Unbiased reporting or platforming predators?

Earlier this year, an interview with Armie Hammer was widely quoted by entertainment magazines that were quick to pick up his first words since being accused of sexual assault and behavior (if the reports are true) that ranges from the bizarre to the depraved. In this rush to report “news” Hammer’s statements were not treated with the kind of journalistic skepticism that sexual assault survivors routinely experience when making their story public.

When a survivor shares details of their sexual assault, mainstream media outlets subject the survivor’s account to rigorous fact-checking and stringent examination by the outlet’s legal department. One particularly memorable example from my own experience (I came forward about Harvey Weinstein on October 9, 2017), was waiting for CNN’s lawyers to confirm that it was okay to proceed with an interview, while the limo driver sent by the producers to take me to the studio kept demanding to know how much longer he would have to wait. Ultimately, my “first outcry” witnesses were not reachable and the interview was canceled. Until that moment, it had never occurred to me that anyone would question an event that had been all too real for me. I was dismayed and embarrassed. That night, I went home and sobbed more than after Harvey accosted me. Ironically, as dangerous and frightening as that experience was, he, at least, had never doubted my integrity.

Even when a survivor’s story passes scrutiny and is published, the report will invariably refer to survivors as “accusers”—a word that invokes angry finger-pointing rather than a measured recounting of facts. It is the same language the Bible uses to describe The Great Deceiver—Satan. (“Satan” is the Hebrew word for “accuser”). Invariably, the report will be peppered with “alleged” before every reference to the assault, the perpetrator, and each detail of the crime. It is true that in legal terms, everyone is innocent unless proven guilty. However, the use of “alleged” like legal garlic to ward off potential law suits is markedly missing in the reporting of a predator’s counter claims.

Why is that? Does the comparative laxity reflect the imbalance of power between survivors and predators—and the corresponding lack of resources—making it less likely that survivors will sue? In the Hammer reporting, there is probably an additional factor at play. His crisis PR team is well aware that if they place a piece in a relatively obscure publication and the entertainment trades pick it up, the trades will have no duty to fact-check or seek statements from survivors as they are merely reporting a previously-published story. The PR team is also banking on the fact that these outlets have a symbiotic relationship with PR firms, which trade access for publicity. Thus, even if the trades suspect the story is a well-crafted PR plant, they will probably shrug and quote extensively from what is, after all, a news story on a platter.

Unaware of such background maneuvering, public sentiment will be formed only by the credulous reporting of Hammer’s own assessments about how much of a changed man he is, his spin on assault as “consensual rape”, and how he is giving back in the form of mentorship (a penance that doesn’t actually involve any form of accountability or restitution to his victims).
 

As major entertainment platforms, one after another, blithely reported Hammer’s interview, it struck fear in the hearts of survivors who recognized what the journalists apparently did not—that once again money and power had secured the tools for a planned come back. Equally alarming, is the potential impact on other survivors who may now think twice about coming forward after learning that there’s a large swathe of journalism that is more driven by clicks than by finding out the truth, and more interested in jostling with their competitors to get the story out first than preventing further harm to the vulnerable.

A journalist from one such publication defended the reporting by saying “As a journalist, it is my job to cover both sides of any story without bias.” And yet, where are the victims’ rebuttals to Hammer’s claims? Why didn’t the journalist at least link to the earlier coverage of one victim’s story in the very same publication? Instead, the report faithfully regurgitated Hammer’s excuse for his behavior, citing the sexual abuse he experienced at age 13, and failed to question his (alleged) suicidal ideation and self-proclaimed “redemption.” For all the “both sides” claims of objectivity, there is an obvious bias if a survivor cannot claim rape without an intense verification process and punctuation of their accounts with legal qualifiers, but a rapist can claim not only that the rape was a rehearsed fantasy but also that he is now a reformed character… with absolutely no evidence.

In a summary of the book The Elements of Journalism (1), the American Press Institute writes that “journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.” However, when publications report unverified claims from a predator and, in contrast, subject victims’ accounts to strict legal tests, it would appear that obligation has been lost. Instead of clinging to the “both sides of the story” defense, perhaps journalistic integrity is better served by the editorial team reflecting on the power differential between abuser and victim, as well as the standard of proof the outlet requires of each. In Armie Hammer’s case, it may well be that the lack of such reflection—together with the maneuverings of a shrewd PR team—may have resulted in mainstream media outlets inadvertently platforming a predator.

Louise Godbold

References:

1. Kovach, B., & Rosenstiel, T. “The elements of journalism: what newspeople should know and the public should expect.” 2007

Received: 06.03.23, Ready: 26.10.23,. Editor: Simone Redaelli