When Brock Turner was released from jail today after serving half of his six-month sentence for the sexual assault of an unconscious woman, headlines referring to him as a Stanford swimmer sparked renewed controversy.
Associated Press, USA Today, TIME, CNN, Sports Illustrated, MSNBC, and the BBC were criticized by readers for failing to immediately identify Turner as someone who had committed sexual assault.
TIME referred to Turner as a swimmer and didn’t note that he had committed a sexual assault until the third line of the story. The magazine called him a “former Stanford student and star swimmer.”
wow he sounds like a great guy @TIME pic.twitter.com/7ZiKpRDUPr
— Tasneem N (@TasneemN) September 2, 2016
“I am no longer a swimmer, a student, a resident of California, or the product of the work that I put in to accomplish the goals that I set out in the first 19 years of my life,” Turner said in a court statement.
Turner will not be returning to Stanford, and he has been banned for life by USA Swimming. He will move in with his parents in Ohio, where he will register as a sex offender.
During Turner’s trial in the spring, the news media drew criticism for lauding his swimming accomplishments at the elite California school.
Than former Stanford swimmer and rapist… https://t.co/NY14QB1PLV
— Jennifer Gunter (@DrJenGunter) September 2, 2016
Who needs "Stanford swimmer" clarification in the headline but is aware of what he's in jail for? https://t.co/4kuOk0c9xj
— German Lopez (@germanrlopez) September 2, 2016
former stanford swimmer @CNN ?
that's not why he was in jail
how about "Convicted Rapist #BrockTurner…" as a headline???— Debi Staron (@HollywoodDebi) September 1, 2016
Dear @TIME & @SInow, you spelled "convicted rapist" wrong. Brock Turner THE CONVICTED RAPIST, not Stanford Swimmer. pic.twitter.com/qSyBG3kS7E
— Danielle Campoamor (@DCampoamor) September 2, 2016
One problem with calls to refer to Turner as a rapist is that he was convicted of sexual assault and intent to commit rape, but not rape. Media organizations may be exercising caution so as not to misidentify Turner’s crime.
Still, Turner’s privileged treatment by the media has been disturbing.
At Bitch Media, Dahlia Grossman-Heinze wrote:
Because Turner was a star swimmer at Stanford, coverage of his trial received the “once-promising future” treatment. In reporting on sexual assault, media outlets show a pattern of focusing on how the assailant has a bright future and how the current case could ruin his upward trajectory — most articles about Turner include a nice portrait of him instead of his mugshot.
At Cosmopolitan magazine, Prachi Gupta wrote:
The rush to humanize Turner and grant him a lenient sentence is an example of a system that elevates the voices and experiences of white men, and dismisses violence against women. As a young, successful white male athlete, Turner benefits from a level of compassion and empathy rarely expressed for any other group of people in America, a benefit of the doubt that people of color and women rarely get.
So curious why this is framed as "Stanford swimmer" and not "convicted of sexual assault". Or maybe even both. https://t.co/pjUugixKtN
— Soledad O'Brien (@soledadobrien) September 2, 2016
Hey TIME, was he in jail for swimming?https://t.co/X9rPQZt9FN
— Anup Kaphle (@AnupKaphle) September 2, 2016
@MSNBC Wasn't the " Stanford Swimmer" convicted of rape? Call him a rapist, not a swimmer.
— Deborah Rodeheaver (@debr3322) September 2, 2016
By "former Stanford swimmer" you meant RAPIST correct? https://t.co/Q5abTgw1O3
— B L A C A D E M I C (@profjalewis) September 2, 2016
Ex-Stanford University swimmer Brock Turner released after jail term for… https://t.co/M01dO6d1LF by @BBCBreaking via @c0nvey
— Frank Carey (@frankcarey1967) September 2, 2016
Tamir Rice labeled as a thug.
Brock Turner still referred to as Stanford swimmer.
And get people wonder why #BlackLivesMatter— work of art (@tammie_grier) September 2, 2016
I hope today's media headlines say "convicted rapist released after 3 months" and not "Stanford ex-swimmer…" #BrockTurner
— Sheila (@shelearn) September 2, 2016
@CNN wish reports would stop naming him as a former swimmer. Its Brock Turner the rapist that also happened to go to Stanford once
— Bethany (@BethanySquid) September 2, 2016
It's rapist, not ex-Stanford swimmer! @CNN & others https://t.co/5sZWSP0b42
— Kelly Green (@brandcoachkelly) September 2, 2016
STOP. CALLING. HIM. A. STANFORD. SWIMMER. HE. IS. A. RAPIST.
