investigation of a crime
legitimate areas of public interest and therefore news, but the court did not
address whether the identity of the victim is newsworthy. Some believe the
name of a rape victim whose identity adds nothing to a story is an

unprivileged invasion of privacy.30

 

”Ibid., 244.
”ma, 247.

18

Marshall did not, however, indicate that a publication might never be
punished for publishing the name of a rape victim. ”We accordingly do not
rule out the possibility that, in a proper case, imposing civil sanctions for
publication of the name of a rape victim might be so overwhelmingly
necessary to advance these interests."31

One of these practices involves local media. A 1978 report by the US.
Department of Justice pointed out that many newspapers and radio and
television stations voluntarily refrain from publishing information about the
victims of sexual assault, even though the information may be a matter of
public record.32

In a New York Times article, Alex S. Jones called the practice of

withholding the names of rape victims relatively recent. The practice, he said,

V.

/
I'I

emerged in the 19605 and 19705, hand-in-hand with a growing sensitivity to
the problems faced by rape victims. They were often being characterized as
being raped twice—once during their attack and again when their identities
were revealed in the press.

Eugene L. Roberts, executive editor of the Philadelphia Enquirer, said the
issue was hotly debated in the 19605 as US. news organizations examined

ethical issues.33

 

31The Florida Star v. B.J.F., 109 S.Ct. 2603 (1989), 2611.

”US. Department of Justice, National Institute of Law Enforcement and Criminal Justice,
Forcible Rape: An Analysis of Legal Issues, 34.

3'Alex 5. Jones, ”Naming Rape Victim Is Still a Murky Issue for the Press,” New York
Times, 25 June 1989, A18.

19

Some believe this press treatment is rooted in male chauvinism. Henry
G. Gay, publisher of the Shelton-Mason County (Washington) Journal, has
this view.

”The newspaper publisher is big daddy saying ’Don’t you worry, little
lady,” Gay said. ”It seems unfair to me with the presumption of innocence to
report one part of a trial and not the other. You’re not doing your duty if you
make an exception.”

The Journal publishes the names of rape victims?M

A Virginia publisher has a similar view.

In a front-page editorial, Herman J. Obermayer, editor and publisher of
the Northern Virginia Sun, called for an end to the practice of protecting the
identity of rape victims.

”Protecting the accuser’ s anonymity, while fully identifying the accused, is
tantamount to a pretrial presumption of guilt,” he said. ”A malicious woman
could try to make the state take away a man’s freedom for life without even
risking public embarrassment.”

Obermayer’s comments accompanied an announcement that the Sun
would begin printing the names, ages, and addresses of rape complainants

whose cases reached trial. The decision was denounced by local police,

 

3‘Ibid.

20

prosecutors, hospital officials, and nearly all Sun readers who contacted the
newspaper. 35

Naming alleged rape victims has been a long-standing policy at the_Daily
Tribune in Ames, Iowa. The 1995 publication of the name and address of an
Iowa State University woman who had been raped was ”not some huge, big
deal,” said Michael Gartnerf“s editor and co—owner of the newspaper.37

Some Ames area officials disagree with the policy and with Gartner’s
assessment.

Loras Jaeger, director of public safety at Iowa State University, called it
only fair to publish the names of alleged victims and alleged perpetrators in \'
most situations. In instances of sexual assault, however, Jaeger said the Daily "/1 )9
Tribune’s policy directly affects a victim’s decision to proceed through the law
enforcement process. In a typical year, Jaeger said, 10 people at Iowa State
University will report sexual assaults; 75 percent of these cases do not

continue through the process, partly because of the Daily Tribune’s practice.

 

as”Naming Names: A stormy new rape debate,” Time, 30 January 1978, 61.

a"Gartner, who has been an outspoken advocate of identifying victims in the media, will be
named several times in this study. In the span of time covered by this paper, Gartner has held
several positions, most recently as editor and co-owner of the Daily Tribune in Ames, Iowa,
columnist for USA Today, and president of NBC News. Gartner also has served as a top
executive and editor at the Wall Street Journal, Des Moines Register and Tribune, and
Louisville Times and Courier-Journal.

’7 Mark Fitzgerald, ”Naming Alleged Rape Victims,” Editor 8 Publisher, 23 December
1995, 9.

21

Jaeger has found that victims are reluctant to have their names printed in
the initial stages of the investigation but that most victims do not oppose
being identified at trial.

Lynette Ward, director of Ames’ rape crisis center, vehemently opposes
the Daily Tribu ne's policy, which she believes shuts down law enforcement’ s
ability to do its job.”

In a case that took place at a West Virginia university, a campus
newspaper was at the center of a debate involving the publication of a rape
victim’s name.

In keeping with its policy, the Marshall University Parthenon published
the name and address of an alleged rape victim; the woman did not want to
be identified. Also identified was the man whom she said was her assailant.

”It was a matter of fairness,” said Kevin D. Melrose, editor of the
Parthenon. ”We had to assume the accused might be innocent. I wanted us to
treat a rape story like any other violent crime.”

Before publishing the story, the student newspaper’ 5 editorial board had
voted 4—3 to use the woman’s name.

The alleged victim told a local newspaper reporter that she had been
stunned to see her name in the Parthenon. She told Nancy Van Valkenburg
of the Huntington Herald-Dispatch that the student newspaper made her feel

as if she had been assaulted again.

 

a'Ibid.

22

”They endangered me by publishing my name and address for any person
to read and react to,” she said. ”I know of several girls who haven’t reported
rapes because they’ re afraid their names will be in the paper. It’ s an open field
now for rapists.”39

Laura Frank, a Herald-Dispatch reporter who covered the Parthenon story
for her paper, said that other students held similar opinions in light of the
college paper’ 5 decision to publish the names of rape victims.

”Students at Marshall told me that they did not want to report the crime
because of the stigma,” Frank said. "They also said that knowing that their
name would be in the newspaper also would have stopped them.”‘°

The Parthenon’s policy and its decision to name the rape victim in
published reports was widely covered in newspapers and broadcast reports in
West Virginia and other areas. Reaction was widespread. The university
president issued an executive order to gain control of the Parthenon. A
faculty-student budget committee recommended that the Parthenon ’5 share
of student fees be cut in half, resulting in a loss of some $56,000.
Demonstrators threatened to shred copies of the newspaper if its staff printed
the name of another alleged rape victim. Campus police refused to provide

names and addresses of all crime victims. The student who wrote the story

that named the rape victim was fired as a campus lay minister of the

 

3’Allan Wolper, ”Publishing an alleged rape victim’s name,” Editor 8 Publisher, 17 July
1993, 16.

”Ibidq 45.

23

Episcopal Church of America, even though he opposed the newspaper’ s
policy.

Greg Collard, who succeeded Melrose as editor of the Parthenon,
disregarded the recommendation of the newspaper’ 5 editorial board and
changed policy regarding the naming of rape victims.

”We weren’t able to do our jobs,” said Collard, who originally promised

to stand by his board’s decision. ”We had become the story." “

 

“Ibid., 1517.

CHAPTER 3
REVIEW OF THE LITERATURE

Because this study explores current newspaper policy making, a review of
relevant literature must include three sources of information: the popular
press, which has extensively covered several high-profile cases in recent
years; newspaper industry publications, which discussed the coverage of these
cases; and scholarly journals.

Recent widespread attention to the issue of publishing the names of
victims of rape in news reports began with the publication of a column by
Geneva Overholser, editor of the Des Moines Register. In ”American Shame:
The Stigma of Rape,” which was printed in the New York Times and the
Register, Overholser wrote:

A tenet of journalism holds that we ought to come as close as

possible to printing the facts as we know them. Going against the

rule in the case of rape victims feels very much to me like

participating in the onus, the stigma, which I find so unjust. Editors

do not hesitate to name the victim of a murder attempt. Does not

our very delicacy in dealing with rape victims subscribe to the idea

that rape is a crime of sex rather than the crime of brutal violence

that it really is?‘2

Overholser compared recent public disclosures of well-known rape

victims with those of women who had admitted having an abortion or with

 

“Geneva Overholser, ”Why Hide Rapes?” New York Timw, 11 July 1989, A19.

24

25

homosexuals who identified themselves assertively and proudly. Their
testimony, she said, increased public awareness and helped society’ 5
understanding to grow and mature.

She pointed out, however, that these individuals had offered their stories
voluntarily. ”It is not for the newspaper editor, eyes fixed on distant virtue, to
sacrifice today’ s unwilling victims,” Overholser wrote.‘3

Overholser’s words prompted Nancy Ziegenmeyer, a 29-year-old
Grinnell, Iowa, woman who had been abducted and raped, to approach the
newspaper and make her story—and her name—public.

The details of Ziegenmeyer s rape were included in a five-part series
published in the Register in February 1990. The series reported the
circumstances of her rape, her efforts to recover and learn more about the
crime and the legal process, the court delays and postponements, and the trial.

The series received the Pulitzer Prize for public service in 1991.
Naming the rape victim, the Pulitzer board said, ”prompted widespread
reconsideration of the practice of concealing the identity of rape victims.”“

The Register series did not mince words; it referred to her attacker’ s penis
and the fact that he ejaculated. It stated that he ordered Ziegenmeyer to

perform oral sex and that he attempted anal intercourse with her.‘5

 

“Ibtd.

“Debra Gersh and Tony Case, ”7th annual Pulitzer Prize winners,” Editor 8 Publisher, 13
April 1991. 7.

“Jane Schorer, ”It couldn’t happen to me: One woman’s story,” Des Moines Register, [1990],
4.

26

In the final stages of the project, Overholser had gathered together the
editing staff to discuss, among other things, the explicit language used in the
stories.

We hassled quite a bit on how to describe the rape itself. I felt very

strongly that we needed to hold to the power of it, and the plain,

clean language does that. There’s not a word in the description that

we haven’t used before in the paper. We’ve used penis, we’ ve used

anal intercourse. We took out some details that seemed unnecessary;

for instance, there were various pants going up and down more

times than they needed to.“

Ziegenmeyer, who did not see the series before it appeared in print,
admitted she was surprised at its graphic language.

”The word penis jumped right out at me, and so did the word vagina.
They were certainly words I used, but I couldn’t remember ever seeing them
in a newspaper before,” she said."

The response was overwhelmingly favorable, in Iowa and throughout
the nation. The series was reprinted in England March 22. It was featured in a
front-page story in the Sunday New York Times March 25, and the Times
story was reprinted in the International Herald Tribune, Paris, March 28.‘8

Among those who expressed support of Ziegenmeyer and the Register

series was Michael Gartner.

 

“Ibid., 155.

”Nancy Ziegenmeyer, Taking Back My Life, with Laan Warren, (New York: Summit
Books, 1992), 147.

“Ibid.

27

In a story printed in the Wall Street Journal, Gartner said:

The day is coming, and the sooner it comes, the sooner rape will lose
that stigma, that sense that the victim did something wrong,
somehow to be shunned or blamed . . . . Ironically, all this is going
on in Iowa at the same time when the state Legislature, an
overwhelmingly male body, is considering bills that would make
secret addresses and telephone numbers of any victim of crime or
any witness."

At least five readers disagreed with Gartner’s comments. In a letter to the
editor, Anne Seymour, director of public affairs for the National Victim
Center, Fort Worth, Texas, wrote:

What Mr. Gartner suggests is putting ”control” of rape victims in the
hands of the news media vs. where it belongs—with the innocent
victim who was violated. Victims who come forward with their
stories choose to do so, and more power to them. Those who choose
to remain silent are no less heroic.50

Reader William Beck wrote:

For [Gartner] to suggest that the press, as a means of public
expression, should openly announce the names of the women who
have undergone the trauma is unreasonable. It took time for Nancy
Ziegenmeyer to confront her rape openly. Shouldn’t all women be
afforded the time to do so? Why is it the place of The Press to make
such a decision?“

Ziegenmeyer also disagreed with Gartner. She maintained that the

decision to go public should be made by the victim, not the media.

 

”Michael Gartner, ”The Scarlet Letter of Rape: A Courageous Victim Fights Back,” Wall
Street Journal, 15 March 1990, A15.

””Viewpoint,” Wall Street Journal, 17 April 1990, A23.

SIIbid.

28

”Rape victims need a great deal of healing before they can talk about the
crimes,” Ziegenmeyer said.52

Before her story appeared in print, Ziegenmeyer had time to begin that
healing process. She was raped November 19, 1988. Eight months later, she
walked into Overholser’ 5 office, offering to tell her story. For the next seven
months, she worked with Register reporter Jane Schorer, who wrote the
stories. The series was printed in late February 1990, more than a year after
she had been raped and following the conviction and sentencing of her
attacker.

Ziegenmeyer said that telling her story had been the right decision for
her. More than one rape victim, however, had told Ziegenmeyer they would
never have reported their rapes to police if they thought their names might
appear in print. Ziegenmeyer said she had felt the same way immediately
after her rape.53

Because she came forward and shared her story with the Register,
Ziegenmeyer thought she would have the opportunity to review the final
product. She was surprised when she was not able to read the stories before
they appeared in print.

”Not once . . . did anyone say one single word or give me the smallest

hint that I would have no control whatsoever over the finished product,” she

 

”Gartner, A15.
s'Ziegenrneyer, 206-207.

29

said. ”I’d have to read it on Sunday, just like anybody else in Iowa, and that’ s
all there is to it.”“

She called that action another revictimization and said she became ”just
another news source.”55
Initially, the Register had expected that the series would anger readers
who would cancel subscriptions. Instead, men and women from across Iowa
and the nation sent their sympathy and expressions of gratitude. The series

drew hundreds of letters.“

The popularity of the series turned Overholser, Ziegenmeyer, and
Schorer into overnight celebrities. The Register’s decision to publish the story
received considerable discussion in the press. The newspaper was swamped
with requests for reprints of the series, and Kelly temporary workers were
brought in to handle phone calls.”

The three women were invited to be interviewed on television and radio

programs and to speak on college campuses. They were swamped with

telephone calls, letters, and faxes from agents who offered them book and

 

“Ziegenmeyer, 145.

“Mark Fitzgerald, ”Aftermath of the Register’s rape series,” Editor & Publisher, 27
October 1990, 34.

“Sylvia Paine, ”Geneva . . . ,” Washington Journalism Review, September 1990, 22.

‘7 Fitzgerald, 34.

30

television movie deals.58 Ziegenmeyer appeared on national television
programs ranging from ”Good Morning America” to ”Nightline.”59

Eight months after the series was published, Schorer told a group of
investigative reporters and editors that she was tired of the publicity and
would welcome an end to the show-business surroundings of the project.60

Some critics say the series began Overholser’ s transformation into a rising
superstar, a celebrity status that did not please her.

”There is fine line between being nowhere and being lionized,” she said.
”'I'here’s no sense to it.”

She credits the p0pularity of the series to timing.

”I’m convinced that there is a time for everything, and it was time for
this. That is why it struck people so,” Overholser said."

A few months after Ziegenmeyer was raped, a very brutal attack occurred
that contributed to media discussion about the issue of naming rape victims
in the press.

In April 1989, an investment banker in her late twenties was jogging

alone at night in New York City’ 5 Central Park, where she was raped and

severely beaten by at least six teenagers. Almost overnight, the attack became

 

SI'Paine, 22.
5’Ziegenmeyer, 166.
”Fitzgerald, 34.

“Paine, 22.

31

a national story that was closely followed by many newspapers and television
stations across the country.“2

Although few media outlets revealed the name of the victim, two New
York City television stations, WCBS and WNBC, released her name in their
broadcasts. WCBS said it had made a mistake in revealing the woman’s
identity. The station apologized and indicated it would not broadcast the
name again. In news broadcasts after it had identified the woman, WNBC did
not refer on air to its action, but a spokesperson said identifying a rape victim
was ”contrary to station policy” and that the action would not be repeated.“

Instead, the press called the woman the Central Park jogger.

From the start, race was a central issue in the coverage of this case. The
Central Park jogger was white; her accused attackers were black and
Hispanic.“

While the press did not identify the victim by name, it did not conceal the
identity of the youths who were charged with raping her, an action that
angered editorial managers of some minority-owned newspapers. Two black-
oriented newspapers, the Amsterdam News and the City Sun, did reveal the

woman’s name in their publications.“

 

“Helen Benedict, Virgin or Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crima, (New York: Oxford
University Press, 1992), 189, 191-192.

