By Wendy J. Murphy
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 07:41
Photo by Deborah Feingold
The language in media reporting on the Penn State scandal has been almost universally inappropriate, both in print and television coverage. The media are pervasively using inappropriate language to describe the harm done to Jerry Sandusky's victims. As a former child abuse and sex crimes prosecutor, I've spent more than 20 years teaching, advocating and writing about sexual violence, victims' rights and the criminal justice system.
Along with my students, I run a program I developed ten years ago at New England Law/Boston entitled The Judicial Language Project. We use sociolinguistic research to critique the language used in law and society to describe violence against women and children. In connection with this project, I have trained judges and advocates around the country and have worked with the Poynter Institute to teach journalists about appropriate reporting styles when writing about sexual violence.
Erotic and vague terms, as well as phraseology that portrays the victim in a blameworthy role, inhibit our understanding of the crime as a unilateral act of violence committed by the perpetrator against a blameless victim.
By identifying problematic language and offering appropriate alternatives, the Judicial Language Project strives to improve the public's perception of sexual violence as a devastating harm that the U.S. Supreme Court has called the most severe injury to the self "short of homicide."
A simple Google search makes the point about the problems with the Penn State coverage. The phrase "Sandusky victim anal sex" produced 172,000 hits while "Sandusky victim anal rape" produced a mere 38,000 hits.
While the word "rape" rarely appears, nearly every news source describes the crimes at issue using the following terms and phrases: "engaging in sexual activity"; "fondling"; "the boy performing oral sex"; "anal sex/intercourse" and "sexual assault". These terms distort the truth about what allegedly happened to the children, and they interfere with our understanding of the victims' suffering.
A closer look at each word/phrase will better articulate the problem:
ENGAGING IN
The word "engage" is defined as "to bring together" or "to induce to participate." The implication in such language is that the victim was an active participant who was causally involved in making the crime happen, rather than a recipient of the unilaterally harmful conduct of another. Words that imply any active responsibility on the part of a child obscure the offender's exclusive moral and legal culpability.
SEXUAL ACTIVITY/ASSAULT/MOLEST
"Sexual activity", "sexual assault" and "molest" are vague terms that tell us nothing about the actual crime, making it impossible for the public to understand what happened, or to know how to feel about the harm done and whether the reactions of responsible adults, law enforcement officials, etc., have been appropriate.
FONDLE
"Fondle", as a verb, is defined as "to handle, stroke or caress lovingly." As a noun, the word refers to "affectionate play (or foreplay without contact with the genital organs)." The term conveys the idea that child sexual abuse is pleasant and gentle, which undermines our ability to see the behavior as harmful criminal activity.
THE CHILD PERFORMED ORAL SEX
Saying "the child performed oral sex" portrays the victim as the aggressor and paints a scene where the offending adult is barely present, and only a passive recipient of the child's affirmative actions. The child as primary actor thus absorbs moral and legal responsibility for the actions of a violent adult. Alone, the word "perform" offers a near circus-like description of the child's role in causing rather than receiving harm.
Clearly, a child enduring the violence of another does not "perform" a sex crime on himself. Indeed, he cannot even lawfully consent as a passive participant and the law is clear in every jurisdiction that the adult bears 100 percent of the blame. Words that shift responsibility away from the offender mitigate the offender's exclusive responsibility for his actions.
ORAL SEX, ANAL SEX, ANAL INTERCOURSE
The phrases "oral sex", "anal sex" and "anal intercourse" are similarly problematic in that they literally define actions that involve mutual pleasure and enjoyable stimulation of sex organs. These erotic terms bring criminal behavior discursively into the range of everyday, often pleasurable, human activity.
This necessarily prevents the public from appreciating the fact the victim experienced fear, disgust, objectification and blurs an important line between sexual pleasure and criminal violence.
Words both reflect and generate cultural ideas about sexual violence. Consumers of words passively take in and unconsciously attribute language to their understanding of human behavior. This becomes an internal narrative that creates social norms and expectations.
When language used to tell stories about sexual violence is vague, needlessly erotic and/or implies that the victim bears some of the blame, the constructed story creates harmful ideas about offender responsibility and the reality of victims' suffering.
In criminal cases involving children in particular, it is critically important to use factually correct terminology that assigns complete responsibility to the offender because children lack legal capacity to consent.
Thus, for example, rather than "anal sex", a reporter could say, "the offender penetrated the child's anus with his penis". Instead of "the child performed oral sex," a reporter could say, "the offender pushed his penis into the child's mouth."
This accurate, if blunt, use of language makes it clear that the victim suffered harm and bears no responsibility for the criminal acts of the offender.
Wendy J. Murphy is an adjunct professor at New England Law/Boston and a former prosecutor in Middlesex County, Massachusetts. She welcomes comments from readers.
Posted by Roger A Canaff
Wednesday, January 25, 2012 09:44
A US Supreme Court justice (Felix Frankfurter) is quoted as having said “words are blunt instruments.” He was correct, but with the richness of English we can much better than the media is doing. Thank you for bringing this to the forefront.
Posted by Steven A. Egger
Saturday, December 17, 2011 10:48
YES………..The term is RAPE! It’s a term the media is afraid of these days!
Posted by Lynn C. Tolson
Thursday, December 08, 2011 02:19
Thank you for this necessary explanation. Victims say, “It happened to me.” That’s not inappropriate; it’s the way of our language. However, abuse doesn’t just “happen” like some random fender bender on the freeway. The perpetrator calculates and manipulates not only the victim, but all extended relationships to his (her) benefit. When we say it “happened” to us I think we are minimizing the deliberate actions of the perpetrator. Sure, “it” happened, and “it” was a premeditated crime. Thanks for bringing a sense of accuracy back to journalism.
