Hello folks,
I agree that there is more to this issue than sourcing.
From a legal point of view, it is common for the prosecution, victim,
and defendant to agree to plea bargain of a lesser charge than rape to
keep the victim off the witness stand. The crime will be much lower
status with the defendant avoiding jail time, permanent sex register,
loss of state licenses (eg. medical license), etc. But from a
medical/health point of view, nothing has changed. The rapist and victim
need psychological/medical assistance tailored to the actual event.
This makes if more difficult for the media to describe the nature of the
actual events, but we need to try. If the proper context can't be
described due to space (or whatever) than its better to say nothing.
Sydney Poore
Ray Saintonge wrote:
Matt Brown wrote:
On 12/4/05, stevertigo
<vertigosteve(a)yahoo.com> wrote:
And that takes care of that.
Not exactly, but it renders it a much more complicated case than ones
where negative statements about a public figure are unsourced. Since
they are sourced in this case, the question becomes: does this article
meet NPOV? I haven't researched the article or the subject enough to
know for sure.
In some respects the Seigenthaler case is easier to deal with,
*because* it was anonymous and unsourced. We don't even have evidence
that there were rumours circulating at the time.
Sourced stories of an accusations are a bigger problem. A newspaper
may report a perfectly verifiable fact that someone was arrested for
rape. When he is released after spending one night in jail no
newspaper reports it. There is no subsequent trial so there is
nothing to report there. There is more to this issue than sourcing.
Ec
_______________________________________________
WikiEN-l mailing list
WikiEN-l(a)Wikipedia.org
To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit:
http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l