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@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@Wikipedia.org To unsubscribe from this mailing list, visit: http://mail.wikipedia.org/mailman/listinfo/wikien-l