“Alex S. Jones, ”Most Papers Won’t Name the Jogger,” New York Times, 13 June 1990, B3.

“Joel Kaplan, ”State lawmakers are trying to seal key information in sex crimes,” ASNE
Bulletin, no. 751 (July/August 1993): 16.

“Benedict, 244.

32

Wilbert Tatum, editor—in-chief of the Amsterdam News, confirmed the
woman’s name with police and printed it in his weekly newspaper.“ Tatum
said New York’s mainstream press adopted a racial double standard in
guarding the identity of the affluent victim while it stigmatized the lower-
class black youths accused of raping her by naming them even before they
were indicted.“7

Some critics called the racial and class differences between the jogger and
her assailants key to coverage of the story. In the period preceding the
woman’s attack and continuing through the time of the trial, New York City
residents were concerned with black-white relations. In her book Virgin or
Vamp: How the Press Covers Sex Crimes, author Helen Benedict examined a
number of racially motivated events that she believes affected media
coverage of the Central Park rape case.

The Central Park jogger case took place during a period when racial
incidents dominated New York newspaper headlines for more than a year.
During that time, a black man from Howard Beach, Queens, was chased to his
death on a busy road by a gang of hostile whites. Tawana Brawley, a black
teenager from upstate New York, said several white policemen had raped her,
scrawled racial slurs on her body, smeared her with excrement, and shoved

her into a garbage bag. Blacks and whites clashed in Bensonhurst, Queens,

 

“Ziegenmeyer, 214.
”Elson, 71.

33

and whites in that neighborhood were tried for the racially motivated murder
of Yusef Hawkins, a black teenager.

During the trials of the men accused of raping the Central Park jogger,
black customers boycotted two Korean grocery stores in Brooklyn, revealing a
long-held resentment between the two cultures. Theaters were showing Spike
Lee’s film ”Do the Right Thing,” which took a frank, pessimistic look at race
relations and anger in New York City. Black mayor David Dinkins replaced
white mayor Edward Koch, and Nelson Mandela visited the city.“

The issue of identifying the Central Park jogger by name continued
through her assailants’ trials. Through her family, the woman asked that the
media not use her name in reports."9

Although the media did not publish the woman’s name in coverage of
the trials, newspapers were prepared to do so.

Tatum, who had initially named the woman in his newspaper, said he
was ready to do so again if he thought it appropriate. Andrew Cooper, editor
of the City Sun, however, said he strongly opposed mentioning her name
again.

Many news executives, including an editor at the New York Times, said

circumstances might make them likely to publish the woman’s name. If the

 

“Benedict, 190.

“Jones, B3.

34

woman’s name were to become fairly widely known, they said, protecting her
privacy would be moot.

James P. Willse, editor of the Daily News in New York City, said his staff
had assembled a detailed file on the Central Park jogger and could publish a
biography on a moment’ 5 notice.

In a New York Times spot check of local newspapers and magazines, the
Associated Press, television news organizations and syndicated programs
such as ”Hard Copy” and ”A Current Affair,” none seemed unconditionally
opposed to naming her. No one, however, was eager to be first.70

Edward Kosner, editor of New York magazine, called the media’s
seemingly mutual agreement to refrain from naming the jogger ”old-
fashioned, but . . . kind of nice.”71

At least one New York newspaper speculated that the ”old-fashioned”
attitude would change if the competition altered its practice.

”If any of the media were to break ranks and publicize the jogger’ 5 name,
it would undoubtedly cause others to rethink their policy and possibly follow
suit,” a Newsday article said.’2

In spite of the decision by the media to withhold the Central Park jogger’ 5
name, dissenting community members tried to force its inclusion in news

broadcasts. During the trial, supporters of the defendants surrounded the

 

1"Jones, B3.
71Ibid.
72Benedict, 230.

35

assistant district attorney outside the courtroom. They chanted the victim’s
name in an attempt to have it recorded by nearby radio and television
reporters.”

The decision to refrain from naming the Central Park jogger left editors
open to criticism a short time later when media across the country publicized
the name of another alleged rape victim. In that case, the media identified the
woman who accused William Kennedy Smith, a nephew of Senator Edward
Kennedy, of raping her March 30, 1991, at the Kennedy family’ 5 Palm Beach,
Florida, home.

”People have said it gives the impression that you will protect a middle-
class white woman who is raped by poor blacks, but you will not protect a
woman who was involved in an alleged rape with wealthy politicians, the
Kennedys,” said Irene Nolan, managing editor of the Louisville Courier-
Journal.

”I do think there’s a perception there that’ s unfortunate, and I do wish in
retrospect that we had started out with the Central Park jogger case,” she
said."

The disparity was apparent when Times reporters covered the sentencing
of some of the defendants who were convicted of attacking the Central Park

jogger. In those reports, the Times continued to observe its policy that shields

 

"Barbara Kantrowitz and others, ”Still Shocking After a Year,” Newsweek, 23 July 1990,
49.

7‘Dunstan A. McNichol, ”Stalemate on naming names,” Editor 8 Publisher, 10 August 1991,
I3.

36

the identities of complainants in sex crimes75 and did not identify the Central
Park jogger by name. Less than five weeks later, however, the Times
identified Patricia Bowman" as Smith’s accuser.

In the Smith case, the Kennedy name landed the story on the front pages
of newspapers around the world. Eight days after the incident, the Sunday
Mirror, a London, England, tabloid, published Bowman’s name, photograph,
and a risque account of the incident. On April 15, the Globe, a Florida-based
supermarket tabloid, printed the woman’s name and photograph, citing the
London tabloid as its source of information. The next day, ”NBC Nightly
News” reported the woman’s name on its evening newscast. 7’

”While Smith has become a household name,” NBC news anchor Tom
Brokaw said in the broadcast, ”the identity of the woman has been withheld
by the media until now, and this has renewed the debate over naming names

of rape victims.”78

 

7s”On Names in Rape Cases,” New York Times, 17 April 1991, A17.

“Although Patricia Bowman did not initially agree to identification in the media, she
did appear on ABC’s ”Prime Time Live” and was interviewed by the press following the trial.
Bowman told ABC she was ”terrified” that future rape victims would refuse to report attacks
”because of what’s happened to me.” She gives speeches for the National Victim Center on
keeping victims’ names out of the media and has participated in forums during which she
discusses her views on the intrusiveness of the press.

77Fox Butterfield and Mary B.W. Tabor, ”Woman in Florida Rape Inquiry Fought
Adversity and Sought Acceptance,” New York Times, 17 April 1991, A17.

7'Margaret Carlson, ”Should This Woman Be Named?” Time, 29 April 1991, 28.

37

In explaining the action, NBC News President Michael Gartner said
network officials believed ”we should report this news to our viewers”
because the woman’s name was known in the Palm Beach area.

”We believe that in this case, as in all news events, the more we tell our
viewers, the better informed they will be in making up their own mind about
the issues involved,” Gartner said.”

Prior to broadcasting the name of Smith’s accuser, NBC notified affiliate
stations of its decision on the afternoon preceding the broadcast. WPTV, the
NBC affiliate in West Palm Beach, issued an on-air objection before the
network news broadcast. ”WPTV vigorously disagrees with NBC’s decision,
and we have voiced our objection to the network,” anchor Jim Sackett told
viewers."o

ABC News, CBS News, and CNN did not broadcast the name of the
woman.” The Associated Press and United Press International did not
identify the woman in its reports, while Gannett News Service, which
supplies wire copy to Gannett papers, moved the name in an advisory only.
UPI managers, however, said the service would have used the woman’s

name if more news organizations had done so.”

 

”Deirdre Carmody, ”News Media’s Use of Accuser’s Name Is Debated, New York Times, 18
April 1991, A22.

”Ibtd.
“Ibid.

"Traci Bauer, ”Wire services thrust into the victim-naming fracas,” The Quill, October
1991, 22.

38

Ironically, at the time Bowman’s name was printed, Smith had not yet
been charged with a crime; he was charged with second degree criminal
sexual battery six weeks after the alleged attack.83

On the day following the NBC broadcast, the New York Times—
considered by many as the country’s ”newspaper of record”—also published
the woman’s name.

Because she had already been identified in a national broadcast, Allan
Siegal, assistant managing editor of the Times, said it would be an ”empty
gesture” to withhold her name. He said the Times had an obligation to tell its
readers ”what we know.”“

The Times article discussed Bowman’s working-class upbringing in Ohio,
her poor high school record, and her daughter, who was born out of wedlock.
It mentioned her parents’ failed marriage and her mother’ s remarriage to a
tire company executive, and it included an interview with an unidentified
individual who said Bowman ”had a little wild streak” in high school and
liked to drive fast cars, go to parties and skip classes with her friends.85

To many, said Maclean’s magazine, the story carried a not-so—subliminal

message: The woman deserved it.“

 

“Bill Turque, Spencer Reiss, and Peter Kate], ”’No One Would Believe Her,”’ Newsweek,
20 May 1991, 31.

“Carlson, 29.
"Butterfield and Tabor, A17.

“Fred Bruning, ”Sleaze: seductive, but morally grave,” Maclean’s, 13 May 1991, 11.

39

Following the Times’ publication of the woman’s name, several other
newspapers and magazines also identified her. Geneva Overholser said the
Register identified the woman because her name had already been made
public by the Times and NBC News."7

While her newspaper published the name of the alleged victim,
Overholser called the Times story ”a regrettable formulation of reporting.”

”It unwittingly rang all the bells of what happens to rape victims,” she
said.”

The Times decision to publish Bowman’s name drew criticism from
other media professionals and from its own reporters and columnists.

Under the headline ”Tarting Up the Gray Lady of 43rd Street,” Time
magazine remarked that the Times seemed to have lost its more common
resemblance to the Congressional Record and had become more like its
distant cousins, the tabloids.89

Joan W. Konner, dean of the Columbia University Graduate School of
Journalism, said critics ”were disappointed that the one who has always stood

for a certain kind of standard altered that standard.”9°

 

”Traci Bauer, ”When to name names,” 22.
'Ibid., 23.
"Richard Lacayo, ”Tarting Up the Gray Lady of 43rd Street,” Time, 6 May 1991, 44.

”William Glaberson, ”Times Article Naming Rape Accuser Ignites Debate on Journalistic
Values,” New York Times, 26 April 1991, A14.

40

On its pages, the New Republic cautioned its journalistic sibling: ”The
Times, in case the Times has forgotten, is the newspaper of record. When the
Times respects your privacy, it’ 5 being respected in a way that commands
respect. And when the Times violates it, it stays violated/’9‘

Newsweek magazine commented that ”virtually everyone in journalism
now agrees that the nation’s most highly regarded newspaper has egg on its
face.”

Syndicated columnist Mike Royko called the Times decision to identify
the woman ”part of an outbreak of galloping journalistic idiocy.”92

Columns published on the Times opinion pages also criticized the
newspaper for its action.

Susan Estrich, a law professor, author, and rape victim, disagreed with
the Times’ decision to follow NBC’s lead.

”NBC News jumped off the Empire State Building,” Estrich wrote. ”So
the New York Times, like any thoughtful toddler, decided it had to follow
suit.”93

Perhaps the most unexpected protest came from within the Times itself.
On April 19, 1991, top managers met with 400 staff members, many of whom
objected to the details included in the story about the woman and disagreed

with the decision to name her.

 

””Palm Beach Story,” New Republic, 13 May 1991, 10.
”Ibid.

”Susan Estrich, ”The Real Palm Beach Story,” New York Times, 18 April 1991, A25.

41

One Times staff member told the Washington Post, ”I’m still mad. They
don’t understand they set it up to look like the slut asked for it. We came here
because we didn’t want to work for people who would run stories like that/'9‘

Anna Quindlen, a New York Times columnist, felt the newspaper had
made a mistake.

If we were to change that policy, there could not be a worse case in

which to do so than this one. For NBC to change it in a case

involving one of America’s most powerful families inevitably

suggested that the alleged victim had lost her privacy because of the

Kennedy prestige. For the New York Times, a paper that has been

justly proud of taking the lead on matters of journalistic moment, to

announce that it was forced to follow was beneath its traditions. To

do so in a story that contained not only the alleged victim’s ”wild

streak” but the past sexual history of her mother could not help

suggesting that the use of the name was not informative but

punitive. 5

Some Times staff called the decision sexist. They claimed that male
editOrs had made a distinction between ”date rape” in the Palm Beach case
and ”stranger rape” in the Central Park case.96

Times management explained its position in an editors’ note printed
April 26, 1991. The note said the previous Times’ article ”drew no conclusions
about the truth of her complaint to the police. But many readers inferred that
its very publication . . . suggested that the Times was challenging her

account.”

 

“Tony Case, ”NY. Times criticized for printing victim’s name,” Editor 8' Publisher, 27
April 1991, 11-12.

”Anna Quindlen, Thinking Out Loud (New York: Fawcett Columbine Books, 1993), 73.

”Edwin Diamond, ”The Times’ ’Wild Streak,” New York, 13 May 1991,36.

42

The note indicated that no such challenge was intended and that the
woman’s name was disclosed only after her identity received detailed
nationwide publicity.97

While some notable media identified Bowman during the investigation
and trial of the Smith case, the majority of American media did not. Even
during her testimony, which was covered on the Courtroom Television
Network and broadcast by CNN, Bowman’s face was electronically blurred
and a 20-second delay allowed her name to be dropped by the television
censor.” During some portions of her testimony, CNN drew nearly 3.2
million viewers, nine times what the news network normally draws during
those hours.”

Following Bowman’s identification in the media, Florida state attorney
David H. Bludworth, prosecutor in the Smith case, explored options for
prosecuting the newspaper and broadcast outlets that had revealed her name.

Under a 1911 Florida law, news organizations are prohibited from
identifying rape victims by name. Violation of the statute is a second-degree

misdemeanor punishable by a maximum of 60 days in jail and a fine of up to

$500.

 

””Editors’ Note,” New York Times, 26 April 1991, A2.

”David A. Kaplan and others, ”Case No. 91-5482 Comes to Trial,” Newsweek, 9 December
1991, 25.

”Richard Lacayo, ”Trial by Television,” Time, 16 December 1991, 30.

43

Instead of accusing a newspaper or broadcast network with violation of
the law, Bludworth filed a petition asking the court to rule on the
constitutionality and applicability of the statute.

Legal scholars called Bludworth’s move highly unusual. Generally, the
defendant in such an action would raise these questions of law, and
Bludworth had asked the court to address the issues rather than decide to
charge the offending media himself. ‘°°

The circuit court judge turned down Bludworth’s request.‘°‘

Bludworth did file charges against the Globe, the Florida-based tabloid
that was the first in the United States to reveal Bowman’s name.102

Smith’s televised trial lasted four days. The six jurors reached a
unanimous verdict to acquit the defendant in less than a quarter hour.”3

Because of the potential audience size of the news organizations that
chose to identify her, Bowman’s name was widely publicized. Most news
organizations, however, were deferential toward the woman. Although the
New York Times named her in initial reports, newspaper management
reversed the decision in later coverage. Even after Smith’s acquittal, most

news organizations continued to withhold Bowman’s name.‘°‘

 

muRobert Suro, ”Ruling Is Sought on Rape Name Law,” New York Timw, 19 April 1991, B6.
'°'”No Hearing on Rape Victim Law,” New York Times, 27 April 1991, A11.

”Bauer, ”When to name names,” 21.

“Marci McDonald, ”Beyond the Trial,” Maclean’s, 23 December 1991, 16.

lo'Richard Zoglin, ”Was She Right to Go Public?” Time, 30 December 1991, 61.

44

Following Smith’s acquittal, the Washington Times reversed the practice
it had followed throughout the criminal trial. Editor Wesley Pruden said that
in choosing to identify Bowman at that point in the process, he had not
attempted to follOw the lead of other newspapers. (Earlier, he had blasted
those publications in an opinion column.) Rather, he said, the decision to
identify Smith’s accuser was prompted by the results of the trial.

"The long-standing policy of the Washington Times is to withhold the
names of all rape victims,” Pruden wrote in a note to readers. ”The names of
the male defendants are routinely used, and if a defendant is acquitted, the
woman is then identified.”