Posted by Linda MacDonald
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:23
Excellent Blog. I have been saying this for years—- children do not have sex with adults. Adults rape children. I must say your words are music to my ears. I just wish the press would get it because if the press changed their language the readers would too. Words carry power and change minds. And the quicker we all get the reality of how many little kiddies are suffering at the hands of rapist adults the better of this world’s children will be.
Posted by gurlzone
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 06:32
Excellent article. Simply excellent!
Posted by Julie S
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 10:43
I appreciate Ms. Murphy’s blog about the appropriate use of language when discussing sexual abuse cases in the media. To further this point, I was aghast when watching the news several evenings after the allegations hit the news media. Instead of discussing how the victims have been harmed, the focus was on how this news has harmed Penn State. Who really cares how it has effected the college? If the college is responsible for silencing and hiding these accusations, then we ought to really examine what a quality institution looks like.
Posted by Carlton Purvis
Wednesday, November 30, 2011 08:28
I understand the importance of avoiding victim blaming in the media. It happens all too often. But for two reasons, I think Murphy may be thinking too much like a lawyer and not like a journalist. Of course a lawyer would want to use those terms because their goal is to make a case against the offenders so words meant to show a jury or judge how repulsive an act it is are key. But for the general public, it may also be repulsive to read graphic courtroom details in the newspaper. As a reporter myself, I know the kind of backlash that happens when you print something like “the offender pushed his penis into the child’s mouth,” in a newspaper, and it’s not pretty. I can agree though that the media needs make some changes when it comes to reporting sexual violence.
I also think Murphy should be aware that a lot of times the wording journalists use, is the same wording we are provided by authorities at press conferences, in press releases and in statements. For a while after the news breaks, or until someone can get their hands on an incident report or criminal complaint, all we have is the vague information that we were provided by authorities. Take a look at the Sandusky grand jury presentment – every one of the terms mentioned in this post are used multiple times. That’s not the media, that’s the information we were given. If the documents say something about oral sex, it’s not really our call to decide the penis was forced into someone’s mouth.
Posted by oncefallendotcom
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 11:25
If we were serious about reforming anything in the criminal justice process, we would ban the media from influencing the general public on untried cases. Murphy herself famously convicted the Duke Lacrosse players by stating there is no such thing as a false rape claim. I remember the outcome of that case— the players were acquitted and Nifong was disbarred for malicious prosecution. Murphy has even written articles suggesting we do away with Due Process, and that is frightening.
Accusations do not equal convictions, but the public has been brainwashed by the media to believe so. We convicted OJ, the Duke Lacrosse Players, and Casey Anthony long before their trials were over, thanks to non-stop media coverage.
I’m not surprised Murphy wants to create language that incites raw emotion, because emotion clouds rational judgment. Murphy’s law would be reminiscent of the Family Guy episode where Peter Griffin gets a prostate exam and accuses the doctor of a sex crime. At first the judge scoffs at Peter as a prostate exam is a routine exam, until Peter appeals to emotion, and the doctor is immediately found guilty. Its a decent analogy to the kind of law Murphy supports.
I, on the other hand, support the US Constitution, which guarantees the right to a FAIR trial. Whatever happened to “Innocent until proven guilty?”
Posted by Lisa Michels
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 02:23
I guess William would categorize me as the “general public” as I do not hold the superior intelligence of law professors and prosecutors. I am a survivor of child sexual abuse. The offender forced his penis into my vagina when I was three years old.
I didn’t think I could handle reading and writing this graphic. I believe Ms. Murphy’s point is valid and much needed. Child sexual abuse is epidemic in every corner of the world. Time and time again there are adults who know or suspect the abuse and choose to do nothing. Cultural norms are one obvious factor in this epidemic.
If media began this honest approach reporting the public will begin to recognize it for what it is, a crime…and yes be disgusted at the sight of the words (precisely the point). If you understand the majority of pedophiles have more than one victim then doesn’t it make sense that having an adult report that first abuse (new cultural norm) will help by reducing the number of victims and save your “whole criminal justice system?”
May I add that although I found it difficult to read Ms. Murphy’s depiction I was completely aghast at your opinion to “remain silent.” You might do well to consider attending Ms. Murphy’s course.
Posted by Theodore
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:58
I think that any sexual act that a child is portrayed as a “part of” defines the harm therof. Let the jury hear the actual acts in detail. I think that "raped, molested and sexual assualted prettty much get the piont across.
Posted by G
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 12:25
Thank you for this. Reporters are always going to discuss a story like this and it is vital that they get the language right. Victim-blaming happens all too often, and most people don’t realize how language so subtly encourages that.
To William: Of course nobody wants to hear a reporter say that. And that’s exactly why that’s what the reporter should say. Playing down the awful reality of a crime like this one to avoid making people uncomfortable is just going to make the situation worse. The language used to describe such a heinous crime should be absolutely clear and should not try to be easier to hear. The man raped a boy. That should be difficult to hear, and we need to learn to deal with that discomfort and face the reality of this situation.
Posted by William
Tuesday, November 29, 2011 10:32
Ms. Murphy….Have you forgotten that the general public is not made up of law professors and former prosecutors? Who on earth wants to hear a reporter say, “the offender penetrated the child’s anus with his penis”? Indeed, I wonder about the sort of person who would appreciate hearing this graphic depiction. Frankly, in my estimation, the media (and bloggers) ought to remain silent about pending charges as a matter of moral decency and academic integrity. Allow the system to work….using the media to whip up public sympathies this way or that is inappropriate. It is all this endless rabble-rousing that is bringing our whole criminal justice system to the brink of collapse—-and you must surely know what history has taught us about a breach in the walls of justice.