Our cover story in Sunday's paper on the arrest of Jimmy Brazile for sexual assault of a child has elicited some response, at least from one reader who called me Monday. The complaint was about the use of the anatomical terms used to describe the assault.
"People aren't dumb. They know what sexual assault is."
"When did y'all become the National Enquirer?"
"Why did you use those terms in this case when you haven't in other stories in the past?"
These kind of comments from readers are understandable, even if I don't share their viewpoint. Seeing the anatomical terms for a female reproductive organ and the area between your shoulders and stomach offends the conservative viewpoints of some readers.
That's nothing to be taken lightly, and it wasn't in this case. In every story where something is included which could possibly be offensive to some readers, a judgment call must be made.
Here's why I made the judgment in this case.
The alternative to using the anatomical terms would have been to use the blanket phrase "inappropriate touching" or some other vague description. Would that have been sufficient? Some readers may say 'yes.'
And in some stories of sexual assault, it would be. We have used such vague language in similar stories in the past when that information was not necessary.
I need to preface these next statements by saying that we reported an arrest of sexual assault, not a conviction. Only two people know for sure if a sexual assault took place: the accused and the alleged victim. We do not know if Brazile is innocent or guilty. That will be up to the court system and possibly a jury of his peers to determine.
Here is what made this case different from some of the other cases we've reported. Unlike most sexual assault cases where the victim and child are related, this was basically the case of an instructor allegedly assaulting a minor. I do not know for fact what types of normal interaction takes place between the trainer and student in these types of situations, but there is probably some sort of contact.
For instance, let's say a student does well after following the instructor's commands. The student may receive a handshake, a pat on the back, maybe even a hug.
Would any of this be construed as inappropriate? The handshake - most would agree that is fine. A pat on the back - again, that's probably OK, although we could start to see some grey area. A hug - now you are really getting into a grey area.
Touching someone in the areas referred to in this case would leave no doubt of their inappropriateness.
The point is different, people define "inappropriate" in different ways. The only way to allow people to make up their own minds is to present the facts.
Also, in a case like this, as District Attorney Jana Jones pointed out, there could by other victims. Jones in fact called us to get something printed about the arrest in case other victims are out there.
While we as adults can decipher what is clearly wrong and right when it comes to touching, sometimes children - especially those put in the situation of being obedient - can have trouble discerning the line. They may think, "He's my teacher, so I can't question his tactics. I might get in trouble."
In fact, in this case, the affidavit states that Brazile told the victim not to tell anyone about the sexual contact. If there are other victims, wouldn't it stand to reason they were probably told the same thing?
Imagine your daughter (or son) is also a student of a teacher accused of sexual assault of a child. Wouldn't you like to have specific facts when you ask your child, "Has this man touched you inappropriately (which we've already discussed is subject to each person's own definition of 'inappropriate')," or, "Has this man touched you on the breasts or vagina?"
I have a daughter, and I know the way I would phrase my question if she were in a situation like this some day.
Maybe a child reads the story with the anatomical language and then says, "This has happened to me."
This was the reasoning behind using the anatomical terms. You might disagree, and that is fine. I like to say journalism is a discussion, not a lecture.
But rest assured, the use of the anatomical terms was not done to be salacious. That would most definitely be inappropriate.
-----
There are cases every week where our jobs require us to try to guess what the general public wants to read. It applies not only to the use of certain words in stories, but the importance of stories, the photos they would like to see, the types of stories they would like to see and so on.
I often wish that readers could be more involved in providing feedback on these issues (such as the case with the Brazile story) and a way to give readers a sort of behind-the-scenes look at why we make the decisions we make. We can't tell if we are giving readers what they want if they don't let us know.
With that in mind, I've talked with our our Web master about starting an editor's blog on our Web site. I envision it as a place where you could provide feedback on newspaper-related content - what you like and don't like and why. Hopefully it will be a good place for communication between the newspaper staff and readers.