— Courtney Charroux (@cacharroux) September 2, 2016
Top photo: Protests at Stanford University’s graduation ceremonies, June 12, 2016, in Palo Alto, California.
No question the guy deserved to be tried and punished, but why is The Intercept joining the current wave of mob justice? This young man will live with the effects of this for the rest of his life. Does he really need to be swarmed by social media and gun-toting nuts in front of his house? Sorry to see The Intercept joining in this feeding frenzy. Justice is dispensed unevenly at times. The legal system may not have worked as well as it should in this case. But shaming this guy 24/7 seems like overkill. Would The Intercept be happy if he just hanged himself? Sheesh. Show a little humanity.
He wasn’t convicted of rape. The rape charges were dismissed he was convicted of sexual assault. There is a difference. Which means he isn’t technically a rapist.
Sucks. I know. We’d love to hang him.
Funny, I find a lot of news stories still calling him a rapist….yet he was NOT convicted of rape…as NO proof was presented…he admitted to fondling the girl…and was found guilty of 3 counts of sexual assault…NOT rape…..
https://www.google.com/webhp?sourceid=chrome-instant&ion=1&espv=2&ie=UTF-8#q=brock%20rapist
He’s a finger-fucker (3rd base sexual assault) and not a rapist. His penis was not inserted and he NOT convicted of rape. Amp your outrage with a bunch of distorted emotional horseshit if you like.
No excuse for what he did -sexual assault- but the heavy breathing is too much.
It is odd that we consider it improper that a person on a particular government list not be wholly defined by that, and, dare I say, unpersoned.
Not that what he did wasn’t horrible; it was. Not that the man isn’t an asshole; he is. But we can call people assholes who do horrible things based on their intent and their harm rather than on government lists and unthinking rage.
I’m SURE that you are just as concerned when it happens to a black man.
You’re not sure…you’re a troll.
Nete Peedham is not a troll. He’s a semi-regular commenter with often good insights.
“He’s a semi-regular commenter with often good insights” …which aren’t borne out in this thread.
I’ve read through…the comments mostly consist of non sequitur arguments and accusatory attacks ad hominem. Please point me to the insightful parts…
nuf said wrote:
Brock Turner isn’t “low hanging fruit.” For years now, rape on campus has been a hot button issue, and this was a situation in which a Golden Boy was (correctly) perceived to be treated with kid gloves after he committed a sexual assault in the context of an elite university.
Now my own view is that when young people are mixed with alcohol, awful things happen. The human male’s brain, the part that exercises judgment, is not matured until the early 20s. Add booze to that, and you get trouble. For these reasons I do not advocate extreme penalties for young men who do what Turner was convicted of, and I don’t think they belong on a sex offenders list.
But the problem is, the leniency Turner was shown isn’t available to all young men. I’d be willing to oppose the feminists who want harsh penalties in this type of scenario, except I’m conflicted knowing it’s almost always only the privileged — whether white upper-class, or high-profile athletic/business/entertainment elites of any race — who get it. The problem is an overly punitive approach across the board.
“The problem is an overly punitive approach across the board.”
Yes. Overly punitive, pointless and ineffective as a deterrent or protection for potential victims — and no help for actual victims, either.
But I guess it helps satisfy some of the vengeance hunger that seems to spring from our cultural DNA.
Thank you!
look at all the volunteer PR people showing up here, it’s very inspiring
At Cosmopolitan magazine, Prachi Gupta wrote:
“The rush to humanize Turner”
Holy shit….is Turner no longer human??
I aee, so in the US doing your time is no longer enough, now you must be vilified for the rest of your life after you’ve been released.
Puts paid the idea of having done your time, doesn:t it?
His victim is still doing her time, but, then again…only white male sports heroes matter, I guess, to Pate Riotic ‘Murkans.
@Karl
“Hey Naomi, I have two words for you: Jeffrey Epstein! Stop going after the low hanging fruit and do a piece on the string of high profile personalities that shared this Multi-billionaire pedophile rapist’s appetite for underage victims.”