Pruden maintained that Bowman was ”no longer the victim but the
victimizer, whether she intended to be or not. In the eyes of the law, William
Kennedy Smith suffered at the hands of a false accuser.”5

Some believed that Bowman continued that role after Smith’s acquittal.
As a result of her interview with Diane Sawyer on ”Prime Time Live,” critics
maintained that Bowman was retrying the case in the court of public opinion.

Bowman said she came forward because she was terrified that future rape

victims would refuse to report attacks ”because of what’ 5 happened to me.”‘°‘

 

“Tony Case, ”Debate persists,” Editor 8 Publisher, 21 December 1991, 25-26.

“Zoglin, 61.

45

Her mother called Bowman’s appearance on national television ”part of the
healing process.”107

Another woman who accused a well-known man of rape also revealed
her name in a national news broadcast following the court decision. Desiree
Washington, an 18-year-old contestant in the Miss Black America beauty
pageant, said heavyweight champion Mike Tyson raped her in an
Indianapolis hotel room.

In this case, however, Tyson was convicted of one count of rape and two
counts of criminal deviate sexual conduct. The press did not print
Washington’s name until she identified herself following the trial.

The rape occurred three months after the media revealed Bowman’s
name.

Washington, a freshman student at Providence College, appeared on the
news show ”20/20.” She told interviewer Barbara Walters that when she
went to Tyson’s hotel room near 2 am. on July 19, 1991, ”I wasn’t thinking
that this man, my father’ s hero, a celebrity, would do something like this to
me.‘°’

Some Tyson supporters accused Washington of seeking fame by bringing

charges against the boxer. Washington said she did so because ”it was the

 

”Amy Bernstein, ”A Face and a Name,” US News 8' World Report, 30 December 1991 / 6
January 1992, 30.

“'Ira Berkow, ”A Champ Named Desiree,” New York Times, 25 February 1992, B9.

46

right thing to do.” Washington said she hoped to inspire other rape victims
to come forward.109

Unlike its decision to identify the accuser in the Smith case, the New
York Times did not print Washington’s name until she had identified
herself. In a brief item on its opinion page, the newspaper commended her
action.

In allowing her photograph to appear on a magazine cover and

agreeing to be interviewed on television, Desiree Washington is

saying something that urgently needs to be said: She’s not ashamed

of beingJ a rape victim. Nor should she be. The shame belongs to her

rapist.

Unlike Bowman, Washington was presented in the press as the perfect
victim: a scholarship student at a Roman Catholic college and an all-
American girl who played softball, ushered at her church, and volunteered as
a Big Sister. In high school, she was a cheerleader, class president, and
outstanding sophomore student.m

In the Tyson case, the press focused more attention on the boxer, whose
sexual appetites and failed marriage were already well publicized. Tyson
allegedly boasted of all-night sexual marathons with two dozen prostitutes.

He had been called a pincher, a threatener, and a ”serial buttocks fondler” of

 

l°"”Desiree Washington,” People, 28 December 1992/ 4 January 1993, 66.
u°”'I'he Shame of Rape,” New York Times, 16 February 1992 , sec. 4, p. 14.

"‘Todd Barrett, ”’He Started Laughing, Like It Was a Game,” Newsweek, 10 February
1992, 30.

47

women. Stories also pointed out that Tyson hurt people for a living—and a
lavish living, at that."2

Although the Smith and Tyson date rape cases occurred back to back, the
accusers received vastly different treatment in the press.

In part, this treatment may have been due to the perceived reputations of
the women. Bowman had been characterized as a ”party girl”; Washington
had been portrayed as a ”good girl.”

In part, it mayhave been due to the social status of the men. Smith was a
member of a family of considerable influence; Tyson was a fatherless street
thug from the Brooklyn ghetto.

And in part, it may have been because the press had found a more
colorful victim: Mike Tyson.

Some scholars contend that press coverage of the Tyson trial provided a
venue for the press to present an even broader drama that violated, degraded,
and debased the boxer. In stories about this case, two portraits of Tyson
emerged: one of a crude, sex-obsessed, violent savage who could barely
control his animal instincts and that of a victim of terrible social
circumstances who was saved from the streets by a kindly overseer but

eventually faltered and fell to the connivance of others."3

 

mRichard Corliss and Sophronia Scott Gregory, ”In Judgment of Iron Mike,” Time, 10
February 1992, 77.

"’Jack Lule, ”The Rape of Mike Tyson: Race, the Press and Symbolic Types,” Critical
Studies in Mass Communication, 12 (1995): 176, 181.

48

While the media may have furthered this stereotyping, the practice was
initiated by Tyson’s own attorney. In his defense of the boxer, Vincent Fuller
implied that Tyson was society’ 5 worst nightmare—a vulgar, socially inept,
sex-obsessed black athlete.

Fuller also elicited testimony that implied Washington should have
recognized that she was placing herself in compromising circumstances when
she entered Tyson’s hotel suite. He attempted to depict both the defendant
and his accuser as animals: the black man for his crude sexual demands and
the black woman for eagerly acceding to them.“

An additional issue emerged in the coverage of the Tyson trial: that of
placement. Because Tyson is an athlete, many newspapers placed stories about
the crime on their sports pages.

One scholarly study that examined Tyson trial coverage based its findings
on stories printed in five newspapers during a nine-month period. During
the study period, the researcher found that most news stories on the rape case
appeared in the sports section. Of 568 stories published about the case during
this period, 458 (81 percent) were placed on sports pages.“5

One of those papers, the Boston Globe, received more than 100

complaints about story placement.

 

u‘Sonja Steptoe, ”A Damnable Defense,” Sports Illustrated, 24 February 1992, 92.

"’Lule, 181.

49

”This was not a sports event. It was a criminal charge of rape,” said
Sharon Vardaitra, director of the Boston Area Rape Crisis Center. ”To put it
in sports and talk about it in terms of it being a sports event is really to
downplay the seriousness of the crime.”

Patricia Ireland, president of the National Organization for Women, told
the Globe she believed that sports page placement conveyed the feeling that
”boys will be boys.”

Globe editor John Driscoll responded: "Tyson’s sports celebrity status is
what made it news, and we see the sports section as a depository for stories on
business, lifestyle, and, yes, inappropriate behavior involving athletes.”“‘

The Hartford Courant also included trial coverage on its sports pages, but
when Washington revealed her name and allowed a magazine to run her
story and photograph, that story was placed in the Courant’s main news
section. "7

Fred McGunagle, a Cleveland-area news media critic, disagreed with

newspapers’ decisions to include the Tyson case coverage in their sports

sections. ”It’s a crime story, and crime stories go in the main news section.”118

 

"”I‘om Witosky, ”Beyond the Games,” Nieman Reports 46, no. 1 (Spring 1992): 28.

"’Henry McNulty, ”Did the Tyson trial belong in the sports section?” Editor 8' Publisher,
29 February 1992, 5, 34.

“'lbid., 5.

50

Following his conviction, Tyson was sentenced to serve six years in
prison and was fined $30,000.119 He served three years. Both Washington and
the Miss Black America Pageants filed civil suits against him.120

Although these highly visible cases have focused considerable attention
on the issue of identifying rape victims by name in the press, interviews with
newspaper editorial managers seem to indicate that the press as a whole
continues to afford anonymity to alleged rape victims.

A 1991 article in a publication of the American Society of Newspaper
Editors recounted the policies or opinions of 18 newspaper managers. Of
these, 13 indicated their newspapers did not routinely identify rape victims by
name. One appeared to favor identification. Information provided by the
other individuals did not clearly indicate their practicem

While the New London Day does not identify rape victims by name, its
editor and publisher, Reid MacCluggage, said he has mixed emotions:

We don’t name the victim unless he or she goes public. We don’t

even do it at the trial level. Intellectually, I think we should use the

name. It conforms to all of our other policies. But in this society, in

this culture, at this time, there is still a stigma attached to rape. . . . It’s

unfortunate that newspapers, ours included, feel the need to take

this kind of action, but we do because it’s a cultural reality that the

victim suffers far more than he or she should in a crime like this. It

gets much tougher, say, if someone prominent is raped; it becomes a
hard decision because of the news value.122

 

11’Richard Corliss and David E. Thigpen, ”The Jock as Fallen Idol,” Time, 6 April 1992, 60.
noRichard Corliss, ”Tragedy of an Ex-Champ,” Time, 26 August 1991, 67.

121”18 editors discuss how they cover rape,” ASNE Bulletin 753 (July/ August 1991): 16-19.
l”INCL, I7.

51

Ellen Goodman, associate editor of the Boston Globe, sees the need to
adopt new policies regarding the identification of rape victims.

Since the 19705, the media have held a consensus of sensitivity on

the issue of naming alleged rape victims. . . . Gradually, big stories

and social change have sorely tested this consensus. The media have

often itched to print what they know. Some . . . have argued that it is

unfair to use the name of the accused but not the accuser. Explain the
double standard to William Smith, they say. . . . The Palm Beach

story makes the best possible case for those who want to name

names. But the notion that we can judge these cases one by one

doesn’t work. Would women’s privacy be ”safe” as long as they

didn’t accuse famous men? Who would decide when the public’ 5

right to know overwhelmed the right to privacy?123

While newspapers have been surveyed about their policies and practices,
the number of individual circumstances makes it nearly impossible to
identify newspapers that clearly do not identify rape victims by name. On
some occasions, policy and practice do not match.

For example, some newspapers editors will not identify an alleged rape
victim in a criminal trial, but they will consider identifying the individual if
he or she files a civil suit.

While many newspaper editors say they will not identify victims by
name, the numbers appear to have grown.

A 1990 survey of 158 city and metro editors at daily newspapers conducted
by an Indiana University graduate student found that 43.6 percent believed

victims should be named only in exceptional cases; 39.7 percent said they

 

1"‘Ibid., 18.

52

should be named only with their permission; 9.6 percent said they should
never be named; and 7.1 percent said they should be named regularlym

In 1989, Deni Elliott, executive director of the Institute for the Study of
Applied and Professional Ethics at Dartmouth College, estimated that no
more than 5 percent to 10 percent of American newspapers report rape
victims’ names.125

In 1983, Carol Oukrop, journalism chairperson at Kansas State
University, surveyed 375 newspapers about rape coverage practices. Only one
of the newspapers surveyed identified a rape victim without consent, a
practice the paper later droppedmS

Some professors of journalism ethics believe that extensive media
coverage can cause additional trauma for the victim.

”I think it should be handled like murder, a major story, except you
withhold the identity of the victim, said Fred Friendly, professor emeritus of

journalism at Columbia University. ”It’s a horrible, horrible crime, and you

“99d to. find Ollt the alleged perpetrator. That’ s the point, isn’t it?”‘27

 

12‘Ibid., 15.

1”'sAlex S. Jones, ”Naming Rape Victim Is Still a Murky Issue for the Press,” New York
Tima, 25 June 1989, A18.

"‘Diane Katz, ”Does it help or hurt to keep rape victims’ names secret?” Detroit News, 15
April 1990, 13A.

mGreg L0pez, ”News stories add to victim’s horror, ethics experts say,” Detroit News, 4
December 1988, 12A.

53

Don Fry, head of the ethics center at Pointer Institute, St. Petersburg,
Florida, said victims of rape deserve restraint by the media. Like Overholser,
he predicted that newspapers will eventually treat rape victims like victims of
other aimes—-after society begins to treat them that way.

”People still look at sex as a taboo subject,” Fry said. ”You can write
articles about condoms, but when you get down to real people and their sex
lives, a curtain comes down. Ten years from now, though, that will have
broken down.”‘”

In the last decade, media coverage and societal perceptions of rape have
certainly changed. The tabloid-style reporting exhibited during the Smith and
Tyson trials serves as graphic illustration of that shift.

In a content analysis of crime stories conducted in the 19705, Heath,
Gordon, and LeBailly studied the media’s portrayal of rape and its
relationship to furthering common myths and stereotypes about the crime. In
their study, the researchers considered all crime stories published in major
metropolitan papers in Chicago, Philadelphia, and San Francisco between
Nov. 1, 1977, and April 30, 1978.129

What Heath, Gordon, and LeBailly found may have limited application

when considering contemporary media. In light of recent rape trial coverage,

 

u’Ibid.

I”Linda Heath, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert LeBailly, ”What Newspapers Tell Us
(And Don’t Tell Us) About Rape,” Newspaper Research Journal 2 (July 1981): 48.

54

their findings may in fact reflect a ”kinder and gentler” time in rape
reporting.

While newspapers primarily depended on police blotters for information
about rapes, the researchers found that newspapers presented a fairly accurate
picture of the crime. Because of space limitations, newspapers reported on
only the most serious rapes that were reported to police. The researchers
suggested that newspapers could temper the inexorable view of rape that
resulted from this emphasis on the most heinous crimes by integrating
stories of less serious rapes with coverage of more serious ones.‘3°

Heath, Gordon, and LeBailly concluded that the newspaper articles
performed a ”watchman” function and provided information that enabled
readers to put crimes into perspective and assess their own risk of
victimization. While they said newspapers did not commonly report the
names and addresses of rape victims, the researchers suggested that certain
details of the crime be presented in a way that would not breach victims’
privacy. They also suggested that legal restraints might enable the media to
provide readers with an accurate picture of the crime without infringing on
victims’ privacy.131

Since the Smith and Tyson trials, several states have attempted to

prevent the media from naming rape victims in their reports. Because

 

”"lbid., 54.
mIbid., 55.

55

legislators recognize that efforts to prevent publication may infringe on the
media’s First Amendment rights, some states have taken aim at police and
prosecutors, prohibiting them from releasing information that identifies
victims of sexual assault. ‘32

One survey found that female respondents would be more likely to report
sexual assaults if legislation protected their identities.

In a survey conducted by the National Victim Center and the Crime
Victims Research and Treatment Center, two-thirds of the 4,008 respondents
believed they would be more likely to report sexual assaults if there were a
law banning disclosure of their names.

In a separate survey of rape crisis agencies, 40 percent said they believed
sexual assault victims were more concerned now than in the past with their
names being made public.133

While lawmakers may wish to legislate the privacy of victims, a survey
by Wolf, Thomason, and LaRocque found that most newspaper editors are
willing to voluntarily respect crime victims’ right to privacy.

The researchers surveyed 205 editors or managing editors of daily
newspapers; 54.6 percent responded. The survey gathered data on newspaper
policy regarding the identification of all crime victims. Specifically, the

researchers sought information on how newspapers handled identification of

 

mKaplan, 15.

I”Elizabeth Culotta, ”Naming Alleged Rape Victims: Two Policies Within 30 Miles,”
Washington Journalism Review, July/ August 1992, 14.

56

victims, newspaper policy guiding the issue, requests by victims for
anonymity, the relationship between newspaper size and policy on victim
identification, and the personal opinion of the newspaper editors regarding
the trend of using fewer names and addresses of victims relative to the
public’ 5 right to know.

Of the newspaper editors surveyed, 46 percent handled identification of
crime victims on a case-by-case basis. In rape cases, the respondents printed
neither the names nor addresses of victims. ‘3‘

Wolf, Thomason, and LaRocque found that editors were making
decisions about publishing the names and addresses of crime victims on a
case-by-case basis and~ that they continued to move toward less specific ways of
identification. The researchers found that 85 percent of the respondents
favored increased attention to privacy rights of victims.135

For some newspapers, the issue of identifying victims of rape may be
strongly influenced by the opinions of their readers. Several polls have found
the public less than receptive to media decisions to identify rape victims by
name. ~

After NBC and the New York Times identified Bowman, the New York

Daily News , USA Today, and the National Victim Center conducted surveys

 

mRita Wolf, Tommy Thomason, and Paul LaRocque, ”The Right to Know vs. the Right of
Privacy: Newspaper Identification of Crime Victims,” Journalism Quarterly 64 (Summer-
Autumn 1987): 504.

135lbid., 507.

