[Reader-list] Fwd: Fw: Complaint against DNA's coverage of recent rape case in Mumbai

[Subuhi Jiwani]

And if you would like to continue the discussion, please visit: http://loudandproudbombay.wordpress.com/2009/04/23/mirror-has-the-company-of-its-rivals/


Mirror has the company of its rivals
We’ve heard and read about the Mumbai Mirror’s
(by now) infamous page 12 of its April 18 edition. On that page, the
paper ran several readers’ letters criticising its decision to publish
the victim’s statement in its entirety. It also printed an apology, but
only for offending readers’ sensibilities.

Despite our protest in front of The Times of India building, the Mirror ran two more readers’ letters on April 20 that supported its decision.
One congratulated the paper for printing the critical responses and
thereby, strengthening reader-editor interaction. The other underlined
the need to highlight “such barbarity” and “understand the ordeal the
girl went through”.

While the Mirror deserves our mud-slinging, The Hindustan Times had run excerpts from the victim’s FIR in its April 16 edition. These
excerpts do not divulge many of the graphic details of the violent act,
but HT was the first to print the statement.

As it turns out, these papers are facing tough competition from rivals in the English news media. DNA ran an article headlined “Why was she with sex men that night?”
on April 21, the day that Vinamra Soni, the sixth accused, appeared in
court for his anticipatory bail hearing. The headline is a paraphrased
version of what appears in Soni’s bail application. Disturbingly, the
victim’s being out at night with the six accused, the only woman among
a group of men, leads the lawyers to conclude that the what happened
wasn’t rape but consensual sex. The application reads:

“The act of the victim
accompanying the accused persons who was lonely lady (sic) with six
male persons in long midnight itself shows the nature of the victim and
therefore, whatever would have happened might be due to willingness of
the victim (sic).”

The article even goes on to quote Soni’s lawyer Patil as saying that
the victim tried to extort money from the accused after the alleged
rape.

What might be the implications of publishing an article such as
this? Could the defense have been using the media not only to cast
aspersions on the victim’s character but also to influence public
opinion in its favour?

If the media justifies this act with its “getting both sides of the
story” thumb rule, we need to ask: What two sides are they talking
about? To my knowledge, the victim or her lawyers have not yet spoken
to the media and her statement was published without her or her
lawyers’ knowledge.

Finally, what might make for good, responsible reporting in a case like this?
– Subuhi Jiwani