Hillary’s husband is a major predator. I’ll wager he’s raped more women than that Stanford punk. Why does Naomi support sexual predators, in some cases? She glosses over major crimes and focuses on “low hanging fruit”.
Thanks, Betsy.
Hillary’s husband is a major predator. I’ll wager he’s raped more women than that Stanford punk. Why does Naomi support sexual predators, in some cases?
Not writing an American Spectator piece about someone who has not been charged or convicted of rape equals “support of sexual predators, in some cases”? The guy she wrote about has actually been convicted. You were hoping she’d ignore that and instead write a fictional gossip piece? If you write with your complaint to R. Emmet Tyrrel Jr., he’ll very likely oblige you.
Failed to close the block quote tag. Should have closed at the word “cases” and before my next sentence beginning with “Not.”
“Who cares if the media calls someone a swimmer or a rapist?”
Ladies and gentlemen….the world is being taken over by Rothschild globalist. They stole our ability to print out own money in 1913, and the crimes started flowing with WWI starting 6 months after the FED took over out printing press.
What did Mayer Rothschild say?
“If I have the ability to create the money, I care not who makes the laws”
“One problem with calls to refer to Turner as a rapist is that he was convicted of sexual assault and intent to commit rape, but not rape. Media organizations may be exercising caution so as not to misidentify Turner’s crime.”
Seems that you’re NOT exercising caution with your headline:
Media Continues to Refer to Brock Turner as a “Stanford Swimmer” Rather Than a Rapist
Is that headline it just a simple statement of fact, or your slanted opinion?
Rape is always a ‘sexual assault’, but a sexual assault is not always rape.
I suppose the controversy was about how the media tries to blow up interest in a story because an athlete at a famous university was the perp. No? Oh, I see, the controversy is about not identifying him as a sexual offender before reminding the reader who he is. There is some interesting news in an analysis of the controversy. This story does not do that; what does it do?
We should make him put a scarlet ‘R’ on all his clothes too. Read a book once with something similar and if I remember correctly it all turned out well.
Damn….you beat me to it. Scarlet ‘R’ is the first thing I thought of.
English translation of your post? “WWWWWWWaaaaaaaaaahhhh…MOMMY! Women are bein’ mean to us guys for NO REASON..”
Of course he was a Stanford Swimmer. And used his finger(s).
Not his “weiner.”
In the 60s we called that “Third Base.”
Although getting third with a somnolent partner was considered bad form.
Let the outrage and heavy breathing persist…
I’ll get chastised by the PC police but I don’t see this as black and white, bad boy, good girl.
When young people go out and get drunk they do really stupid things and that includes both genders. A woman who stupidly drinks to unconsciousness will make herself vulnerable to predators who are also stupidly drunk. And vice versa that drunk females today, are just as likely to assault drunk males if you can believe the many stories about female teachers etc that assault young boys. The problem comes from binge drinking and influenced by loss of moral compass demonstrated regularly by Hollywood.
Your comments absolutely make me sick. Nothing you have said here is based on facts; I invite you to find some real rape statistics before you go spouting this utter nonsense and re-traumatizing victims everywhere.
Women teachers? All kinds of molestors on their side of the house DO go to jail, and for a lot longer than spoiled rich kid Stanford a-holes.
This really is about “what makes news?” “Convicted (first time) sex offender (Brock Turner) released after serving only three months.” “Former Stanford swimming star Brock Turner freed after 3 months on sexual assault charges.”
The story – is that a kid who appeared to have everything destroyed his future. (The case for the victim already has been presented and has played a crucial role in the making the story important). Turner’s fall emerges from his former stature and is integral. It’s not about painting Turner as a “nice boy” who made a foolish mistake that scarred a young woman for life, but still is a nice boy.
The story is that this sexual predator whose absurdly lenient sentence aroused global outrage is now free.
Brock Turner was simply another sex offender until the fumbling Judge Aaron Persky entered and dismissed Turner with a kiss on the forehead and off to protective custody for three months. Judge Persky, now a sidebar himself, through his reprehensible failure of judgment, became the instigator of the public outrage that made Turner a marked man for life. Neither the victim, nor the people of California, nor Justice, nor even Turner, was served, only Persky’s pride in demonstrating that he, apparently, holds a higher, more enlightened view of justice than the unwashed. The outrage then is that thanks to a feckless judge a brutal, privileged sexual predator is free, three months after his trial ended.
