Media shame over Dugard frenzy
This article attacks the media for the use of lurid but tittilating language such as ‘sex slave’ when referring to victims of kidnapping who have been sexually abused by their captors. She notes that the ‘serious’ American press gave the story a brief mention on the front page, while the British press had pages of the most lurid and intrusive coverage; the Murdoch-owned New York Post did similarly. (The Sun, the biggest-selling British tabloid, is owned by Murdoch.)
She finishes off by asking,
Her disappearance may have been public knowledge, but now that her fate is known, why doesn’t she get the same protection as other rape victims?
To be honest, I’m not sure if that’s entirely feasible — there are anonymity laws in the UK and USA which prohibit the identification of a rape victim without their consent, but when the victim’s identity is already known, it’s difficult to back-pedal and make everyone forget who the victim is. Still, they should not be feeding public appetites for such intimate and salacious details. As for “why didn’t she leave”, perhaps she wanted to leave only with her daughters, and could not guarantee their safety, or ever seeing them again, if she fled?
This reminds me of a case which took place in Hastings, south-east England, a number of years ago, in which two ten-year-old girls were kidnapped and held for several days before being found. On being found, they were paraded in front of the cameras and asked, among other things, what they missed most about being away from home; only later did it emerge that both girls had been raped.
Possibly Related Posts:
- On the Epstein conspiracy theories
- The fork-tongued “devil dog” defenders
- Boris Johnson: goodbye, and good riddance
- Shamima Begum, ‘grooming’ and responsibility
- Rushdie, Khomeini and Muslims here and there
