Return to Transcripts main page

Live From...

Should Journalists Release Rape Victims Names?

Aired July 24, 2003 - 15:43   ET

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.

THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.


KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as a general rule, news organizations don't release the names of rape victims against their wishes. Several media outlets are asking the judge in this case to allow them access to sealed documents. Well, strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and we have two guests to take up the debate, Geneva Overholeser from the Missouri School of Journalism, joins us from Washington and Rob Becker, sports commentator and attorney, they both join us from New York. Thank you so much.
Geneva, let's start with you and let's talk about why you think the alleged accuser and accused should be named?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER, MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Well, I think it's better for the criminal justice system because I think it really is a matter of fairness to have both the accused and the accuser named, although I hated to agree with this shock jock. I also think that it is important to note that this is the journalistic tradition. We do name victims. We name those who allege crimes. We do it in cases of gay bashing, of domestic violence victims, and there's no question that sometimes people -- individuals suffer from this practice, but I think ignorance is the kind of thing that breeds this sort of cruelty that we see in this Leykis step that he took. And ignorance flourishes in secrecy. We're better off as journalists putting public records before the public and not making decisions that really are kind of social work.

PHILLIPS: Rob, do you think secresy in a situation like this is bad journalism?

ROB BECKER, SPORTS COMMENTATOR, ATTORNEY: No, I don't. The only thing we're talking about is the name of this victim. The name is irrelevant relevant to any issue we want to air, whether her name is Mary Roe or Jane Doe, we can still talk about various issues of this woman, vis-a-vis Kobe, and decide which side we want to take, whether we think Kobe's right or this woman is right. We can do that without using her name.

So we get no upside to using her name, but there is a down side, and that is her privacy is invaded. This woman already is receiving death threats particularly since her name was put on the Internet. So what I see is no social benefit and a detriment to this woman.

PHILLIPS: Geneva, what about the stigma of rape? I mean, when someone comes forward and talks about this, there is a stereotype that takes place on behalf of the public, and people that know a woman that comes out and talks about this. OVERHOLSER: That's exactly right and I think we cannot minimize that. My feeling is that indeed, our effort to shield rape victims, which, again, this is the only case of adult victims of crime where we don't name the victim, our effort to shield rape victims may well have participated in this stigma, you know, kind of joined in the signal. You shouldn't talk about this. You should go and hide. And I think it has contributed to underreporting.

I don't agree with my colleague that names don't matter. I think all of us in journalism understand that names go at the very heart of our credibility. It's hard because many people would prefer not to hear about rape. And over the years, we haven't talked a whole lot about rape. And one reason I think we have not is because we haven't been able to name rape victims.

And one more quick point I'd like to make in that regard, is that the people who know this woman, the people who live in the small community of Eagle, Colorado, where she lives, they know it was she. And those are the people for whom it is, perhaps, most important as to whether they know or not know.

PHILLIPS: Now, Rob, Geneva makes an interesting point. What if rape victims did come forward and say, hey, I can deal with this, I'm a strong person, let me tell you what I went through, let me tell you what happened, and let you how brutal rape can be. Would it open up our eyes?

BECKER: Wait a second. I have no problem with using the victim's name if she consents to it. The problem is, that Geneva is making the decision for that person. And I don't -- I think she's got the whole underreporting issue backwards, because we give the names, or when we give the names of these women, they're more likely to be attacked, have their privacy violated, and have people who say are on Kobe Bryant's side send them, you know, hate letters.

And that is exactly what scares women off from reporting crimes when they worry about that, they're less likely to report tthe whole reason why we, the journalists, have taken up this rule of not using the name is so that the women can be fearless and come forward and report the crimes. And it's just not right to say, well, I decide that your name should be used. That should be up to them.

This is an intimate matter. This is not like other crimes. Any crime -- you heard Tom Leykis say this was a crime of violence, more specifically it's a crime of violent sex and sex is more intimate than saying being beaten up. And that's why we make an exception for these people. And let's not worry about whether there's other categories of people, we should or should not name when it's clear that we shouldn't name these women.

If there's some other issue you want to talk about later, whether other people should have their names revealed, we'll talk about it. But it seems to me clear, that if you start using these women's names, a lot of them would feel more violated and won't come forward.

PHILLIPS: What about protecting a name? Wouldn't that encourage more false claims to come forward?

BECKER: I don't even understand -- I've never really understood the logic of that because in the end, these things get tested in court. I mean, Ms. Overholeser said before, you know, it's better for the criminal justice system. Whatever your claim is, you end up in court, you get to the bottom of it. The judge knows your name. I don't really see these shield -- you know, this tendency to shield the name is going to somehow mean there's going to be more false claims. I don't see any empirical evidence of that.

PHILLIPS: Geneva, final thoughts? We've got to wrap it up.

OVERHOLSER: Well the fact is these are the arguments we've heard for a dozen years, and it hasn't worked. If she's arguing that shielding rape victims is a way to keep them reporting, in fact, there is a lot of underreporting to the police and in the public.

And whatever may have been the case about this, whether it was desire anlable or not to shield rape victims, it's no longer practical. So what we have now is mainstream media not naming them, and then these reprehensible shock jocks and denizens of the Net underworld, and this is no way to protect victims of rape, I must say.

BECKER: So now we are going to sink to the lowest common demoninator, because of people like Tom Leykis. I don't think that that should control the media's discourse.

PHILLIPS: Rob Becker, Geneva Overholser, we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

OVERHOLSER: Thanks for having me.