The other issue here is the part about being banned for life by some swimming association. I think we ought to ask why we keep accumulating more and more little courts in this country. I mean, he gets tried in a regular court, then he gets tried in a university court, then in swimming court … probably at some point he’ll be up in Facebook court and Twitter court and other online courts to decide whether a finger-poker can be trusted behind a keyboard. It is only a matter of dumb luck, so far as I can tell, that there isn’t yet a supermarket court to decide if he’s OK to shop at local markets and an amusement park court to make sure he doesn’t darken the door of the local water slide. How many fucking courts and trials do we have to have to decide on a set of consequences for one offense? All of these processes take time and money and distract people from stuff they ought to be doing like organizing swim meets or finding better student textbooks. Why can’t we be content to have this one criminal court that decides its regime of punishment and restrictions and then we can move on?
Good comment. Also the “convict shaming” which forms the basis of this article is the moral equivalent of “slut shaming”.
Yes Chas, yes Wnt.
Yes, “convict shaming” is precisely what is so uncomfortable about this and other similar stories. I find it especially concerning that some who otherwise support criminal reform engage in this kind of shaming. If a man or a woman goes through the justice system, is sentenced and then serves that sentence … I don’t care what crime the person committed, they should not be labeled “murderer” or “rapist” or “burglar” when they get out. Those advocating for this — regardless of their concern for equity under the law for women — should think about the consequences of a society that treats those who served their sentences this way.
No, it is not. Being a “slut” is not a crime. All public figures are role models for other young people. Allowing such people as Billy Clinton and Bill Cosby to continue to be successful despite their actions sends a definite message that rape is OK.
I won’t suggest that convictions totally be ignored; but I think that there are a lot of positions like “college student” or “swimmer” that should not be interpreted as “public figure” or “role model”. No, the swim team does not want the guy with a good set of healthy hobbies and a winning smile and an encouraging speaking voice – they should be able to let the coach’s little stopwatch make the decisions and hang the moralizations. And the same is pretty much true of colleges – they are supposed to be teaching (ideally, I’d say even teaching academics, not swimming!) and looking for students they can successfully teach, nothing more.
The pretense that booting one guy with a sticky finger makes for a rape-free campus is a joke. It’s a joke because most rapes aren’t reported, and because especially in college settings they tend to get settled behind the scenes even if they are. A college might as well recognize that it’s a public place, that rapists are coming in and out, and the court can put limits on them through routine proceedings like parole conditions and restraining orders but the private campus ought to be able to ignore such security duties and just focus on teaching courses. Which would make for a cheaper college with fewer highly-paid interlopers who don’t ever stand behind a lectern but just sit on committees reading what’s none of their business and making (typically) awful decisions.
B.S., Naomi. Sorry but I don’t see what good labeling someone does. I mean you can always go around handing out scarlet letters and/or making it a part of the sentencing process, but I would disagree with that also. He served time. It may not be enough for some tastes, but clearly he deserves a chance to be human.
#Stein4President is a much more respectful way to argue for social justice imho (and not because of her gender, either). Pettiness just reinforces our brute human natures.
Rape is not a petty subject.
Where’s the outrage at his serving only half of what would seem to be a pretty lenient sentence to begin with?
Your headline calls him a “rapist.” But he wasn’t convicted of rape. He was convicted of “sexual assault.” There a significant difference between the two. Accuracy counts.
I suggest:
Convicted sex offender
Perhaps the pimped out whored out media doesnt want to lose one of their feeders – that being a university that wallstreet uses to rob the population of patents that students should earn. Just another wallstreet robbery scheme to empower corporats for profits and ownership. Mainstreet – from wallstreet’s perspective? the cattle corral
Hey Naomi, I have two words for you: Jeffrey Epstein! Stop going after the low hanging fruit and do a piece on the string of high profile personalities that shared this Multi-billionaire pedophile rapist’s appetite for underage victims.
http://lawnewz.com/high-profile/the-shameful-way-feds-protected-convicted-pedophile-billionaire-jeffrey-epstein/
The media’s job is to sell newspapers. A headline reading ‘Rapist Released from Jail’ would be largely ignored; it’s an event that probably happens several dozen times a day. But the headline ‘Stanford Swimmer Released from Jail’ stokes popular outrage and spurs sales. The media didn’t become The Media without learning how to push the right buttons.