57

to measure public opinion. Each survey indicated that the majority of
respondents opposed the reporting of victims’ names.“5

”The calls were running a little better than 4 to 1 against running her
name,” said Fran Wood, Daily News deputy managing editor for features.137

Another survey conducted by the Times Mirror Center for People and the
Press found that 70 percent of 1,206 adults surveyed disapproved of the
media’s decision to publish or air Bowman’s name.138

While Heath, Gordon, and LeBailly found that newspapers presented a
fairly accurate picture of rape, a study by Schwengels and Lemert suggested
that news stories about rape portrayed a ”reality” that differed from police
reports.

Their study of rape coverage in the Eugene Register-Guard explored
whether the media provided women with fair warning about the dangers of
rape in their communities. The researchers compared police reports of
completed rapes in Lane County, Oregon, with newspaper coverage. They
attempted to assess the relationship between victims and rapists, to determine
whether victims were involved in activities outside their homes prior to

their attack, and to determine whether a weapon was used.139

 

13“Case, ”N .Y. Times criticized for printing victim’s name,” 11.
l3’Carrnody, A22.

13'Debra Gersh, ”Public cites commercial motives of the press,” Editor 8* Publisher, 1 June
1991, I3.

I"Marlyss Schwengels and James B. Lemert, ”Fair Warning: A Comparison of Police and
Newspaper Reports About Rape,” Newspaper Research Journal 7, no. 3 (Spring 1986): 35.

58

Schwengels and Lemert found that more than half the 89 rape cases
reported during the study period were committed by persons known by the
victim; 21 of the 26 ”intimate acquaintance” rapes were committed by family
members. In comparison, 62 percent of the published newspaper reports
involved rapes committed by strangers.”

In their desire to shield youthful incest victims from identification,
Schwengels and Lemert suggested, newspapers are not alerting parents to
potential dangers by failing to include reports of these crimes on their news
pages.

Instead, the researchers found that rape victims depicted in newspapers
are primarily single and younger than 35, yield when neither a weapon nor
physical force are used, do not try to defend themselves, suffer no injuries, are
not treated at hospitals, and are almost always alone with the rapist. In
comparing police reports and newspaper accounts, Schwengels and Lemert
found that these characteristics did not match reality, leading them to
question whether the media gives women fair warning about the risk of rape
in their surroundings.“1

But does recent national coverage of several prominent rape cases match

the ”reality” of rape coverage across the country? If an individual reports a

 

1“’Ibid., 37.
“‘lbid., 42.

59

rape to a police agency, can that person expect to be named in local news
pages? Will she or he face public disclosure of the most intimate life details?

If one examined only the practices of certain national media that covered
the William Kennedy Smith and Mike Tyson cases, it would appear that the
media have abandoned their tradition of protecting the identity of the rape
victim. It would seem that the paternalistic attitude that newspapers once
held for rape victims is something of the past.

Likewise, it would seem that women themselves are assuming a more
aggressive stance as victims. Nancy Ziegenmeyer shared the most intimate
details of her attack in a five-part newspaper series. Patricia Bowman and
Desiree Washington both appeared in nationally televised interviews to
encourage victims to report rapes.

But the attention that these particular cases received represents the
extreme—essentially big media covering big cases involving big names. Not
all of these elements were present even in these select cases. For example, the
public did not know Nancy Ziegenmeyer until she agreed to tell her story to
the Des Moines Register. But none of these situations represented the norm
in rape reporting, where cases receive minimal mention—if any—in local
newspapers.

The manner in which the media descended on these stories—
surrounding courthouses with remote television equipment, gathering old

high school stories from long-lost friends, and tracking down a victim as she

60

prepared to change planes in an airport—showed newspapers taking a much
more aggressive position in the coverage of rape stories.

The media did more than just cover these notable stories; it also covered
itself. When Ziegenmeyer’s story was published, Overholser and Schorer
became as newsworthy as the victim. After the New York Times printed its
scathing story on Bowman, media from across the country converged on a
Times staff meeting, interviewing reporters who abhorred their employers’
decision. In addition, numerous opinion columns commented on what
appeared to be a change in media tradition. It seemed that a policy of
anonymity had been exchanged for one of exploitation.

The media were not alone in their recognition of a changing practice. The
public also questioned the media’s wisdom in identifying rape victims by
name. Opinion polls showed that the public did not support the new practice.

Even in these very visible cases, had a change in policy truly taken place?
Were most newspapers following the lead of NBC News and the New York
Times in identifying victims in these rape cases? And were these prominent
cases causing newspaper managers to reexamine their policies regarding the
identification of rape victims?

This research will assess how daily newspapers in the United States
handled the well-publicized Central Park jogger, William Kennedy Smith,
and Mike Tyson cases and whether these newspapers are deserting the long-

standing tradition of withholding the names of rape victims from their news

W85-

61

These questions were designed to collect data to assess these conditions:

° Do us. daily newspapers identify rape victims by name in published
reports?

Coverage of several recent notable cases made it seem as if many media
outlets were revealing the names of rape victims. How many newspapers
actually do identify rape victims by name?

0 Do newspaper managers base their decisions to identify rape victims on
an established policy that is part of their publications’ management
procedure, or do they make decisions on a case-by-case basis?

When the New York Times published the news story that named
Bowman and provided details of her apparently troubled past, the
newspaper’s editors had decided to name the woman in this instance and had
not altered the newspaper’ s long-standing policy regarding victims of rape. In
fact, after the New York Times was soundly criticized by readers and staff, the
newspaper reversed its decision and later omitted her name from news
coverage. In this instance, the newspaper’s editors had decided to include the
woman’s name after it had been made public by other media. Although the
Central Park jogger’ 5 name had been published in two New York newspapers
with local distribution, the Times had not used that woman’s name in its
coverage.

It seems that some newspapers’ decisions to include Bowman’s name
were made inthis situation alone. Thus, the papers appeared to make these
kinds. of decisions on a case-by-case basis. Do newspapers that identify rape

victims by name do so in every rape case, or do they decide to identify rape

victims based on the merits of each case?

62

0 Are US. daily newspapers altering their policies or are they continuing
the long-standing tradition of withholding names of rape victims from
published news reports?

Since 1989 when Geneva Overholser suggested that newspapers should
identify victims of rape in the same way they do victims of all other crimes,
several noteworthy cases and countless newspaper, magazine, and journal
articles have addressed the issue of identification. The New York Times’
decision to reveal Patricia Bowman’s name surely suggested to other
newspaper editors that the long-standing tradition of anonymity might be
outdated.

Did these recent noteworthy rape cases cause newspaper managers to
reexamine their policies regarding the identification of rape victims and,
perhaps, to alter these policies?

0 Have managers of publications with established policies regulating the
identification of rape victims sought input from their staff, community,
and victims in setting these policies?

When this country was founded, its leaders recognized the necessity of a
free press, unfettered by governmental restraint and able to perform a
”watchman” function for the people. For more than two hundred years, the
press has enjoyed the guarantees afforded by the First Amendment; however,
the privileges provided by the Constitution do not come without
responsibility to the community served by the press. Consequently, a local

newspaper cannot wholly disregard the beliefs and wishes of its own

community.

63

In establishing policy regarding identification of rape victims, do
newspapers gather input from victims within their own communities? Do
newspapers seek the insight of counselors or agency personnel who help rape
victims through their ordeal? And dbes the press talk with members of its
own staff to gather their input on the issue of identifying rape victims by
name in their publications?

0 Did newspapers follow their policies regarding identification of rape
victims in several well-publicized cases that renewed news industry
discussion about the issue of identification of rape victims by name?
Although many newspapers have long-standing policies that protect the

identities of rape victims, some of these publications clearly abandoned these

policies when covering the William Kennedy Smith case. Most notable was
the New York Times, but surely others followed the lead of the major media
outlets that revealed Patricia Bowman’s name.

Did newspapers follow their policies regarding identification of rape
victims when this notable—and unusual—case occurred, or did managers

cover the story differently because of the intense publicity it received?

- Does the size of a newspaper’s circulation appear to affect the decision to
print or withhold the names of rape victims?

The media that identified Patricia Bowman by name were larger outlets
that reached audiences across the nation and beyond. For these media, Patricia
Bowman was not a local woman who lived within their community—a
community made up of the victim’s relatives, friends, and neighbors.

Yet for the majority of daily newspapers, the coverage of rape involves

publishing information about someone who lives within a newspaper’ s

64

neighborhoods. For these local publications, circulation size might affect
editors’ decisions to publish the names of rape victims. Smaller newspapers
covering smaller communities might follow a more conservative practice
regarding publication of rape victims’ names. In smaller communities where
residents have a smaller chance of remaining anonymous, newspapers might

have even greater interest in protecting the identities of rape victims.

CHAPTER 4
METHOD

To learn about the policies of US. daily newspapers and assess the
decision-making processes used to establish these policies, data for this study
were gathered through a mail survey of ranking editorial managers of 300
US. daily newspapers. Data collection began November 11, 1995, and ceased
January 3, 1996.

To assemble a pool of participants for this study, the researcher used
Editor 8 Publisher International Year Book 1995. All US. daily newspapers
were sorted into three circulation groups: 25,000 or less, between 25,000 and
100,000, and 100,000 and greater. These groupings were established in an effort
to determine whether the size of a newspaper’ s circulation affects its practice
regarding identification of rape victims in published reports. Using a table of
random numbers to select study participants, the researcher chose 100
newspapers from each circulation group. The researcher chose this number
with the intent that mailing 100 surveys per group would produce acceptable
response numbers within a limited budget.

The researcher also used the Editor 6' Publisher International Year Book
1995 to collect the names, titles, and addresses of each newspapers’ highest-
ranking staff editorial manager—such as editor, managing editor, editor and

publisher, or executive editor.

66

Each subject received a survey package that included a cover letter
(Appendix B) that explained the scope of the study and a one-page survey
(Appendix A) designed as a self-mailer that could be completed, stapled or
taped shut, and returned by mail. Each letter and envelope addressed the
newspaper editor by name. All envelopes and surveys were stamped with
first-class postage. The package also included a printed envelope (Appendix D)
that alerted the recipient to its contents.

All surveys were returned to the School of Journalism office at Michigan
State University.

Copies of a test survey were mailed to 20 newspaper editorial managers
who were not among those selected for the final study. Because this initial
mailing was conducted to test for the readability and comprehension of the
instrument and was not intended to collect data, only Michigan newspapers
were used and no effort was made to choose participants from three separate
circulation groups; however, all circulation groups were represented in the
test mailing.

All Michigan newspapers not chosen for the final survey mailing were
placed in this test pool, and a table of random numbers was used to select
those who would receive this initial mailing.

Test surveys were mailed October 21, 1995, and editors were asked to
return their copies by October 31, 1995. Nine replies were received. As a result

of responses to the initial mailing, the researcher altered the survey

67

instrument, omitting questions that were repetitive and tightening language
in other questions.

The 300 study surveys and accompanying letters were mailed November
11, 1995, requesting return by November 24, 1995. A second mailing of
surVeys with a letter reminding editors about the project (Appendix C) was
sent November 25, 1995, to 177 newspapers that had not responded. These
surveys asked editors to return the survey ”today.”

All survey responses were confidential, but each survey was numbered to
enable the researcher to determine which newspaper managers had
responded. The two sets of surveys were marked in different colors, allowing
the researcher to identify whether editors responded to the first or second
request for information. More editors responded to the first request, with 130
surveys returned from the first mailing and 38 surveys returned from the
second mailing.

Survey responses were received steadily throughout the 71/2-week survey
period, which encompassed a number of holidays beginning with
Thanksgiving and ending with the new year.

For those editors whose newspapers did not identify rape victims by
name and who did not choose to elaborate on their answers, the survey could
take as few as three minutes to complete. Editors also could expand on their
answers in an ”other” choice, which was included on nearly all the questions,
and on a blank panel that invited them to provide additional comments on

the issue of naming rape victims in the press.

CHAPTER 5
RESULTS OF DATA ANALYSIS

This chapter provides the results of the data analyses used to answer the
research questions posed for this study, which was conducted to determine
the practices daily newspapers follow in regard to the identification of rape
victims and their policies governing these practices.

A total of 300 editorial managers were asked to complete a survey
developed by the researcher to obtain information from newspapers about
their policies and practices relative to identification of rape victims. Of this
number, 168 editors returned their completed surveys for a response rate of
56.0%.

The newspapers were divided into three groups based on circulation. The

returned surveys by size of circulation are presented in Table 1.

Table 1. Participants, by size of circulation

 

 

Size of Circulation Number Percent
25m0 or Less 47 28.0
Between 25,000 and 100,000 69 41.0
100,000 or Greater 52 31 .0

Total 168 100.0

 

68

69

The largest number of respondents (n=69, 41.0%) came from the
newspaper group with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000. Fifty-two
(31.0%) of the responding editors worked for newspapers with circulations of
100,000 or greater, and 47 (28.0%) editors were from newspapers with

circulations of 25,000 or less.

Research Questions

Six research questions were posed for this study. Data obtained from
individual survey questions were used to answer the research questions. To
provide additional information, cross-tabulations by size of newspaper
circulation were used.

In some instances, responses resulted in cells with no or few expected
frequencies. Wimmer and Dominick indicate that small samples such as
these may skew the distribution when calculating chi-square, resulting in
Type II error. Consequently, small samples may not furnish significant results
in cases that could have yielded such results if a larger sample had been
used.“2 To address this issue, the researcher grouped response categories
where appropriate to arrive at a chi-square value that might achieve statistical

significance.

 

1"Roger D. Wimmer and Joseph R. Dominick, Mass Media Research: An Introduction, 3d
ed., (Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991), 235-236.

70

Research question 1. Do us. daily newspapers identify rape victims by
name in published reports?

Of the survey respondents, only 2 (1.2%) said their newspapers identify
rape victims by name in published reports. A total of 155 (92.2%) respondents
generally do not identify victims by name: 78 (46.4%) do not identify victims
by name; 57 (33.9%) do not print names unless the victim agrees to
identification; and 20 (11.9%) generally do not identify victims by name but
may do so in special circumstances.

Of the survey participants, 11 (6.5%) chose ”other” as their response. Two
of these editors said they will identify victims who file a civil suit. Two said
they publish wire service reports that identify rape victims by name in cases
that receive national coverage. Several respondents said this decision
depends on a variety of circumstances.

Based on the responses of the survey participants, it appears that US.
daily newspapers continue the tradition of withholding names of rape
victims from published reports; however, some editors apparently are willing
to make exceptions to this practice based on individual circumstances.
Research question 2. Do newspaper managers base their decisions to identify

rape victims on an established policy that is part of
their publications’ management procedure, or do they
make decisions on a case-by-case basis?

A series of questions was asked to determine which criteria newspaper
managers use in deciding whether to identify rape victims by name. The

second survey item asked editors to identify the reasons behind their practice.

Their responses are presented in Table 2.

71

Table 2. How practice resulted, by size of circulation

 

 

 

Size of Circulation
Between 25,000 100,000
How practice 25,(X)0 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
resulted N % N % N % N %
Policy 39 83.0 58 85.3 39 75.0 136 81.4
Decision made on a
case-by-case basis 7 14.9 5 7.4 5 9.6 17 10.2
Other 1 2.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 0.6
Combination of policy
and decision made on
a case-by-case basis 0 0.0 5 7.4 8 15.4 13 7.8
Total 47 100.0 68 100.0 52 100.0 167 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 0
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 1
Circulation >100,000 0

Chi-square = 2.168, d.f. = 2, P = .338

The majority of the editors (n=136, 81.4%) indicated they base their
decisions to identify (or not identify) rape victims on policy. Of this number,
39 (83.0%) editors were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 58
(85.3%) editors were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and
100,000, and 39 (75.0%) editors were from newspapers with circulations of
more than 100,000. Of the 17 (10.2%) who reported their decisions are made
on a case-by-case basis, 7 (14.9%) were editors of newspapers with circulations
of 25,000 or less, 5 (7.4%) were from newspapers with circulations between
25,000 and 100,000, and 5 (9.6%) were from newspapers with circulations of

100,000 or greater. One (2.1%) editor who chose the ”other” response cited

72

tradition among Missouri newspapers as the reason for his or her
newspaper’s practice. One editor did not respond to this question.

The fourth survey item requested information from editors who
indicated their decisions to identify rape victims in published reports were
made on a case-by-case basis. The question focused on which instances might
affect that decision. Responses were cross-tabulated by size of newspaper

circulation, and results of this analysis are presented in Table 3.