PHILLIPS: Alright, Miles.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com







Aired July 24, 2003 - 15:43   ET
THIS IS A RUSH TRANSCRIPT. THIS COPY MAY NOT BE IN ITS FINAL FORM AND MAY BE UPDATED.
KYRA PHILLIPS, CNN ANCHOR: Well, as a general rule, news organizations don't release the names of rape victims against their wishes. Several media outlets are asking the judge in this case to allow them access to sealed documents. Well, strong opinions on both sides of the issue, and we have two guests to take up the debate, Geneva Overholeser from the Missouri School of Journalism, joins us from Washington and Rob Becker, sports commentator and attorney, they both join us from New York. Thank you so much.
Geneva, let's start with you and let's talk about why you think the alleged accuser and accused should be named?

GENEVA OVERHOLSER, MISSOURI SCHOOL OF JOURNALISM: Well, I think it's better for the criminal justice system because I think it really is a matter of fairness to have both the accused and the accuser named, although I hated to agree with this shock jock. I also think that it is important to note that this is the journalistic tradition. We do name victims. We name those who allege crimes. We do it in cases of gay bashing, of domestic violence victims, and there's no question that sometimes people -- individuals suffer from this practice, but I think ignorance is the kind of thing that breeds this sort of cruelty that we see in this Leykis step that he took. And ignorance flourishes in secrecy. We're better off as journalists putting public records before the public and not making decisions that really are kind of social work.

PHILLIPS: Rob, do you think secresy in a situation like this is bad journalism?

ROB BECKER, SPORTS COMMENTATOR, ATTORNEY: No, I don't. The only thing we're talking about is the name of this victim. The name is irrelevant relevant to any issue we want to air, whether her name is Mary Roe or Jane Doe, we can still talk about various issues of this woman, vis-a-vis Kobe, and decide which side we want to take, whether we think Kobe's right or this woman is right. We can do that without using her name.

So we get no upside to using her name, but there is a down side, and that is her privacy is invaded. This woman already is receiving death threats particularly since her name was put on the Internet. So what I see is no social benefit and a detriment to this woman.

PHILLIPS: Geneva, what about the stigma of rape? I mean, when someone comes forward and talks about this, there is a stereotype that takes place on behalf of the public, and people that know a woman that comes out and talks about this. OVERHOLSER: That's exactly right and I think we cannot minimize that. My feeling is that indeed, our effort to shield rape victims, which, again, this is the only case of adult victims of crime where we don't name the victim, our effort to shield rape victims may well have participated in this stigma, you know, kind of joined in the signal. You shouldn't talk about this. You should go and hide. And I think it has contributed to underreporting.

I don't agree with my colleague that names don't matter. I think all of us in journalism understand that names go at the very heart of our credibility. It's hard because many people would prefer not to hear about rape. And over the years, we haven't talked a whole lot about rape. And one reason I think we have not is because we haven't been able to name rape victims.

And one more quick point I'd like to make in that regard, is that the people who know this woman, the people who live in the small community of Eagle, Colorado, where she lives, they know it was she. And those are the people for whom it is, perhaps, most important as to whether they know or not know.

PHILLIPS: Now, Rob, Geneva makes an interesting point. What if rape victims did come forward and say, hey, I can deal with this, I'm a strong person, let me tell you what I went through, let me tell you what happened, and let you how brutal rape can be. Would it open up our eyes?

BECKER: Wait a second. I have no problem with using the victim's name if she consents to it. The problem is, that Geneva is making the decision for that person. And I don't -- I think she's got the whole underreporting issue backwards, because we give the names, or when we give the names of these women, they're more likely to be attacked, have their privacy violated, and have people who say are on Kobe Bryant's side send them, you know, hate letters.

And that is exactly what scares women off from reporting crimes when they worry about that, they're less likely to report tthe whole reason why we, the journalists, have taken up this rule of not using the name is so that the women can be fearless and come forward and report the crimes. And it's just not right to say, well, I decide that your name should be used. That should be up to them.

This is an intimate matter. This is not like other crimes. Any crime -- you heard Tom Leykis say this was a crime of violence, more specifically it's a crime of violent sex and sex is more intimate than saying being beaten up. And that's why we make an exception for these people. And let's not worry about whether there's other categories of people, we should or should not name when it's clear that we shouldn't name these women.

If there's some other issue you want to talk about later, whether other people should have their names revealed, we'll talk about it. But it seems to me clear, that if you start using these women's names, a lot of them would feel more violated and won't come forward.

PHILLIPS: What about protecting a name? Wouldn't that encourage more false claims to come forward?

BECKER: I don't even understand -- I've never really understood the logic of that because in the end, these things get tested in court. I mean, Ms. Overholeser said before, you know, it's better for the criminal justice system. Whatever your claim is, you end up in court, you get to the bottom of it. The judge knows your name. I don't really see these shield -- you know, this tendency to shield the name is going to somehow mean there's going to be more false claims. I don't see any empirical evidence of that.

PHILLIPS: Geneva, final thoughts? We've got to wrap it up.

OVERHOLSER: Well the fact is these are the arguments we've heard for a dozen years, and it hasn't worked. If she's arguing that shielding rape victims is a way to keep them reporting, in fact, there is a lot of underreporting to the police and in the public.

And whatever may have been the case about this, whether it was desire anlable or not to shield rape victims, it's no longer practical. So what we have now is mainstream media not naming them, and then these reprehensible shock jocks and denizens of the Net underworld, and this is no way to protect victims of rape, I must say.

BECKER: So now we are going to sink to the lowest common demoninator, because of people like Tom Leykis. I don't think that that should control the media's discourse.

PHILLIPS: Rob Becker, Geneva Overholser, we have to leave it there. Thank you both very much.

OVERHOLSER: Thanks for having me.

PHILLIPS: Alright, Miles.

TO ORDER A VIDEO OF THIS TRANSCRIPT, PLEASE CALL 800-CNN-NEWS OR USE OUR SECURE ONLINE ORDER FORM LOCATED AT www.fdch.com