For all those jumping in to correct me that the media’s job is to propagandize the general public: yes, but to do it, they first have to sell newspapers.
The media’s actual job is to create a more informed electorate but we live so distantly from that ideal I can understand why you are so grossly mistaken in your opinions.
Calling him a rapist is unfair because it is not legally true, but you’re not even making that argument. Should I expect more than senseless trolling from someone posting as “Benito Mussolini?” probably not.
Luckily the media doesn’t share your sadistic streak. The electorate is generally happy in their uninformed state. Being informed and having no real choice only leads to misery. The media understand this and do their best to distract their readers with harmless click bait.
If you look at the Wikipedia article – https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/People_v._Turner – it doesn’t call him a rapist either.
This is simply because responsible reporters avoid hyperbole about people – ideally out of pedantic correctness, more often out of journalistic pride, sometimes out of fear of legal measures that I don’t actually believe in.
Whatever the reason, the little freak stuck a finger or two in a girl’s vagina. He did not *rape* her in the Full Monty legal sense. He crossed a key line between normal person and sex offender, and for that he is going to be mercilessly harassed, both legally and in the sense that any reporter or vigilante can look him up in the database just to, you know, make the community safe. This isn’t the last time you’ll be seeing him in the news, and I don’t mean as a perp.
I know it seems like a contravention of law to hang aloof from a bullying, but frankly, I think his goose is well cooked already and there’s no need for a lot of extra help here. If you want to be a crusader then look into the JUDGE further, not him. Or better yet, look into the judge next door that no reporter has probably ever thought about.
Why not ask that obnoxious asshole-lawyer Glenn Greenwald to look into CALIFORNIA STATE LAW for you if you cannot figure it out.
The teenager was NOT charged with “rape”
Go ahead and lie and slander if that makes you feel better.
I’m sure that the creep’s victim will be SO relieved at your perception.
He was actually indicted on two counts of rape which were eventually dropped by the prosecutors. Sexual assault is rape, sure, but he was never convicted of the charge of rape.
This is a great article pointing out the privilege of white men. I hope many people see it. I am still shocked that he was not convicted of rape because that’s exactly what he did. He penetrated a woman without consent. That is rape, period. I’m glad the judge in the case has gotten the criticism he deserves. My thoughts are with his victim.
Thank you for restoring my faith in humanity tonight.
This refuses to go into details or the exact charges he was found guilty of. The case was WEAK because she was passed out drunk, so unable to testify to the assault, and the rape kit showed NO genital sex took place.
TIME reporter Kirsten Salyer went into the details of California LAW – he was never charged with RAPE in the first place!!!!!!
Now you might not like the law but that is what led to the charges filed.
Oh…he “only” committed sexual assault. I’m SURE that his victim is relieved that you’ve cleared that up.
What the victims are not helped by is the idea that every assault involving sex is equivalent. There is a large difference between fingers and a baseball bat. There’s a difference between getting jumped in an alley and passing out drunk in a room. One can FEEL however they like after such an event occurs, but our legal system should not operate with emotion, but logic, and if one wished to actually help the victims, rather than use them as props in some agenda, they would do the same.
This refuses to go into details or the exact charges he was found guilty of. Charged with inserting the foreign objects (pine needles) found in her. She was never “Raped” as the out-for-blood readers just assumed after reading “felonies.”
The case was WEAK – she was unconscious the entire time, the witnesses did not see actual intercourse, the rape kit turned up nothing but pine needles.
Far worse sex assaults happen with the police doing next to nothing, not even paying to process the rape kits. Go get mad about that instead.
Investigative reporter for The Intercept may not even know the actual charges filed against Brock Turner.
http://time.com/4362949/stanford-sexual-assault-no
The ultimate irony is that he may still have had access to a fairly promising future if he hadn’t been given such a light sentencing. If he had gotten a fair sentence in the first place he would have spent longer incarcerated, but would have avoided the national media frenzy that has truly ruined his future.