Table 3. Instances that affect decisions to publish a name,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

Instances that Between 25,000 100,000

affect decisions 25,000 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
to publish a name N % N % N % N %
Victim agrees

to identification 6 40.0 11 40.7 13 54.2 30 45.5
Crime occurred in a

verypublicmanner 2 13.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.0
Other 2 13.3 2 7.4 4 12.5 8 12.1
Victim agrees/

victim identified in

other media/ crime

occurred in a very

publicmanner 2 13.3 7 25.9 3 12.5 12 18.2
Victim agrees/

victim is identified

in other media 2 13.3 2 7.4 1 4.2 5 7.6
Victim agrees/

crimeoccurred ina

verypublic manner 1 6.7 5 18.5 3 12.5 9 13.6

Total 15 100.0 27 100.0 24 100.0 66 100.0

 

73

The largest group of respondents (n=30, 45.5%) base their decision to
identify rape victims on whether the victim agrees to identification. Of this
number, 6 (40.0%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less,
with 11 (40.7%) from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and
100,000, and 13 (54.2%) from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or
greater. Two (13.3%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less
reported they identify rape victims if the crime occurs in a very public
manner.

Of those newspapers that print the names of rape victims, the editors
were asked when their newspapers publish those names. Their responses
were cross-tabulated by the size of the newspaper circulation, and the results

of this analysis are presented in Table 4.

Table 4. When a newspaper publishes rape victims’ names, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

When a newspaper Between 25,000 100,000

publishes rape 25010 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
victims’ names N % N % N % N %
When a rape

is reported 0 0.0 o 0.0 1 11.1 1 4.2
When a suspect

is arrested 1 11.1 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 4.2
Following the

suspect’s trial 3 33.3 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 12.5
During the trial 2 22.2 0 0.0 1 11.1 3 12.5
Other 3 33.3 6 100.0 7 77.8 16 66.7

Total 9 100.0 6 100.0 9 100.0 24 100.0

 

74

The majority of the editors chose ”other” as their response to this
question. The reasons they supplied included: case-by-case decision, could be
any of the above (depends on circumstances), if the victim goes public or the
victim is slain, when asked by the victim, if the victim agrees or insists, when
news circumstances dictate, victim is identified by other media (case-by-case
decision), and each case is evaluated separately.

Six editors indicated that their decision to publish the victim’s name is
tied to the defendant’s trial. Three (12.5%) editors said they will publish the
victim’s name during the trial, and 3 (12.5%) said they will publish the
victim’s name following the trial.

One (4.2%) newspaper will publish the victim’s name when the rape is
reported, and 1 (4.2%) will publish the name when a suspect is arrested.

For some newspapers, the issue of identification may be irrelevant if
reporters are unable to obtain the names of victims from police reports. The
respondents were asked if local law enforcement agencies provide their
newspapers with the names of rape victims. Cross-tabulations were used to

summarize their responses to this question, which are presented in Table 5.

75

Table 5. Whether local law enforcement agencies provide newspapers
with names of rape victims, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Local law

enforcement agencies

provide newspapers Between 25,000 100,000

with names 25,(X)0 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total

of rape victims N % N % N % N %

Yes 13 28.3 24 35.8 15 30.0 52 31.9

No 16 34.8 21 31.3 11 22.0 48 29.4

Some do,

somedonot 16 34.8 21 31.3 23 46.0 60 36.8

Other 1 2.2 1 1.5 1 2.0 3 1.8
Total 46 100.0 67 100.0 50 100.0 163 100.0

Missing Circulation 25,000 or less

Circulation 25,000<>100,000
Circulation >100,000

NNH

Chi-square a 2.08, d.f. = 2, P = .353

The largest group of respondents (n=60, 36.8%) reported that some law
enforcement agencies provide their newspapers with names of rape victims,
and some do not. Of this number, 16 (34.8%) of the editors were from
newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 21 (31.3%) were from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 23 (46.0%) were
from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Of the 52 (31.9%)
newspaper editors who indicated that local law enforcement agencies provide
names of rape victims, 13 (28.3%) were from newspapers with circulations of
25,000 or less, 24 (35.8%) were from newspapers with circulations between
25,000 and 100,000, and 15 (30.0%) were from newspapers with circulations of

100,000 or greater. Sixteen (34.8%) editors from newspapers with circulations

76

of 25,000 or less, 21 (31.3%) from newspapers with circulations between 25,000
and 100,000, and 11 (22.0%) from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or
greater indicated that local law enforcement agencies do not provide the
newspapers with names of rape victims. The ”other” response was reported
by 1 (2.2%) editor whose newspaper had a circulation of 25,000 or less, 1 (1.5%)
from a newspaper with a circulation between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.0%)
from a newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 or greater.

If the majority of US. newspapers reversed their policy and decided to
identify rape victims by name, the practices of many local law enforcement
agencies would not allow reporters to obtain these names after crimes occur.
Because most newspapers do not use these names, however, law enforcement
officials may be withholding these names from reports simply because they
know their local newspapers will not use the information.

Based on responses gathered in the survey, U.S. newspapers adhere to
established policy when deciding whether to publish the names of rape
victims, and the majority do not identify rape victims by name. Fewer editors
make these decisions on a case-by-case basis. Some newspapers combine
policy with case-by-case evaluation when determining whether to publish the
names of rape victims.

Of those newspapers that may identify victims when circumstances
warrant, the decision to reveal the victim’s name is often based on his or her
consent. A rape that occurs in a public manner or involves a well-known

person may influence a newspaper’ s decision to publish the name of the

77

victim. Editors also say they will identify a victim if other media have already

done so. Identification by other media, they said, makes the issue moot.

Research question 3. Are US. daily newspapers altering their policies or are
they continuing the long-standing tradition of
withholding names of rape victims from published
news reports?

In gathering information on newspaper policy, researchers have found
that most newspapers have long followed a tradition of withholding the
names of rape victims from publication. For some publications, this is a
matter of newspaper policy; for others, it is a legal requirement.

The editors were asked to indicate the length of time their newspapers

have followed this practice. Responses were cross-tabulated by circulation size

of the newspapers, and results of this analysis are presented in Table 6.

Table 6. Length of time practice has been followed, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Length of time Between 25,000 100,000
practice has 25,(X)0 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
been followed N % N % N % N %
1 to 5years 5 10.6 7 10.3 7 13.5 19 11.4
More than 5 years 42 89.4 61 89.7 45 86.5 148 88.6
Total 47 100.0 68 100.0 52 100.0 167 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 0
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 1
Circulation >100,000 0

Chi-square = .329, d.f. = 2, P a .848

78

The majority of the editors (n=148, 88.6%) reported that their newspapers
had followed current practices regarding the publication of rape victims’
names for more than five years. Of this number, 42 (89.4%) were editors of
newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 61 (89.7%) of newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 45 (86.5%) of newspapers with
circulations of 100,000 or greater. One editor did not respond to this question.

The editors also were asked if they planned to review existing policy
within the next six months. Their responses were cross-tabulated by the size

of the newspapers’ circulation and are presented in Table 7.

Table 7. Newspaper management’ 5 plan to review existing policy
within six months, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Newspaper
management’s plan
to review
existing policy Between 25,000 100,000
within 25,000 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
six months N % N % N % N %
Yes 2 4.3 4 5.8 2 3.9 8 4.8
No 44 93.6 62 89.9 46 90.2 152 91.0
Other 1 2.1 3 4.3 1 2.0 5 3.0
Policy reviewed
constantly 0 0.0 0 0.0 2 3.9 2 1.2
Total 47 100.0 69 100.0 51 100.0 167 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 0
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 0
Circulation >100,000 1

Chi-square a 5.45, d.f. = 2, P = .762

79

The majority of the editors (n=152, 91.0%), including 44 (93.6%) whose
newspapers have circulations of 25,000 or less, 62 (89.9%) with circulations
between 25,000 and 100,000, and 46 (90.2%) whose newspapers have
circulations of 100,000 or greater, indicated they do not plan to review their
existing policy on publishing the names of rape victims. Of the 8 (4.8%)
editors who indicated a policy review will take place within the next six
months, 2 (4.3%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 4
(5.8%) were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000,
and 2 (3.9%) were from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater.
Five (3.0%) editors indicated ”other” as their response to this question, with 1
(2.1%) from a newspaper with a circulation of 25,000 or less, 3 (4.3%) from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.0%) from a
newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 or greater. Two (3.9%) editors from
newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater indicated their policy on
reporting the names of rape victims is subject to constant review.

The newspaper editors who indicated they were planning policy review
were asked whether they thought their newspapers were likely to alter their
policies. While 8 editors indicated that policy review was planned, 56 editors
responded to this question. This discrepancy may have resulted from
misreading the question and responding inappropriately. The responses from
the 56 editors were cross-tabulated by the size of the newspapers’ circulation.

Table 8 presents the results of this analysis.

80

Table 8. If policy review is planned, likelihood that newspaper will change policy,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

If policy review is

planned, likelihood Between 25,000 100,000

that newspaper 251110 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total

will change policy N % N % N % N %

Not very likely 2 11.8 4 18.2 3 17.6 9 16.1

Other 0 0.0 l 4.5 2 11.8 3 5.4

No review planned,

not very likely 15 88.2 17 77.3 12 70.6 44 78.5
Total 17 100.0 22 100.0 17 100.0 56 100.0

 

The largest group of respondents (n=44, 78.5%) came from those editors
who said no policy review is planned; they reported that a change in policy
regarding reporting the names of rape victims is not very likely. Of this
number, 15 (88.2%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less,
17 (77.3%) were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and
100,000, and 12 (70.6%) were from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or
greater. Two (11.8%) editors from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or
less, 4 (18.2%) editors from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and
100,000, and 3 (17.6%) editors from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or
greater indicated policy review is planned and it is not very likely that policies
will change. Three (5.4%) editors, 1 (4.5%) from a newspaper with a
circulation between 25,000 and 100,000 and 2 (11.8%) from newspapers with a

circulation of 100,000 or greater, responded ”other” to this question.

81

Consequently, newspaper managers appear to accept that withholding the
names of rape victims from publication is appropriate policy and have no
plans to alter that policy.

While managers at most newspapers have the ability to set policy that
governs whether their publications will identify rape victims by name, laws
in some states prohibit newspapers from identifying victims by name.
Question 15 asked the editors if any law prohibits them from publishing
names of rape victims. Their responses were cross-tabulated by the size of

their newspapers’ circulations, and results are presented in Table 9.

Table 9. Newspapers prohibited by law from publishing names of rape victims,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Newspapers
prohibited by law
from publishing Between 25,000 100,000
names of rape 25,(X)0 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
victims N % N % N % N %
Yes/State 3 6.4 3 4.5 3 5.9 9 5.5
Yes/Local 0 0.0 l 1.5 0 0.0 1 0.6
No 44 93.6 63 94.0 48 94.1 155 93.9
Total 47 100.0 67 100.0 51 100.0 165 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 0
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 2
Circulation >100,000 1

The majority of respondents (n=155, 93.9%) reported that no laws prohibit
them from publishing the names of rape victims in their news reports. Of

this number, 44 (93.6%) were editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000

82

or less, 63 (94.0%) of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000,
and 48 (94.1%) of newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. One
(1.5%) editor of a newspaper with a circulation from 25,000 to 100,000
indicated that local law prohibits the newspaper from publishing the names
of rape victims. There were 9 (5.5%) editors who said that state law prohibits
them from publishing the names of rape victims. Three (6.4%) of the
newspaper editors who provided this response were from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 3 (4.5%) were from newspapers with circulations
between 25,000 and 100,000, and 3 (5.9%) were from newspapers with
circulations of 100,000 or greater.

Consequently, few newspapers are prohibited by law from publishing the
names of rape victims. For most US. daily newspapers, the issue of
identification is one addressed by individual papers whose managers have
the ability to set their own policies regarding this issue.

Although several rape cases in the last five years received inordinate
coverage in the media, it appears this pervasive coverage did not prompt U.S.
daily newspapers to alter their policies. A full 88.6% of the papers surveyed
have followed their policy regarding publication of names of rape victims for
more than five years. While widely read newspapers such as the New York
Times printed victims’ names in opposition to their own policy in recent
notable cases, U.S. newspapers apparently did not see any reason to alter their

practice based on coverage of these cases.

83

Newspapers managers do not generally continue to review their policies
regarding identification of rape victims, and few editors foresee changes in
their policies. The highly visible rape cases that have been covered in the
national media in recent years apparently have had no influence on

newspaper policies regarding the identification of rape victims.

Research question 4. Have managers of publications with established
policies regulating the identification of rape victims
sought input from their staff, community, and victims
in setting these policies?

Newspapers do not exist in a vacuum. These publications maintain an
important role in their communities. Throughout this country’s history, the
press has been afforded critical freedom that allows it to exist without
government interference. While the press has been allowed considerable
freedom to perform its role in society, it must also recognize its responsibility
to the needs and interests of the community of readers it serves.

To answer this research question, editors were asked several questions
regarding the amount of input they receive from representative boards,
community groups, and others.

One question asked the editors if their newspapers have representative
boards of community members that offer input on policy. Responses were

cross-tabulated by the size of the newspapers’ circulation, and the results of

this analysis are presented in Table 10.

84

Table 10. Newspapers with representative boards
that give input on newspaper policy, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Newspapers with
representative boards Between 25,000 100,000
that give input on 251110 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
newspaper policy N % N % N % N %
Yes 6 12.8 12 18.2 10 19.6 28 17.1
No 41 87.2 52 78.8 37 72.5 130 79.3
Other 0 0.0 2 3.0 4 7.8 6 3.7
Total 47 100.0 66 100.0 51 100.0 164 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 0
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 3
Circulation >100,000 1

Chi-square = 3.23, d.f. = 2, P = .199

The majority of the respondents (n=130, 79.3%) reported they do not have
a representative board that provides input regarding newspaper policy. Of this
number, 41 (87.2%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less,
52 (78.8%) were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and
100,000, and 37 (72.5%) were from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or
greater. Twenty-eight (17.1%) editors—including 6 (12.8%) from newspapers
with circulations of 25,000 or less, 12 (18.2%) from newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 10 (19.6%) from newspapers with
circulations of 100,000 or greater—reported they have a community panel that
offers input on newspaper policy.

Two (3.0%) newspaper editors from publications with circulations

between 25,000 and 100,000 and 4 (7.8%) editors from newspapers with

85

circulations of 100,000 or greater indicated ”other” as their response to this
question. Two of these editors said their publications use focus groups or
surveys to measure reader opinion. One editor said his or her readers actively
provide input or feedback. Another editor said that members of the
community are invited to participate in discussions when the process seems
useful.

Those newspaper managers whose publications have representative
boards were asked if those boards participated in the discussion that led to the
adoption of policy regarding publication of rape victims’ names. Their

responses are provided in Table 11.

Table 11. Newspapers with representative boards that participated in discussion
leading to policy decisions regarding publication of rape victims’ names,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

Newspapers with

 

representative boards

that participated

indiscussion

leading to policy Between 25,000 100,000

decisions regarding 25,(XX) or less and 100,000 or Greater Total

publication of rape

victims’ names N % N % N % N %

Yes 1 12.5 1 9.1 0 0.0 2 6.7

No 7 87.5 10 90.9 10 90.9 27 90.0

Other 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 9.1 1 3.3
Total 8 100.0 11 100.0 11 100.0 30 100.0

 

86

Two (6.7%) newspaper managers indicated that their representative
boards were participants in discussion that led to establishment of policy
regarding publication of rape victims’ names. Of this number 1 (12.5%) was
from a newspaper with a circulation of 25,000 or less, and 1 (9.1%) was from a
newspaper with a circulation between 25,000 and 100,000. Seven (87.5%)
editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 10 (90.9%) from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 10 (90.9%) from
newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater indicated their
representative boards had no input into policy formation regarding the
publication of rape victims’ names. One (9.1%) editor from a newspaper with
a circulation of 100,000 or greater indicated ”other” as the response to this
question.

It would seem that two groups—victims themselves and counselors who
help these victims recover from rapes—would have a strong interest in
expressing their opinions about newspaper policy governing the decision to
identify rape victims by name.

