A fundamental principle of journalism is the productive incitement of discussion that does not arrive at the harmful expense of readers. In publishing the letter “‘Rape Culture’ Does Not Exist,” The Badger Herald has done one of these things correctly: opened a floodgate of dialogue for students to weigh in and victims to share experiences. However, the catalyst to this discussion has been an unproductive means of reaching a productive dialogue.
The campus outcry (primarily via social media) has provided a plethora of opinions as well as fact-based evidence on the issue of rape culture. In publishing the letter, the Herald has exhibited an unflinching neglect for the experiences of the very people that have laid eyes on the piece. There is a level of privilege in aimlessly publishing such a piece without warning those whom it may offend, and it has served as a trigger for victims of rape and sexual assault throughout the campus as well as in the depths of the Internet.
An ethical dilemma lies at the center of this outcry: the role of the media in becoming the catalyst for controversy. We operate in an industry where we are responsible for showcasing the glory of the world juxtaposed with how ugly it can become. This does not function as a dichotomy, but a spectrum for anything and everything we deem newsworthy. This is not an unpublishable topic, but upon accepting this responsibility as a gatekeeper of opinions, there is a level of preparation and caution and accountability; The Badger Herald staff who led this piece to publication has made a fundamental misjudgement.
While editors have a commitment to take care in publishing opinion columns, letters are from the public, not a newspaper’s staff members. This means letters cannot be edited for content. Still, editors have no commitment to publish these letters.
However, editors can frame the context of these letters. This letter was printed in the paper without any warning or disclaimer above the article. With sensitive topics such as sexual assault, it is imperative that editors provide a context to readers that minimizes potential damage.
In an attempt to do this, the Herald added a note indicating that the letter could invoke memories and emotions surrounding sexual assault later on in the day it was published. However, newspapers need to be proactive instead of reactive when publishing opinions on sensitive topics—this means having the foresight to anticipate negative reactions and address them before the harm is done. This Board feels that if this letter would have been published and presented differently, we would be having a different conversation.
This Editorial Board understands the opinions expressed in the letter are not those of the Herald staff as a whole. Still, more care needs to be taken when addressing letters and columns that evoke strong emotional responses from specific groups of people. It is careless to place a letter of such controversial content in a public forum, with no regard to its context, its framing or its potentially traumatic consequences. For a newspaper to run a letter containing such polarizing, alienating ideas simply because its author is semi-(in)famous and would earn them “shares” or paid clicks on their website is nothing short of irresponsible.
Furthermore, editors have the responsibility to minimize harm for the public. Although the Herald added a disclaimer to the article on its website as it began gaining attention, people who may have avoided the letter in the first place undoubtedly were exposed to its inflammatory and harmful content. As readers have commented, for survivors of sexual assault, the piece brought back trauma—trauma that is already pushed aside, hidden and shamed by the very culture the writer denies.
These people do not merely exist in characters and typeface; real people, citizens of our campus community and beyond, have poured their stories in comments and responses. This productivity has created a double-edged sword of harming the very people who have experienced rape and sexual assault without the proper sensitivity or tact. Furthermore, the editor’s note added to the digital edition has done nothing but serve as a faulty attempt to bandage the wound. This was a grave miscalculation that should serve as a teaching moment: No one deserves to open the morning paper or load their social network and feel exposed at the hands of the very institution that is entrusted with the responsibility and accountability to discover truth through productive dialogue.
Please send all feedback to opinion@dailycardinal.com.
