Damn the New York Times

[mme_hardy]

 
From the front page of the app this morning, the headline

For Some Fans, Accusations of Rape Crumble Bill Cosby's Wholesome Image

This accurately summarizes the article. The entire article is about how much fans are hurt by the idea that an idol is accused of rape.  The opening sentence is "As woman after woman has come forward to accuse Bill Cosby of sexual assault or molestation, there has been growing public revulsion, but also a nagging question: Did it have to be Cliff Huxtable?".  Note "sexual assault and molestation", not "rape".  For a thousand words, we get sentences like "“I felt a real deflation, not even the outrage I should have felt if the accusations are true." and "“He reminds me a lot of my own father, or he did,”"  There are no sentences like "This reminded me of the way I felt when nobody believed my accusations of rape", or "People's focus on the accused rapist rather than on the victims is giving me flashbacks."   

Worst of all, the article has this: "And still, with at least 15 women coming forward with similar stories — of being given a drink or a pill by Mr. Cosby, then waking up feeling [italics mine] they had been sexually assaulted — many fans continue to point out that he has never been charged. The women, they say, must be after money."

There is no refutation in or near this sentence.   There is no comment about what rape experts say about stories like the women's.   The fans' statements about what constitutes rape are repeated unchallenged.    In the very last paragraph, we finally get "Reflecting on Mr. Cosby now, she thinks of the survivors of sexual abuse she sees in her work, at Duke University Medical Center in Durham, N.C. “I feel like women are unable to safely report male perpetrators in our culture,” Dr. Gray, 38, said. "  And then we get to the last sentence of the article, also from Dr. Gray: " About the show, she said: “I remember a very happy, close family. It’s the contrast between that and what you hear on the news that’s so upsetting.”
Damn the New York Times.  Damn its editors, and especialy damn Kate Zernicke, who wrote this piece of trash.

Comments

[legionseagle]

Does anyone explain how the women are after money? I mean, given it's the normal reaction of the rapesplainers (we've been having it in spades with Ched Evans) that the women must be after fame and profit, could anyone explain how false allegations of rape are supposed to be monetised? Could the economics editor perhaps run a few simulations?

[mme_hardy]

The solution to all rape accusations is that the women just want to sue the accusee for money. This, of course, ignores that getting a jury to agree on guilt in a civil case about rape is just as difficult as getting them to agree on a rape conviction.

[legionseagle]

Well, at least the standard of proof is "balance of convenience" not "beyond reasonable doubt". But equally, the statute of limitations for civil action is (at least over here) 6 years in most instances (no criminal statute of limitations except for crimes only triable summarily and without a possible custodial sentence) so the lawsuit idea wouldn't work in respect of things that happened in 1969. Also, there are very few instances of such suits being instigated, still less of being successful, so once again, one asks oneself, where does this myth come from?

[mme_hardy]

Like most things, it varies by state. In Florida, to pick one at not-so-random, it's 4 years for personal injury.

http://statelaws.findlaw.com/florida-law/florida-civil-statute-of-limitations-laws.html

It is now the standard response to any accusation in the U.S., that you're just doing it for the sweet sweet lawsuit money.

[legionseagle]

Actually, come to think of it, I think it's three years for personal injury here, and one year for defamation. But the general principle stands: a civil claim is not going to be likely to be possible in the overwhelming majority of historic rape cases, even where a criminal prosecution might still be here.

[rachelmanija]

I pointed that out to someone, and got the response, "Then they're just sick people trying to ruin his life because he's a celebrity and they're jealous."

SIGH.

[recessional]

Several allegations against Cosby have in the past been dealt with by cash settlements out of court. (The CBC stuff I've been reading mentions three, I think the latest in 2004). It's actually not an uncommon way of getting women to shut up and go away, especially if an allegation surfaces singly.

People steeped in rape culture and unfamiliar with the actual dynamics of these things (that what's happening now is COMMON, and that's part of WHY those suits get settled with an offer of money and generally a lot of discouragement on the part of the victim, who thinks this is the best she'll ever get) tend to then parse that as "these bitches'll do anything for a payment."