One survey question asked the editors if they sought input from victims
in formulating their policy regarding the publication of rape victims’ names.
Their responses were cross-tabulated by the size of their newspapers’

circulations, and the results of this analysis are presented in Table 12.

87

Table 12. Newspapers that sought input from victims of rape
in formulating policy regarding identification of rape victims,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

Newspapers that

 

 

sought input from
victims of rape in
formulating policy Between 25,000 100,000
on identification 25,0(X) or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
of rape victims N % N % N % N %
Yes 5 12.2 10 14.7 12 24.0 27 17.0
No 36 87.8 54 79.4 35 70.0 125 78.6
Other 0 0.0 4 5.9 3 6.0 7 4.4
Total 41 100.0 68 100.0 50 100.0 159 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 6
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 1
Circulation >100,000 2

Chi-square = 3.01, d.f. = 2, P = .222

The majority of editors (n=125, 78.6%) indicated they did not seek input
from rape victims in formulating their policies regarding publication of
names. Of this number, 36 (87.8%) were from newspapers with circulations of
25,000 or less, 54 (79.4%) were from newspapers with circulations between
25,000 and 100,000, and 35 (70.0%) were from newspapers with circulations of
100,000 or greater. Among the 27 (17.0%) editors who sought this input, 5
(12.2%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 10 (14.7%)
were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 12
(24.0%) were from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Four
(5.9%) editors of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000 and

3 (6.0%) from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater used ”other”

88

as their response to this question. Most of these editors said that while they
did not actively seek victims’ input, the newspapers were aware of their
concerns.

The survey also asked if newspapers sought input from rape counseling
services in formulating policy regarding identification of rape victims.
Responses to this question were cross—tabulated by the size of the newspaper

circulation, and Table 13 presents the results of this analysis.

Table 13. Newspapers that sought input from rape counseling services
in formulating policy regarding identification of rape victims,
by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

Newspapers that

 

 

sought input from rape
counseling services in
formulating policy Between 25,000 100,000
regarding 25,000 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
identification
of rape victims N % N % N % N %
Yes 4 9.3 14 20.6 11 21.6 29 17.9
No 37 86.0 52 76.5 36 70.6 125 77.2
Other 2 4.7 2 2.9 4 7.8 8 4.9
Total 43 100.0 68 100.0 51 100.0 162 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 4
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 l
Circulation >100,000 1

Chi-square =- 3.10, d.f. = 2, P = .213

Editors provided similar responses for the questions about the input
sought from rape victims and rape counselors. Of the 29 (17.9%) respondents

who sought input from rape counseling services, 4 (9.3%) were from

89

newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 14 (20.6%) were from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 11 (21.6%) were
from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. The majority of
managers (n=125, 77.2%) did not seek input from rape counseling services in
policy making regarding the identification of rape victims, with 37 (86.0%)
from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 52 (76.5%) from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 36 (70.6%) from
newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Two (4.7%) editors from
newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 2 (2.9%) editors from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 4 (7.8%) editors
from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater indicated ”other” as
their response to this question.

As in the case of rape victims, newspaper editors who chose the ”other”
response indicated they did not actively seek input from rape counseling
services but said they were aware of their concerns.

The survey also asked newspaper editors if staff input was encouraged
regarding the decision to publish the names of rape victims. Their responses
were cross-tabulated by the size of the newspapers’ circulation. Table 14

presents the results of this analysis.

90

Table 14. Newspapers that encourage staff input
regarding the decision to publish names of rape victims,
by size of circulation

 

 

Size of Circulation

Newspaper staff
input encouraged
regarding decision Between 25,000 100,000
to publish names 25111) or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
of rape victims N % N % N % N %
Yes 6 60.0 11 84.6 12 100.0 29 82.9
No 4 40.0 2 15.4 0 0.0 6 17.1

Total 10 100.0 13 100.0 ' 12 100.0 35 100.0

 

Chi-square = 6.38, d.f. = 2, P = .04

The majority of the editors (n=29, 82.9%) who responded to this question
reported that staff members were encouraged to provide input regarding
decisions to publish the names of rape victims. Of this number, 6 (60.0%)
were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 11 (84.6%) were
from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 12 (100%)
were from newspapers with circulations in excess of 100,000. Four (40.0%)
editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less and 2 (15.4%) editors
of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000 indicated they did
not encourage input from newspaper staff members regarding decisions about
publication of the names of rape victims.

When the responses of the newspaper managers were examined as a
group, it appeared that newspaper policy makers do not actively seek the
input of the communities they cover when establishing newspaper policy. In

the case of policy governing the identification of rape victims, newspapers did

91

not seek input from rape victims themselves, rape counseling services, and
members of the community.
Newspapers managers do, however, invite staff participation when

establishing newspaper policy.

Research question 5. Did newspapers follow their policies regarding
identification of rape victims in several well-
publicized cases that renewed news industry discussion
about the issue of identification of rape victims by
name?

While newspapers apparently have followed a long-standing tradition
and have refrained from publishing the names of rape victims, that practice
did not seem apparent in several cases that received considerable coverage in
the national media. While local newspapers might profess that they refrain
from identifying victims in local rape cases, many seemingly had abandoned
this policy in the cases of William Kennedy Smith, Mike Tyson, and the
Central Park jogger.

Respondents were asked if they also followed their practice regarding the
identification of rape victims for coverage of national stories. Their responses

were cross-tabulated by size of the newspapers’ circulation, and results of this

analysis are presented in Table 15.

92

Table 15. Newspaper practice followed for national stories, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

 

Newspaper practice Between 25,000 100,000
followed for 25,(X)0 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
national stories N % N % N % N %
Yes 28 63.6 48 71.6 43 86.0 119 73.9
No 14 31.8 16 23.9 6 12.0 36 22.4
Other 2 4.5 3 4.5 1 2.0 6 3.7
Total 44 100.0 67 100.0 50 100.0 161 100.0
Missing Circulation 25,000 or less 3
Circulation 25,000<>100,000 2
Circulation >100,000 2

Chi-square x 1.66, d.f. = 2, P = .411

The majority of the editors (n=119, 73.9%) reported that they follow their
practice regarding the identification of rape victims in both local and national
stories. Of this number, 28 (63.6%) were editors of newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 48 (71.6%) of newspapers with circulations
between 25,000 and 100,000, and 43 (86.0%) of newspapers with circulations of
100,000 or greater. Of the 36 (22.4%) editors who indicated they do not follow
the same practice in national stories, 14 (31.8%) were from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 16 (23.9%) were from newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 6 (12.0%) were from newspapers
with circulations of 100,000 or greater. The ”other” response was chosen by 2
(4.5%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 3 (4.5%) editors
of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.0%)

editor of a publication with a circulation of 100,000 or greater.

93

The newspaper editors also were asked whether they had identified the

newspaper circulation and presented in Table 16.

Table 16. Newspaper practices involving

identification of rape victims in several well-known cases,

by size of circulation

Park jogger cases. Their responses were cross-tabulated by the size of the

victims by name in the William Kennedy Smith, Mike Tyson, and Central

 

Size of Circulation

Newspaper practices

 

involving
identification Between 25,000 100,000
of rape victims 25,000 or less and 100,000 or Greater Total
in well-known cases N % N % N % N %

Mike Tyson
Yes 24 57.1 54 78.3 31 63.3 109 68.1
No 6 14.3 9 13.0 14 28.6 29 18.1
Didn’t cover 5 11.9 3 4.3 0 0.0 8 5.0
When victim went public 0 0.0 0 0.0 1 2.0 1 .06
Used AP reports 4 9.5 2 2.9 1 2.0 7 4.4
Don’t remember 3 1.6 1 1.4 2 4.1 6 3.8
N a 160, chi-square = 450, d.f. = 2, P = .105

William Kennedy Smith
Yes 24 54.5 42 60.9 25 52.1 91 56.5
No 5 11.4 21 30.4 18 37.5 44 27.3
Didn’t cover 7 15.9 3 4.3 0 0.0 10 6.2
When victim went public 0 0.0 0 0.0 3 6.3 3 1.9
Used AP reports 4 9.1 2 2.9 1 2.1 7 4.3
Don’t remember 4 9.1 1 1.4 1 2.1 6 3.7
N = 161, chi-square = 4.81, d.f. = 2, P = .9

Central Park logger
Yes 14 32.6 16 23.5 5 10.4 35 22.0
No 11 25.6 36 52.9 39 81.3 86 54.1
Didn’t cover 11 25.6 6 8.8 1 2.1 18 11.3
Used AP reports 3 7.0 2 2.9 1 2.1 6 3.8
Don’t remember 4 9.3 8 11.8 2 4.2 14 8.8

N -—- 159, chi-square = 15.60, d.f. = 2, P = <.0001

 

94

In the cases of Mike Tyson (n=109, 68.1%) and William Kennedy Smith
(n=91, 56.6%), the majority of editors indicated they reported the rape victims’
names in their newspapers. They said they did not, however, report the name
of the rape victim identified as the Central Park jogger (n=86, 54.1%).

Twenty-four (57.1%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000
or less reported the name of the victim in the Tyson case, with 54 (78.3%)
editors of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000 and 31
(63.3%) editors of newspapers with circulations of more than 100,000
reporting the woman’s name in this case. Of the 29 (18.1%) editors who did
not report the victim’s name in the Tyson case, 6 (14.3%) were from
newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 9 (13.0%) were from
newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 14 (28.6%) were
from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Eight (5.0%) of the
editors indicated they did not cover this case—five (11.9%) from newspapers
with circulations of 25,000 or less and 3 (4.3%) from newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000. One (2.0%) editor of a newspaper
with a circulation of 100,000 or greater indicated that he or she reported the
rape victim’s name when the victim went public. Of the 7 (4.4%) editors who
indicated they used Associated Press stories in reporting the Tyson case, 4
(9.5%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 2 (2.9%) were
from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.0%)
was from a newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 or greater. Six (3.8%)

editors, including 3 (1.6%) from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less,

95

1 (1.4%) from a newspaper with a circulation between 25,000 and 100,000, and
2 (4.1%) from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater, indicated
they did not remember what they reported.

The majority of respondents (n=91, 56.5%) said they reported the name
of the woman in the William Kennedy Smith case. Of this number, 24
(54.5%) were from newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 42 (60.9%)
were from newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 25
(52.1%) were from newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater. There
were 44 (27.3%) editors who did not report the woman’s name in the Smith
case, with 5 (11.4%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less, 21
(30.4%) editors of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000,
and 18 (37.5%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 100,000 or greater.
Seven (15.9%) editors of newspapers with circulations of 25,000 or less and 3
(4.3%) editors of newspapers with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000
indicated they did not cover this case. Three (6.3%) editors of newspapers with
circulations of 100,000 or greater said they did not report the name of the
woman until she went public. Of the 7 (4.3%) editors who indicated they used
the Associated Press reports in this case, 4 (9.1%) were from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 2 (2.9%) from newspapers with circulations
between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.1%) from a newspaper with a circulation
of 100,000 or greater. Four (9.1%) respondents from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 1 (1.4%) respondent from a newspaper with a

circulation between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.1%) respondent from a

96

newspaper with a circulation of 100,000 or greater indicated they did not
remember if they reported the woman’s name.

The case of the Central Park jogger elicited different responses from the
editors—and the only clearly statistically significant response in the study.
The majority of the editors (n=86, 54.1%) reported they did not publish the
name of the rape victim, with 11 (25.6%) editors of newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 36 (52.9%) editors of newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 39 (81.3%) editors of newspapers
with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Eleven (25.6%) editors of newspapers
with circulations of 25,000 or less, 6 (8.8%) editors of newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.1%) editor of a newspaper
with a circulation of 100,000 or greater indicated they did not cover this case.

In this case, 35 (22.0%) editors indicated they reported the name of the
rape victim. Of this number, 14 (32.6%) were from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 16 (23.5%) were from newspapers with
circulations between 25,000 and 100,000, and 5 (10.4%) were from newspapers
with circulations of 100,000 or greater. Of the 6 (3.8%) editors who reported
they used Associated Press stories, 3 (7.0%) were from newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 2 (2.9%) were from newspapers with circulations
between 25,000 and 100,000, and 1 (2.1%) was from a newspaper with a
circulation of 100,000 or greater. Four (9.3%) editors of newspapers with
circulations of 25,000 or less, 8 (11.8%) editors of newspapers with circulations

between 25,000 and 100,000, and 2 (4.2%) editors of newspapers with

97

circulations of 100,000 or greater did not remember if they reported the rape
victim’s name in this case.

Reliance on memory may affect reliability of the answers provided by
editors in the survey. While 35 of 159 respondents said they identified the
Central Park jogger by name, wire services did not release her name, and it is
doubtful that many media outside the New York City area reported her name.
Although the New York Times and other newspapers reported Patricia
Bowman’s name before she went public after the Smith trial, the Times and
others did not reveal Desiree Washington’s name until she went public
following the Tyson trial. However, 1 survey respondent said his or her
newspaper revealed Washington’s name when she went public, but 109
respondents said they published her name throughout coverage of the case.

As it appears from these results, reporting rape victims’ names in cases
that attract national attention was not consistent. When the individuals
involved were well-known—in these two cases, the male defendants—there
was a greater chance the rape victim’s name would be published. When
neither the rape victim nor the aggressor was well-known, the name of the

victim was not published.

98

Research question 6. Does the size of a newspaper’ s circulation affect the
decision to print or withhold the names of rape
victims?

In the first question on the survey, the editors were asked if their
newspapers identify rape victims by name in published reports. The

breakdown by size of circulation is presented in Table 17.

Table 17. Newspapers that identify rape victims by name, by size of circulation

 

Size of Circulation

 

Newspapers

that identify rape Between 25,000 100,000

victims by name 25,0(1) or Less and 100,000 or Greater Total

N % N % N % N %

Yes 0 0.0 2 2.9 0 0.0 2 1.2

No 31 66.0 33 47.8 14 26.9 78 46.4

No, unless

victim agrees 7 14.9 24 34.8 26 50.0 57 33.9

Other 6 12.8 2 2.9 3 5.8 11 6.5

Generally no,

butyesin

special circumstances 3 6.4 8 11.6 9 17.3 20 11.9
Total 47 100.0 69 100.0 52 100.0 168 100.0

 

Chi'square -- 378, d.f. = 2, P = .828

None of the editors of the smaller and larger newspapers reports the
names of rape victims as a matter of policy. Two (2.9%) editors of newspapers
with circulations between 25,000 and 100,000 indicated they report the names

of rape victims.

99

As one might predict, newspapers with smaller circulations that may be
published in smaller communities are likely to withhold the names of rape
victims from publication. Of those newspapers with circulations of 25,000 and
less, no newspapers identify rape victims by name. In this circulation group,
41 (87.3%) respondents said their newspapers generally do not report the
names of rape victims: 31 (66%) do not report names, 7 (14.9%) do not report
names unless the victim agrees, and 3 (6.4%) generally do not report the
names of victims but may in special circumstances.

In this circulation group, 6 (12.8%) chose ”other” as their response. Two
of these newspapers do not identify local victims but use names in national
stories. Two newspapers will use names if the case reaches trial. The other
newspapers evaluate their decisions as stories develop.

In the circulation group between 25,000 and 100,000, 2 (2.9%) newspaper
editors said their publications identify rape victims by name. Sixty-five
(94.2%) respondents generally do not report the names of rape victims: 33
(47.8%) do not report names, 24 (34.8%) do not report names unless the
victim agrees, and 8 (11.6%) generally do not report the names of victims but
may in special circumstances. Of this group, 2 (2.9%) chose ”other” as their
response. One editor said identification may occur in a rare circumstance; the
other said a victim who recants or files a civil suit may be identified.

In the largest circulation group, no newspapers surveyed identify rape
victims by name as a matter of policy. In this group, 49 (94.2%) respondents

said their newspapers generally do not report the names of rape victims: 14

100

(26.9%) do not report names, 26 (50%) do not report names unless the victim
agrees, and 9 (17.3%) generally do not report the names of victims. In this
group, 3 (5.8%) chose ”other” as their response. Editors in this circulation
group again cited special circumstances and a victim’s decision to file a civil
lawsuit as reasons to identify the victim by name.