SO sick of time & SI calling this garbage a swimmer and not What he really is a RAPIST !!!!
You’re as bad a reading and reasoning as you are at writing, Laura.
TIME’s headline from earlier today was listed in my post, immediately below yours:
“Brock Turner Released After Serving 3 Months for Sexual Assault — TIME ”
And TI is currently running:
“Ex-Stanford swimmer convicted of rape released from jail — Sports Illustrated”
Also, as a legal and factual matter, you, Naomi and SI are wrong: Turner was not convicted of rape.
Your outrage is understandable, but accuracy matters. You’re entitled to your own opinions, but not your own facts.
Certainly some headlines have referred to Turner as Naomi reports, but there is no shortage of outlets writing more informative and appropriate headlines (short sample follows).
Also, it would be incorrect, as a legal matter, to call him a rapist (whatever we may personally think of his behavior), because he was not convicted of rape.
= = = = =
Brock Turner leaves jail after serving 3 months for sexual assault — CNN
Brock Turner released from jail after serving half of six-month sentence in Stanford sexual assault case — Los Angeles Times
Ex-Stanford swimmer Brock Turner leaves jail after serving half his term for sexual assault — Fox News
Brock Turner, Convicted Sexual Assault Offender, Released From Jail After 3 Months– NBCNews.com
Brock Turner, sex assault convict, leaves jail after serving half a 6-months sentence — Chicago Tribune
Brock Turner leaves jail; early release in Stanford sex assault case — The Mercury News
Stanford sexual offender Brock Turner serves half his sentence, freed from jail after 3 months — SFGate
Brock Turner: A sex offender for life, he faces stringent rules
— The Mercury News
Brock Turner released from jail after controversial sentence
— CBS News
Stanford Sexual Assault Convict Brock Turner Released from Jail After Serving Half of 6-Month Sentence — People Magazine
Convicted Stanford sex offender Brock Turner released from jail — KABC-TV
Brock Turner Released After Serving 3 Months for Sexual Assault — TIME
Brock Turner: Stanford sex attack swimmer freed from jail
— BBC News
Here’s Brock Turner Strolling Out of Jail After Serving Only 3 Months for Sexual Assault — New York Magazine
Former Stanford Student Brock Turner Released After Serving 3 Months for Sexual Assault — Wall Street Journal
Just as a clarification, quite a few sites have since changed their titles after public backlash. For example, what you list for TIME:
Brock Turner Released After Serving 3 Months for Sexual Assault — TIME
was originally
“Stanford swimmer Brock Turner has been released from jail”
https://twitter.com/TIME/status/771697544124596224 – source
The outlets have only slowly begun to change the titles into something less glowing than “Former Stanford Swimmer”
Glowing?
Sounds like a simple, factual description to me. Is it not?
Yeah I’m sure Brock Turner would prefer that the media not refer to him at all. Ironically this article highlights the absurdity of the presses witch hunt/ obsession with him and this case, because a being college swimmer is hardly noteworthy at all. I follow sports pretty closely and I couldn’t name another college swimmer, its just a sport that’s never covered outside of the Olympics. Plenty of much more prominent athletes have been accused of sexual crimes just in the last year or so, including NFL players and even an NBA superstar like Derrick Rose and those cases haven’t gotten a fraction of the attention this one did.
Thank you, Ms LaChance.
Amy Goodman on Democracy Now! got it mostly right.
She called him – and I’m paraphrasing, the former Stanford swimmer who was in jail for raping an unconscious woman.
If facts count, he didn’t rape her or anyone. Rape is not done with the finger.
Is Bill Clinton referred to as a Serial Rapist in news reports?
Is Hellary Clinton referred to as a Rapist Enabler?
ooh provocative. The answer would be no in both cases.
A little thing called a conviction is missing, not to mention more than one, to justify the word “serial”. I know, you already “know” it is true and that’s good enough for you. Start a newspaper. Please.
Newspapers are so square about kind of stuff. Also people who decide libel suits. You’ll show ’em.
Libel suits? Yes I will show them, bring it on!
Good luck! I know you’ll be too busy to post here anymore after you start your paper! Fight the power!!
Newspapers are actually rectangular. Confidentiality would probably be nice for his sources.