(I meanwhile am slightly baffled by the idea of having a statute of limitations on an indictable offense, or a limitation on lawsuits that does not require that it be proved that the party could/should have come forward before then.)

[legionseagle]

With respect to statute of limitations, I'm only talking about the corresponding tort arising out of the same facts as the criminal offence. Normally that can be pursued independently of or instead of the criminal prosecution and is subject to different rules.

[mme_hardy]

The Guardian had an article yesterday -- their site search sucks -- on how the Cosby lawyers successfully frightened a U.S. tabloid away from reporting one of the rape allegations.

[recessional]

Oh I totally believe it. I'd imagine that man has some terrifying legal representation.

[heliopausa]

That's at: http://www.theguardian.com/world/2014/nov/21/bill-cosby-lawyers-threaten-sue-national-enquirer-2005-investigation

[mme_hardy]

Thank you!

[mme_hardy]

IIRC, the clock starts ticking differently for different crimes and different jurisdictions. It can vary based on how serious the crime/tort is, which state you're in, when it happened, when you found out it happened, [for child abuse, in some states only] when you reached the legal age of majority, ...

This can have highly amusing results, as when the Supreme Court decided in the Lilly Ledbetter equal-pay suit that the clock started ticking when the company started underpaying her rather than when she found out about the underpayment, meaning that she should have sued years before she knew there was anything to sue about. Ladies and gentlebeings, your lifetime-appointed Supreme Court.

[recessional]

Yeah. On the criminal side Canada has no statute of limitations for indictable offenses (so, like, all major crimes ever), and on the civil side the only limit is if the person you're suing can demonstrate that you have no good reason to have waited however long to file the suit, and by precedent "my rapist/abuser had social power and I was fucking scared" is acknowledged as a good reason (as of about 1996, I believe). So I live in a different world, kinda.

[legionseagle]

Ah. That's a relevant distinction between jurisdictions on the civil side. In the UK since 2006 ( A v. Hoare ) it's been the standard limitation period in torts, with the court being able to disapply it on the application of the claimant if it's "just and equitable" to do so.

[mme_hardy]

I first learned about the statute of limitations from various detective TV shows and movies, in which the detective would intone "There's no statute of limitations for murder!" From the same trusted legal authorities I learned that this extended to any capital crime.

[recessional]

Heee. I learned from my-father-the-crown-prosecutor, I think on having a brain-blank moment at the idea of there being in some states a point where you can't be prosecuted for rape anymore, and him saying that no, Canada does not have that: if it was serious enough to indict you - what I believe in the US is called "felony" - then it sticks on you for life.

[muccamukk]

And I felt like they were doing reasonably well with the Ghomeshi thing. Apparently right until it's someone the editors actually like/have heard of, then it's all about the poor rapist and his wholesome image.

[ironed_orchid]

You may find this article acts as something of a tonic:

No One Wanted to Talk About Bill Cosby's Alleged Crimes Because He Made White America Feel Good About Race, by Rebecca Traister in New Republic. (via sabotabby on a different platform)

[mme_hardy]

That is an awesome article. Thank you.

[ethelmay.livejournal.com]

To me it's even more maddening that I can actually sympathize with a lot of the individual expressions of disappointment, but I hate the way they're being deployed in this narrative.

There are no sentences like "This reminded me of the way I felt when nobody believed my accusations of rape", or "People's focus on the accused rapist rather than on the victims is giving me flashbacks."

Yes, this. And the reaction I keep thinking really has to be out there is the one from someone abused as a child that goes, "I used to think Bill Cosby was the dad I wanted to have. Now I know he has a lot more in common with the dad I did have."

[harvey-rrit.livejournal.com]

Jesus, it's Clinton all over again.

I'm going to have nightmares.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

Write to the public editor, seriously: this kind of....uh....TONE PROBLEM is one of the things she's there for.

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

I predict confidently that if she comments on that story, she will note that they have to be careful because he has not been convicted of rape.

[mme-hardy.livejournal.com]

Oh, I did that before I posted here. I already know what she's going to say, though.

"I talked to the editors, and they told me that it wasn't really a problem because it was balanced by other stories, but I still think they made a mistake."

[irontongue.livejournal.com]

SIGH.