Although a sizable number of newspaper editors said their newspapers
do not identify rape victims by name as a matter of policy, that percentage
decreases as circulation increases. Of the newspapers surveyed, 66% of the
smaller newspapers, 47.8% of the midsize newspapers, and 26.9% of the larger
newspapers do not publish names. Perhaps greater significance should be
attached to the number of papers that do not publish the names of rape
victims as a matter of policy but will consider publication in special
circumstances: 34.1% of the smaller newspapers, 49.3% of the midsize
newspapers, and 51 .6% of the larger newspapers.

While newspaper editors say their publications do not identify rape
victims by name, these newspapers have allowed for publication of victims’
names when victims agree to identification or special circumstances warrant

identification.

Summary
Results of the data analysis found few instances in which statistical
significance was demonstrated at the .05 confidence level. Only those

questions related to newspaper coverage of the Central Park jogger case and

101

staff input in the policy-making process exceeded the chi-square value of 5.991
for values with two degrees of freedom. The chi-square values of several
other questions neared that level. Consequently, the lack of statistical
significance indicates that differences in the sample are probably due to
chance. Any differences among newspapers based on size probably do not
exist in the population.

While some variation was found among newspapers based on size in
their policies and practices regarding the reporting of rape victims’ names in
published reports, there seems to be a general trend to respect the right of
privacy of the rape victim and not report his or her name in local cases. In
light of recent events, the decision to report the name of the victim in cases
that gain nationwide—and even international—coverage appears to be
related to the celebrity status of the individuals involved in the case.

The conclusions and recommendations that can be obtained from these

findings will be discussed in Chapter 6.

CHAPTER 6
CONCLUSION

This study supports what has long been known about the media and its
treatment of crime victims: U.S. daily newspapers follow established policies
that continue to shield the identity of victims of rape. Of the survey
respondents, 46% said their newspapers do not print the names of rape
victims. Another 52% said they generally do not print names, but these
editors are open to exceptions to this policy. They said they will consider
printing a victim’s name if she or he agrees to identification or if the case
involves special circumstances.

On the surface, these results seem to support the belief that newspapers
continue a tradition that protects victims of rape from identification in the
media. But the number of editors who are willing to identify victims in
exceptional circumstances may indicate that times—and tradition—are
changing.

While the newspapers within that 52% may not actively seek out victims
of rape to request permission to identify them in news reports, those
publications do not oppose printing victims’ names. In most instances,
however, that decision is tied to the victim’s permission.

Whatever practice they follow, 81% of the respondents clearly rely on

established policy.

102

103

For the majority of the respondents, recent coverage of the Smith and
Tyson trials, among other national cases, did not appear to affect the policies
of these publications. A total of 88% of the newspapers have followed their
policies regarding identification of rape victims for more than five years.

The survey, however, did not collect data on the number of victims who
may have chosen to identify themselves or about circumstances that led to
the publication of victims’ names. An examination of these subjects may
reveal a change in victims’ perceptions regarding the stigma that society may
attach to the crime. These are areas that need further study.

Many newspaper managers do not see a need to alter their policies; 91%
of the respondents do not plan to review their present policies.

While the effects of these newspaper policies are far-reaching, the media
have set these policies with minimal effort to gather input from the people
who are directly affected by their decisions. It seems that some members of the
media fit publisher Henry Gay’ 5 description of a ”big daddy” who presumes to
know what is best for victims.

Although nearly 83% of the respondents indicated they sought staff input
on the issue of identification, only 17% discussed policies with rape victims
themselves. Similarly, less than 18% of the editors sought input from the
counselors who help rape victims with their healing process.

The tradition of protecting the victims of rape has survived in spite of
debate. When a victim is murdered, mugged, assaulted, or robbed, critics

maintain, newspapers generally identify these individuals by name. When

104

the crime involves a sexual assault, however, most victims are afforded
special—even secretive—treatment. Critics question how the media can
protect the victims of rape while it names victims of other crimes. Some
maintain that this secrecy reinforces the stigma that society attaches to victims
of rape.

In one national case, the victim was identified by some media and
protected by others. Patricia Bowman, who did not consent to identification,
was named by a number of print and broadcast media. During television
coverage of the trial, her face was electronically shielded from viewers, and a
broadcast delay allowed censors to remove her name from audio
transmission.

Most media managers would say Bowman’s case involved special
circumstances that centered on its link to the Kennedy family. They also
would say that the widespread identification that resulted from several early
stories that made the issue of identification moot.

Still others might cite intense media competition as the driving force
behind identifying the woman.

It is impossible to examine the issue of identifying rape victims by name
without considering the critical role of competition. Before the advent of
national newspapers such as USA Today and 24-hour news coverage
provided by CNN, most media competition was confined to relatively narrow
regions. Increasingly sophisticated technology has helped ”shrink” the globe,

and producers of around-the-clock newscasts need material to fill endless

105

programs. Today, tabloid television blurs the lines between entertainment
and news. Consequently, some media outlets are taking extraordinary
measures to gain their shares of a limited audience.

Those factors surely played a role in the handling of the national cases
examined in this study.

In the case of the Central Park jogger, newspaper editors admitted they
had assembled information about the victim and were ready to identify her by
name if someone else stepped forward to take the lead.

No one did.

One of the survey respondents could easily have been among them. ”We
won’t be first,” the editor said about following newspaper policy in the case of
national stories.

When Bowman, a Palm Beach, Florida, socialite, accused a member of
one of the country’s most famous families of rape, highly influential media
were ready to make the first move. In this case, Bowman was identified even
before Smith was charged with her rape.

The Smith case seemed to stir the media into a feeding frenzy. Reporters
peered through windows, sifted through garbage, and surrounded a
courthouse, all in an effort to unearth information about Bowman’s past.

While NBC News and the New York Times were first to reveal
Bowman’s name, surely hundreds of other newspapers followed their lead. In
the survey alone, 56% of the newspaper editors said they published the

woman’s name. Another 4.3% used Associated Press reports, which identified

106

the woman, and 6.2% said they identified her when she went public
following Smith’s acquittal.

Whatever defense the Times used to justify its identification of Bowman,
it reversed its practice when Mike Tyson was charged with raping a teen-aged
beauty pageant contestant. The Times did not identify Desiree Washington by
name until after Tyson’s conviction, when she announced her appearance on
a television news.

This case also was covered by many newspapers who responded to the
survey. Of these editors, 68% said they identified Washington by name in
their coverage of the case.

For most newspapers, these notable rape cases took place someplace else.
Because neither victims nor defendants were members of their communities,
editors undoubtedly drew less criticism from readers than if the subjects had
been local.

Most of the newspapers surveyed, however, follow the same policy in all
instances. In the survey, 73.9 percent of the editors said their policy applies to
both local and national cases. For most of the respondents, this means that
their newspapers do not print the names of rape victims unless the victims
agree to identification or the case involves special circumstances.

For some respondents, however, local rape cases cannot be treated the
same as national cases.

One survey respondent wrote: ”In an area of small communities, we

would cause too much anguish if we were in the forefront of changing this

107

policy. We will identify rape victims if the victim asks us to do so or if the
victim becomes a plaintiff, e.g., a civil suit against a public agency.”

The editor of a smaller paper said: ”When I worked in South Florida,
competition often made us hold our noses and publish.”

Another editor said: ”If the rape takes place in New York, we can report
the intimate details, including the identities of the victims. If it happens 10
miles down the road, [readers] don’t want the identity of the victim
published, even when everyone in town knows the victim’s name.”

Although editors and reporters may easily distinguishing between rapes
that happen ”in New York” and those that take place in their own
communities, readers and prospective victims may not understand the
reasoning behind local newspaper policy or may not be able to recognize the
boundaries that separate ”New York” cases from local cases. Individuals who
were exposed to every detail in the Smith and Tyson cases—from the sand in
Bowman’s undergarments to Washington’s feminine hygiene products—
may fear that their lives and bodies will be bared to the public if they report
crimes against them.

Law enforcement officials and rape counselors have said that victims’
fears of seeing their names in local newspapers affect their decision to report
rapes to police.

While American society in the ’905 may no longer accept the quaint idea
that a rape victim is ”damaged goods,” some may still place blame on the

victim. These people may question the validity of a date rape charge. They

108

may still espouse the idea that a victim asked for it by the type of clothing she
wore or the company he kept.

Surely these societal attitudes contribute to factors that deter rape victims
from reporting their crimes. In spite of the relationship between information
and the elimination of stigma associated with the crime, rape remains among
the most underreported of crimes.

Throughout its history, the American press has invoked the public’ s right
to know as its credo. It places this duty to the public at the core of its purpose,
and the press has carried out this role admirably. It has uncovered
governmental scandal, unsafe practices, health risks, and corruption. It has
toppled a president and warned the public about issues that affect their health,
their money, and their lives.

But in the case of victims of rape, the press’s effort to shed light on a
crime may be telling the public more than it wishes to know. Several polls
have indicated the public generally agrees that victims of rape should be
allowed their privacy.

While many may agree that the public has a right to know the details of a
crime in order to protect themselves, some are beginning to question whether
the public has a need to know the intimate details of a person’s life. Or a
desire to know.

Yes, times may be changing rapidly. The wealth of information provided
by the media is surely helping the public protect itself from everything from

deadly diseases to consumer fraud. But in this information age, it is critical

109

that we recognize the need for rape victims to control their own lives and
retain their right to privacy.

One survey respondent explained it this way: ”I do not believe this
question can ever be resolved in a way that will ever put my mind at ease.

Our only policy is to err toward the peace of the victim.”

APPENDICES

110

—_'°N
'anqipapauqd 'nmaabmapmoqa
mmqugaamaqwmfln D

wwwwqmm‘mu‘m
Mammmmmwww‘nwdn
nnwfiupmommmhwdanmmv

zm-vzssv 1w ‘3"!80'1 ma
hismiun ms mmom
8"mulls 8w nowwnuwoo soc
msuvmnor :0 looms

mum 'v spun

Please return survey today

NAMING NAMES:

A Survey About Identifying Rape Victims by Name

A Surve of Newspa r Policy
Regardiryr’g Identificarieon
of Rape Victims

1. Does your newspaper identify rape victims by name in
published reports? (circle number)

1 YES 2 NO
3 NO. UNLESS THE VICTIM AGREES
4 OTHER (please explain)

2. Is this practice the result of: (circle number)
I ESTABLISHED NEWSPAPER POLICY
2 DECISION MADE ON A CASE-BY-CASE BASIS
3 OTHER (please explain)

3. How long have you followed this practice? (circle number)

I LESS‘IHANONEYEAR
2 ONETOFIVEYEARS
3 MORE'IT-IANFIVEYEARS

4. If decisions are made on a case-by-case basis, which
instances might affect your decision to publish a name?

. l VICTIM AGREES TO IDENTIFICATION
2 VICTIM IS IDENTIFIED BY OTHER MEDIA
3 CRIME OCCURRED IN A VERY PUBLIC MANNER

4 OTHER (please explain)

5. Do you follow this practice for national stories? (circle
number)

IYES 2N0

6. Does newspaper management plan to review the existing
policy within the next six months? (circle number)

I YES 2 NO
3 OTHER(pIease explain)

7. If policy review is planned. is it likely that your newspaper
will change its policy? (circle number)

I LIKELY 2 NOT VERY LIKELY
3 OTHER (please explain)

8. Are you prohibited by law from publishing the names of
rape victim? (circle number)

I YES: 2 STATE LAW 3 LOCAL ORDINANCE
4 NO

9. Do you have a representative board of community members
who give input on newspaper policy? (circle number)

1 YES 2 NO
3 OTHER (please explain)

10. If you have a representative board. did that bond partici-
pate in discussion leading to your policy regarding publica-
tion of rape victims’ names. (circle number)

I YES 2 NO
3 NOT APPLICABLE
4 OTHER (please explain)

111

ll. Did you seek input from rape counseling services in .
formulating any policy that your newspaper has regarding
the identification of rape victims? (circle number)

1 YES 2 NO
3 OTHER (please explain)

12. Did you seek input from victims of rape in formulating this
policy? (circle number)

I YES
3 OTHER(please explain)

2N0

13. Did you identify by name the victims in these cases? (circle
number)

OMilteTyson l was 2 N0

3 DIDN'T COVER THIS STORY

CWilliam Kennedy Smith I YES 2 NO
3 DIDN‘T COVER THIS STORY

I YES 2 NO
3 DIDN'TCOVERTHISSTORY

- Central Park Jogger

14. If your newspaper identified any of these persons by name.
did you do so: (circle number)

I IN ACCORDANCE WITH EXISTING POLICY

2 BECAUSE OTHER MEDIA/WIRE SERVICES WERE
USING NAME

3 BECAUSE VICTIM WENT PUBLIC
4 OTHER (please explain)

15. Do local law enforcement agencies provide your newspaper
with names of rape victims? (circle number)

1 YES 2 NO
3 SOME AGENCIES DO: SOME DO NOT
4 OTHER (please explain)

16. Do the media contribute to the stigma of rape by refraining
from publishing the names of rape victims? (circle number)

I YES 2 NO
3 NO OPINION

 

lfyournewspaperpdrlishesthenarnesof
victinrsmleaseanswerquestionsflthrouglnrplg.

17. Do your reporters contact rape victims for permission
to use their names in the paper? (circle number)

I YES 2 NO
3 OTHER (please explain)

18. Does your newspaper publish rape victims‘ names:
(circle number)

I WHEN A RAPE IS REPORTED

2 WHEN A SUSPECT IS ARRESTED

3 FOLLOWING THE SUSPECI" S TRIAL
4 DURING THE TRIAL

5 OTHER (please explain)

19. Is newspaper staff input encouraged regarding the
decision to publish the names of rape victims? (circle
number)

1 YES

 

2N0

 

 

112

NAMING NAMES:

 

A Survey About Identifying Rape Victims by Name

School of Journalism

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1212
517/772-5016

James H. Denley, editor

The Birmingham News

2200 N. Fourth Avenue
Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Dear Mr. Denley:

William Kennedy Smith and Mike Tyson. Desiree Washington and Nancy Ziegenmeyer.
News reporters through the centuries have recognized that names make news. But in the
19903, it seems that some news professionals are divided on one issue involving names:
whether to name victims of sexual assault in news pages and broadcast reports.

The issue has been the subject of some study, both in scholarly journals and by some
professional organizations made up of people who report the news. None of those
studies and informal polls, however, has explored the subject relative to news executives
and policy making.

I’m seeking your input to help me explore this link As a former editor and city editor,
I’m no stranger to newsroom policies. Throughout my graduate study at Michigan State
University, my research interests have revolved around practical issues—things that
have application in today’s newsroom. My thesis, ”Naming Names: A Survey of US.
Daily Newspaper Policy Regarding Identification of Rape Victims,” will gather input on
this subject that I want to share with practicing news professionals.

I would appreciate your participation in this study. Completing the survey should only
take minutes, and you can staple or tape it closed and return it in the mail. You may be
assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for
mailing purposes only. This is so that I can check your name off the mailing list when
your response is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. The
mailing list will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project.

To allow you to share directly in the results, I will send you a report if you wish to
receive one. You may indicate this by checking the box on the survey.
I greatly appreciate your effort. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Linda A. Norlock

113

NAMING NAMES:

 

A Survey About Identifying Rape Victims by Name

School of Journalism

Michigan State University

East Lansing, Michigan 48824-1212
51 7/ 772-50 1 6

James H. Denley, editor

The Birmingham News

2200 N. Fourth Avenue
Birmingham, Alabama 35202

Dear Mr. Denley:

A few weeks ago, you received a survey inviting you to participate in a study of news
executives and their role in policy making regarding the identification of victims of
sexual assault in news pages and broadcast reports. The issue has been the subject of
some study, both in scholarly journals and by some professional organizations made up
of people who report the news.

I have enclosed a second copy of this survey and again request your input to help me
explore this critical issue. As a former editor and city editor, I’m no stranger to
newsroom policies. Throughout my graduate study at Michigan State University, my
research interests have revolved around practical issues—things that have application in
today’s newsroom. My thesis, ”Naming Names: A Survey of US. Daily Newspaper
Policy Regarding Identification of Rape Victims,” will gather input on this subject that I
want to share with practicing news professionals.

