The “Newsroom” episode, which aired on HBO, revolves around the responsible reporting of campus sexual assault. This coincides with the revelation that Rolling Stone’s recent UVA gang-rape article was a significant event. The episode’s plot revolves around Don Keefer (Thomas Sadoski) being forced by Charlie (ordered by Lucas Pruit) to report on a campus rape at Princeton and get the accuser and accused for a sit-down, in-studio interview.
The episode has generated controversy, with critics finding the credibility of rape stories disparaged. A University of Virginia student named Mary tells ACN producer Don that she was raped, reported the rape to both the college’s administration and the police. The storyline had Don being forced by Charlie to report on a campus rape at Princeton and get the accuser and accused for a sit-down, in-studio interview.
The episode has generated backlash against the argument that some critics found disparaged the credibility of rape reporting. The episode has generated controversy as there are two sides to every story, and the episode has been criticized for its ill-timed nature.
In conclusion, the “Newsroom” episode raises questions about the responsibility of reporting on campus sexual assault and the potential consequences of pursuing the story over the truth. The episode serves as an object lesson on the pitfalls of sexual assault reporting in general and the importance of considering both sides of a story.
📹 Newsroom – Episode 5 – Rape & Sexual Assault: What does justice look like?
Trigger Warning. With legal mechanisms failing rape victims, what avenue of justice is left? Journalists may seek the story over the …
📹 Newsroom: Rape Crisis
This is a really tough question but for what it’s worth here’s my take on it. Rape is a heinous crime, arguably the worst crime one human can commit against another full stop. A person convicted of it should go to jail for life. The victim is going to be scarred by it for life so the perpetrator should lose their liberty for that same period. The victims need and deserve all the help they need for as long as they need it in order to bring the truth to light and recover from the ordeal they suffered as much as possible. However, it has to be said that just the accusation alone is enough to ruin someone’s life and that for someone in the public eye it’s even more destructive. There is no doubt that the old saw “no smoke without fire” definitely applies to this field far more than most other criminal areas. So, given that our society operates on the premise “Innocent until proven guilty” I think it’s only fair that the accused should have the same right to anonymity as the accuser at least until formal charges have been filed and a trial date set. However, it should be noted that I personally think the vast majority of rape/sexual assault accusations are true and that only a very evil/sick person would make such an accusation knowing it to be a lie. Both accuser and accused should be un-named until it gets to court. But in this age of multi-media, social media and instant 24 hr news on TV it’s difficult to know how to make that possible or how to enforce it even if it were feasible to pass a law that demanded it.
Don’s morals being tied directly to the law and what a jury thinks is interesting when you realize that he was invested in the Troy Davis case the season before this. He knew that a jury was wrong back then, so it’s strange to me that he would give a jury so much credibility here. You can call it a character’s beliefs or morals, or you can call it a continuity error, I dunno. Just though it was interesting to point out that Don should’ve been the last person to put faith in the legal system at this point in the show. Maybe before the Troy Davis episode, but certainly not after it.
Warning: if you read this, you will see something you won’t be able to unsee. The cut @1:07 drives me a little bonkers. The expression on Don’s face is, to my mind, fantastic before the cut; just the right amount of a collection of feelings. After the cut, his expression is more thoughtful, which isn’t necessarily wrong for the scene as written, but feels off when compared to his pre-cut expression and it feel as powerful to me. Nothing like commenting on a clip that’s close to being a teenager. 🙂
Why does she want a guy who would never rape anyone to be scared? It’s not his fault, he clearly sympathizes with her… Seems like misplaced hostility. It’s not like every guy thinks about raping a woman. Most men would never consider such a heinous act, simply because of human empathy and not wanting to hurt another person. That aside… rape doesn’t make any sense to a normal person, because we need our sexual partners to be willing participants who are enjoying themselves as much as we are. It just can’t work any other way.
“What Does Justice Look Like?” I am not going to pretend to be wise enough to be able to answer that, but I what I suggest to you that any form of balancing-out Karmic, retribution would have to be built around humiliation— Because that is the principle species of lasting injury being inflicted most often-times in cases such as is described in this instance : Shame and Humiliation and a degrading reduction in the sense of one’s own personal value and self-worth. And how do you go about balancing, that…? For one thing, how would you set about shaming someone who is morally degenerate, who maybe HAS no capacity for Shame in the traditional sense; And also, this was not, in any sense PUBLIC Humiliation, because it happened at a private gathering to only a handful of invited guests, so….
She’s a credible person, that then took molly, ecstasy, and any other drug that was put in front of her. She is no longer that credible person. The guy said that she said “fuck me, fuck me, get your roommate in here and have him fuck me too.” Her response is “do i look like a person that would say something like that.” Well, what you are now, wasn’t what you were at that party. And what the guy says that you said, actually sounds exactly like something someone would say that was on those type of drugs. With that being said, she absolutely could be telling the truth too. She may have passed out and they took turns raping her. The bottom line is, this is the definition of he said/she said. Who is telling the truth? I guess that I am like Don. I believe the accused, until I am presented with evidence that shows his guilt.
A lot of the comments are (somewhat understandably) focusing on the validity of Don’s argument but I think sth is missing from this discourse and the scene more generally. There isn’t really any discussion of what her recourse should be and in general we do not really discuss what happens after the judicial route is taken and has failed to deliver the “right” results. Imagine you are the victim. This has happened to you. You go in front of the court and be it due to him having a better lawyer, a jury with a victim-blaming mentality or just a lack of evidence, the perp is aquitted. Now there you are. You did what you were supposed to and yet nothing. There is that dangerous guilty person out there and there is nothing for you to do. Should you still keep silent? Are you obligated to because the law determined an outcome that you must follow or do you have an obligation to go public and protect others? And what do you do when others don’t believe you and they must presume the perplex innocent? To me that is one of the biggest conundrums in all this and a terrible burden on already burdened victims. It is not an argument in favor of public shaming necessarily but it’s a damn hard question
No, you’re not obligated to “believe” the accused. That’s ridiculous. We know statistically speaking the rape victim is much more likely to be telling the truth than the accused. You’re obligated not to CONVICT the accused without sufficient evidence. But the accuser, in rape cases, is almost always telling the truth. Therefore, it makes sense to believe her or him, while allowing for the possibility that she or he is lying.
why do people not grasp that these kind of public accusations usually hurt the victim in the real world? tons of women will not report because they know what happens when they do. Even in the few cases where someone did get taken down it was only after there sheer number of allegations started to overwhelm people. A guy can get away with a couple of them before people are finally convinced he’s guilty.
Did she get raped? Maybe? She admits to doing molly, coke, and anything that was put in front of her, as I am sure that the man who had sex with her was also trashed. So is this all just buyer’s remorse or did she actually get raped. That’s what makes these cases so difficult to prove, because the answer is almost always….maybe.
Just seen this episode for a second time and i strongly disagree with Don. First, the woman got no justice. Its not like the rapist got a trial and a fair shot of defending himself. The case never got in trial. If justice is not even served, then action must be taken and she did’nt set a school on fire, she invited victims to talk. Second, after trying to convince her to not do the interview, Don chooses to tell Charlie he did not find her! So he actually deprives her from her ability to talk, without her fucking consent. Great show but way out of line here.