I would appreciate your participation in this study. Completing the survey should only
take minutes, and you can staple or tape it closed and return it in the mail. You may be
assured of complete confidentiality. The questionnaire has an identification number for
mailing purposes only. This is so tint I can check your name off the mailing list when
your res use is returned. Your name will never be placed on the questionnaire. The
mailing ' t will be destroyed at the conclusion of the project.

To allow you to share directly in the results, I will send you a report if you wish to
receive one. You may indicate this by checking the box on the survey.
I greatly appreciate your effort. Thank you for your assistance.

Sincerely,

Linda A. Norlock

114

 

3388 3222 dens: sum
mega as. :885658 8m
$32: 2% sesame
nae—9:8. 3 86m

8282 4 8::

mEmZ 3 £565 33. wcézcoc. Son? .623 <

 

 

Hmar/7&2 OZ_§<Z

 

 

COMMENTS
Surveys included space for respondents to offer additional information

or opinions. Following are their comments.

A-8: On question #1, I chose ”request” instead of ”agree” because I did not
want to make it seem that we would ask anyone for permission to identify
them. This seems highly unlikely. If approached, however, we might
consider identification. Also, it is interesting to note that we receive names of
victims routinely, through police reports and court records.

A-12: It’s a lot easier to use names in a non-competitive market such as ours.
When I worked in South Florida, competition often made us hold our noses
and publish.

A-85: In an area of small communities, we would cause too much anguish if
we were in the forefront of changing this policy. We will identify rape victims
if:

(1) Victim asks us to do so.

(2) Victim becomes a plaintiff, e.g., civil suit against public agency.

B-115: I honestly believe we fall into the ever-growing and popular trap of
”blaming” the media when we ask if the media contributes to the stigma of
rape by not publishing names. This is a stigma society has assigned, and if it is
ever to change, which it may not, it will need to be spearheaded by society—
not the media. Those that have been raped are victims. There are many other
victims in which we do not publish names. Rape is a very personal, traumatic
experience and what right does the media have in ”outing" such victims if
they want to remain anonymous—which most do. Is this being responsible?

B-121: We identify rape victims only on the approval of the executive editor
or publisher. We would deviate from the policy only for extraordinary
reasons, perhaps a victim is a public figure or official.

115

116

Because of the stigma of being the victim of the crime, we should continue
discussions, as a news staff, on what is the best policy.

B-101: What a newspaper feels is appropriate publicity in cases of sexual
assault must be influenced by what readers feel. This is one of those instances
when logic and such concepts as social responsibility take a back seat to what
our customers tell us is right. If the rape takes place in New York, we can
report intimate details, including identities of victims. If it happens 10 miles
down the road, they don’t want the identity of the victim published even
when everyone in town knows victim’s name. It is not unlike our policy on
news obituaries in dealing with the deaths of ordinary citizens, we almost
never report unflattering information. Everyone who dies has something
redeeming said about him. Once a columnist wrote the deceased like to drink
a beer now and again. We were bombarded by offended readers, including
those who drank beer with him.

Go figure.

B-134: This survey does not take into account the extenuating circumstances
we weigh when making news judgments. We do not sit and wait for a rape to
happen so we can publish a name. We look at all aspects of the crime. What,
for example, would we gain by withholding the name if the suspect raped and
murdered the victim? Of course, we’d use the victim’s name. Meanwhile,
there is growing pressure to discontinue printing of suspect’ 3 name until
conviction because of the ”stigma” associated with a person accused of
committing such a crime.

B-139: The difficult area for us is ”spousal rape.” If you name the suspect and
indicate that the rape involved is spousal rape, you have, in effect, named the
victim.

If you do not indicate that the alleged victim is a spouse, the story is
misleading.

We handle these stories on a case by case basis.

8464: This paper also has a policy, of about 5 years, of not naming those
accused of sex crimes—”usually” is our caveat—until they have been
convicted. While there are exceptions, we have stuck with it. It was brought
about by two ”not guilty” verdicts in high profile rape cases in three months.

117

B-l73: I do not believe this question can ever be resolved in a way that will
ever put my mind at ease. Our only policy is to err toward the peace of the
victim.

0269: This has been overblown as an issue because of a couple of high-profile
cases. The truth is, not publishing victims’ names has had zero negative
effect. Publishing them would cause great anguish to the victim, with no
rational return on the cost.

We do publish victims’ names when they agree to be identified, but we seek
that agreement only for feature-length special cases. Recently, we published a
story about a 16-year-old girl who had been sexually molested; she wanted her
story to be told, and it was a powerful one. But in routine news briefs or
stories? No.

The greater problem is not in criminal cases. It is in civil cases. In these,
individuals assert themselves into the public newstream (sic) in hopes of
recovering money. We tend to handle these on a case by case basis, but again,
with a view toward probably not publishing the name.

C-249: I get frustrated with surveys like this! I suspect most papers have to
deal with a lot of variables and don’t appreciate categorical responses leading
to false ”trend” surveys.

C-225: The issue is more complicated than simply asking about ”rape.” We’re
more often dealing with a rape ”allegation.” Also, we often are dealing with
allegations of sexual assault, and it’ s sometimes difficult to determine if the
act alleged constitutes sexual assault. I can cite three examples off the top of
my head. If you want details, you can call me.

C-203: This survey seems to confuse rape ”victims” with rape accusers.

There is no ”rape victim” until the crime of rape has been proved, which by
definition occurs at the conclusion of the judicial process—not before, and
certainly not at the time a mere accusation of rape is made.

It is by no means clear to me that the press should withhold the names of
women who accuse men of ”rape.” Prior to a conviction, the accusation of
that crime carries no more weight than an accusation of any other crime-—
embezzlement, for example. We would not allow people who accuse others
of embezzlement to remain anonymous. Is it reasonable to allow women to

118

hide behind a shield of anonymity when accusing men of ”rape,” while at the
same time ensuring that the man’s name will become public?

An accuser is not a ”victim” unless a rape has actually occurred. A women’s
accusation of rape does not constitute proof of rape. At the least, if rape-
allegation stories continue to treat the woman’s name as confidential, they
should describe her as the ”accuser” rather than as the ”victim.” Too often,
the evidence shows that the man was the victim—of her false accusations.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Arant, Morgan David Jr. ”Press Identification of Victims of Sexual Assault:
Weighing Privacy and Constitutional Concerns.” Journalism Quarterly
68, no. 1/ 2 (Spring/ Summer 1991): 238-252.

Barrett, Todd. ”I-‘Ie Started Laughing, Like It Was a Game.” Newsweek, 10
February 1992, 30—31.

Bauer, Traci. ”When to name names.” Quill, October 1991, 22-23.

. ”Wire services thrust into the victim-naming fracas.” Quill,
October 1991, 22.

Benedict, Helen. Virgin or Vamp. New York: Oxford University Press, 1992.

Berkow, Ira. ”A Champ Named Desiree.” New York Times, 25 February 1992,
B9.

Bernstein, Amy. ”A Face and a Name.” 11.5. News 8 World Report, 30
December 1991 / 6 January 1992, 30.

Bruning, Fred. ”Sleaze: seductive, but morally grave.” Maclean’s, 13 May 1991,
11.

Butterfield, Fox, and Mary B.W. Tabor. ”Woman in Florida Rape Inquiry
Fought Adversity and Sought Acceptance.” New York Times, 17 April
1991, A17.

Carlson, Margaret. ”Should This Woman Be Named?” Time, 29 April 1991,
28-29.

Carmody, Deirdre. ”News Media’s Use of Accuser’s Name Is Debated. New
York Times, 18 April 1991, A22.

Case, Tony. ”Debate persists.” Editor 6' Publisher, 21 December 1991, 25.

. ”N.Y. Times criticized for printing victim’s name.” Editor 8
Publisher, 27 April 1991, 11.

119

120

Cohn, Susan. ”Protecting Child Rape Victims from the Public and Press after
Globe Newspaper and Cox Broadcasting.” George Washington Law
Review 51, no. 2 (January 1983): 269-289.

Corliss, Richard. ”T'ragedy of an Ex—Champ.” Time, 26 August 1991, 67.

Corliss, Richard, and Sophronia Scott Gregory. ”In Judgment of Iron Mike.”
Time, 10 February 1992, 77.

Corliss, Richard, and David Thigpen. ”The Jock as Fallen Idol.” Time, 6 April
1992, 60.

Culotta, Elizabeth. ”Naming Alleged Rape Victims: Two Policies Within 30
Miles.” Washington Journalism Review, July/ August 1992, 14.

”Desiree Washington.” People Weekly, 28 December 1992-4 January 1993, 66.
Diamond, Edwin. ”The Times' ’Wild Streak!” New York, 13 May 1991, 35-37.

Editor 8' Publisher International Year Book 1995. New York: Editor &
Publisher Co., 1995.

”Editors’ Note.” New York Times, 26 April 1991, A2.

”18 editors discuss how they cover rape.” ASNE Bulletin, no. 733
(July/ August 1991): 16.

Einsiedel, Edna F., Kandice L. Salomone, and Frederick P. Schneider. ”Crime:
Effects of Media Exposure and Personal Experience on Issue Salience.”
Journalism Quarterly 61, no. 1 (Spring 1984): 131-136.

Elson, John. ”Going Public with Rape: Should Victims Be Identified When
the Crime Is Sexual Assault?” Time, 9 April 1990, 71.

Estrich, Susan. ”The Real Palm Beach Story.” New York Times, 18 April 1991,
A25.

. Real Rape. Cambridge, Mass: Harvard University Press, 1987.

Fitzgerald, Mark. ”Aftermath of the Register’ 5 rape series.” Editor 6' Publisher,
27 October 1990,34.

.”Naming Alleged Rape Victims. ” Editor 8 Publisher, 23
Decerhber 1995, 9.

121

Footlick, Jerrold K., Eleanor Clift, and Diane Camper. ”The Right to Privacy.”
Newsweek, 17 March 1975, 66.

Gartner, Michael. ”'The Scarlet Letter of Rape: A Courageous Victim Fights
Back.” Wall Street Journal, 15 March 1990, A15.

Gersh, Debra. ”Public cites commercial motives of the press.” Editor 8'
Publisher, 1 June 1991, 13.

Gersh, Debra, and Tony Case. ”75th Annual Pulitzer Prize Winners.” Editor 6'
Publisher, 13 April 1991, 7.

Gilbert, Neil. ”The phantom epidemic of sexual assault.” Public Interest no.
103 (Spring 1991): 54-65.

. ”Realities and Mythologies of Rape.” Society 30 (May/ June 1992):
4—10.

Glaberson, William. ”Times Article Naming Rape Accuser Ignites Debate on
Journalistic Values.” New York Times, 26 April 1991, A14.

Glazer, Sarah. ”Violence Against Women.” CQ Researcher, no. 8 (Feb. 26,
1994): 171-187.

Hall, Rob. Rape in America. Santa Barbara, Calif.: ABC-CLIO, 1995.

Heath, Linda, Margaret T. Gordon, and Robert LeBailly. ”What Newspapers
Tell Us (And Don’t Tell Us) About Rape.” Newspaper Research Journal 2
(July 1981): 48.

Jones, Alex 5. ”Most Papers Won’t Name the Jogger.” New York Times, 13
June 1990, B3.

. ”Naming Rape Victim Is Still a Murky Issue for the Press.” New
York Times, 25 June 1989, A18.

Kantrowitz, Barbara, Mark Starr, Carolyn Friday, Todd Barrett, Emily Yoffe,
Pat Wingert, Eleanor Clift, Vern E. Smith, and Lauren Picker. ”Naming
Names. The Media’s Role in the Kennedy Case Fuels a Growing
Controversy: Should the Victims of Rape Be Identified?” Newsweek, 29
April 1991, 26-32.

Kaplan, Joel. ”State lawmakers are trying to seal key information in sex
crimes.” ASNE Bulletin, no. 751 (July/ August 1993): 14-17.

122

Lacayo, Richard. ”Tarting Up the Gray Lady of 43rd Street.” Time, 6 May 1991,
44.

. ”Trial by Television.” Time, 16 December 1991, 30—31.
”Looking Behind Rape Statistics.” Christian Science Monitor, 5 May 1992, 20.

Lopez, Greg. ”News Stories Add to Victim’s Horror, Ethics Experts Say.”
Detroit News, 4 December 1988, 12A.

Lule, Jack. ”The Rape of Mike Tyson: Race, the Press and Symbolic Types.”
Critical Studies in Mass Communication 12 (1995): 176-195.

McDonald, Marci. ”Beyond the Trial.” Maclean’s, 23 December 1991, 16—19.

McNichol, Dunstan A. ”Stalemate on naming rape victims.” Editor 8
Publisher, 10 August 1991, 13.

McNulty, Henry. ”Did the Tyson trial belong in the sports section?” Editor 8
Publisher, 29 February 1992, 5.

”Naming Names: A stormy new rape debate.” Time, 30 January 1978, 61.
”No Hearing on Rape Law.” New York Times, 27 April 1991, All.
”On Names in Rape Cases.” New York Times, 17 April 1991, A17.

Overholser, Geneva. ”Covering rape: A time of transition.” ASNE Bulletin,
no. 726 (October 1990): 13.

. ”Why Hide Rapes?” New York Times, 11 July 1989, A19.

Paine, Sylvia. ”Editor, Rape Victim Split on Secrecy.” Washington Journalism
Review 12, no. 8 (October 1990): 17-18.

. ”Geneva . . . .” Washington Journalism Review 12, no. 7
(September 1990): 20-26.

”Palm Beach Story.” New Republic, 13 May 1991, 10.

Posner, Richard A., and Katharine B. Silbaugh. A Guide to America’s Sex
Laws. Chicago: University of Chicago Press, 1996.

Quindlen, Anna. Thinking Out Loud. New York: Fawcett Columbine Books,
1993.

123

Schorer, Jane. ”It Couldn’t Happen to Me: One Woman’s Story.” Des Moines
Register, [1990], 1-16.

Schwengels, Marlyss, and James B. Lemert. ”Fair Warning: A Comparison of
Police and Newspaper Reports About Rape.” Newspaper Research Journal
7, no. 3 (Spring 1986): 35.

”The Shame of Rape.” New York Times, 16 February 1992, sec. 4, p. 14.

Steptoe, Sonja. ”A Damnable Defense.” Sports Illustrated, 24 February 1992,
92.

Suro, Robert. ”Ruling Is Sought on Rape Name Law.” New York Times, 19
April 1991, B6.

Turque, Bill, Spencer Reiss, and Peter Katel. ”No One Would Believe Her.”
Newsweek, 20 May 1991, 31.

US. Department of Justice. Bureau of Justice Statistics. Sourcebook of
Criminal Justice Statistics 1994. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.

US. Department of Justice. Federal Bureau of Investigation. Uniform Crime
Reports for the United States 1994. Washington, DC: GPO, 1995.

US. Department of Justice. National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice. Forcible Rape: A Manual for Sex Crime Investigators,
Police Volume 111. Washington, D.C., March 1984.

US. Department of Justice. National Institute of Law Enforcement and
Criminal Justice. Forcible Rape: An Analysis of Legal Issues. Washington,
D.C., March 1984. '

”Viewpoint.” Wall Street Journal, 17 April 1990, A23.

Wimmer, Roger D., and Joseph R. Dominick. Mass Media Research: An
Introduction, 3d ed. Belmont, Calif.: Wadsworth Publishing Co., 1991.

Witosky, Tom. ”Beyond the Games.” Nieman Reports 46, no. 1 (Spring 1992):
25.

Wolf, Rita, Tommy Thomason, and Paul LaRocque. ”The Right to Know vs.
the Right of Privacy: Newspaper Identification of Crime Victims.”
Journalism Quarterly 64, nos. 2 and 3 (Summer-Autumn 1987): 504-507.

Wolper, Allen. ”Publishing an alleged rape victim’s name.” Editor 8
Publisher, 17 July 1993, 16.

 

124

Ziegenmeyer, Nancy, with Larkin Warren. Taking Back My Life. New York:
Summit Books, 1992.

Zoglin, Richard. ”Was She Right to Go Public?” Time, 30 December 1991, 61.

"Willi?!till?“