[69] in peace2
No subject found in mail header
daemon@ATHENA.MIT.EDU (Karen Sachs)
Sun Feb 13 23:19:31 2000
Message-Id: <200002140418.XAA17719@w20-575-35.mit.edu>
To: peace-list@MIT.EDU
Mime-Version: 1.0
Content-Type: text/plain; charset=us-ascii
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 23:18:57 -0500
From: Karen Sachs <karens@MIT.EDU>
has everyone seen this? beyond the obvious fact that it makes me want to puke
(on certain involved parties), i am also unclear why this debate is important:
the question is not so much "why?" but rather "what should be done?"
(about rape)
personally, i have a few ideas, maybe NBC would like to air them.
karen
------- Forwarded Message
Received: from GRAND-CENTRAL-STATION.MIT.EDU by po7.MIT.EDU (5.61/4.7) id
AA02729; Sun, 13 Feb 00 14:49:15 EST
Received: from melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (MELBOURNE-CITY-STREET.MIT.EDU
[18.69.0.45])
by grand-central-station.MIT.EDU (8.9.2/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA28317
for <mitai@MIT.EDU>; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:49:07 -0500 (EST)
Received: from soleri.mit.edu (SOLERI.MIT.EDU [18.150.0.40])
by melbourne-city-street.MIT.EDU (8.9.3/8.9.2) with ESMTP id OAA19669
for <mitai@MIT.EDU>; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:49:02 -0500 (EST)
Received: (from jting@localhost) by soleri.mit.edu (8.9.3)
id OAA05347; Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:49:02 -0500 (EST)
Message-Id: <200002131949.OAA05347@soleri.mit.edu>
To: mitai@MIT.EDU
Subject: NBC & rape debate action
Date: Sun, 13 Feb 2000 14:49:02 -0500
From: Jantrue Ting <jting@MIT.EDU>
- ------- Forwarded Message
> FAIR-L
> Fairness & Accuracy in Reporting
> Media analysis, critiques and news reports
>
>
>
>
>ACTION ALERT from FAIR's Women's Desk:
>In rape debate, NBC prioritizes controversy over scientific credibility
>
>February 11, 2000
>
>During the last week in January, NBC news viewers had two chances to learn
>that rape is not a crime of violence but a "natural, biological and evolved"
>male behavior--and that the clothing a woman wears can put her at risk of
>being attacked.
>
>On the Today show (1/24/00), evolutionary psychologist Randy Thornhill
>insisted that "rape is a sexual act with a sexual motivation" that evolved
>as a reproductive strategy for men to pass their genes on to as many
>offspring as possible. Thornhill, co-author (with University of Colorado
>professor Craig Palmer) of the then-unreleased book "A Natural History of
>Rape" (MIT Press), warned that to reduce their chances of being raped, women
>must understand "that there are costs associated with dressing provocatively
>and going out alone at night and so forth."
>
>Watching the Today show, viewers would never know that Thornhill and
>Palmer's theory has been criticized by fellow scientists as an
>advocacy-motivated product of sloppy research, weak premises and
>insufficient data. It wouldn't have been difficult for NBC to find
>scientists who could offer a contradicting voice. Evolutionary biologist Dr.
>Jerry Coyne told the New York Times (1/15/00) that their work, excerpted in
>The Sciences magazine, was "irresponsible, it's tendentious, it's an
>advocacy article and the science is sloppy."
>
>Or NBC could have interviewed science journalist Natalie Angier, author of
>"Woman: An Intimate Geography," who told FAIR she identifies many problems
>areas within Thornhill and Palmer's work. "There is so little data here on
>which they base so much," Angier said. "Is there any research showing that
>women in miniskirts get raped more often than women in long skirts? Of
>course there isn't. He's saying it, but that data doesn't exist."
>
>In The Sciences and in numerous interviews, Thornhill complains that his and
>Palmer's writings on rape have been turned down by science journals because
>of political correctness censorious feminists within the scientific
>community. Angier offered a different reason the pair's work might have been
>rejected: "Their paper was probably turned down for the same nonideological
>reasons why so many other papers are turned down--simply because their data
>isn't convincing. The truth is that their book was not peer reviewed. The
>beauty of this type of thing is that they can say anything they want when it
>doesn't have to hold up to scrutiny... in a serious scientific journal,"
>Angier said. "They're willing to go way out on a limb on very, very little
>data, and then people like me get accused of being ideological when we call
>attention to that while they get to fall back on their scientific
>credentials."
>
>Indeed, much of the media coverage surrounding Thornhill and Palmer's
>"Darwin made me do it!" theory framed the discussion as a battle between
>angry activists and dispassionate scientists. Thornhill set the terms of the
>debate, and news outlets followed his lead, describing his work as
>controversial, provocative, and most of all disturbing to social scientists
>and anti-rape advocates.
>While a number of outlets did seek comments from other scientists, few
>offered serious scientific counterpoints illustrating research-based
>objections.
>
>This limited and leading framing was typified on Today, where Thornhill was
>never asked to substantiate his theory with data. Instead, the University of
>New Mexico professor was allowed to blithely round off his claims about the
>biological nature of rape with the assertion, "these are not debatable
>issues" (a line he favored during most of his print and broadcast
>interviews).
>
>Rather than including any response from biologists who could challenge the
>rape theory from a scientific viewpoint, Today pitted Thornhill against New
>York City sex crimes prosecutor Linda Fairstein, setting up a profoundly
>unilluminating, science-verses-law debate.
>
>As the only scientist in the conversation, Thornhill appeared by default to
>represent objective science and natural reality. When Fairstein criticized
>Thornhill for never studying rape victims or rapists, and instead basing
>much of his work on the apparently coercive sexual practices of scorpion
>flies ("This is not, professor, 'A Bug's Life," Fairstein said), Thornhill's
>response was to say that Fairstein "mischaracterized science." Thornhill
>dismissed anyone who disagrees as anti-intellectual and manipulative: "It's
>very, very tragic for critics of our approach to try to mislead the public
>about the nature of science."
>
>The Today segment closed with news anchor Ann Curry's promise that "this is
>not the last we're going to be hearing about [Thornhill's theory]. In fact,
>it's just the beginning."
>
>As it turned out, viewers didn't have to wait very long to hear more of the
>same from Thornhill--or from NBC. The next day's Dateline (1/25/00) featured
>a segment, again pitting Thornhill against Fairstein, that opened with this
>voice-over from reporter Lisa Rudolph: "For years the conventional wisdom
>was that rape is a crime of violence, not sex. Now a shocking new theory
>suggests the opposite, that it is about sex and a biological impulse that
>all men have."
>
>In another voice-over, Rudolph repeated Thornhill's assertion that he isn't
>blaming the victim when he tells women their clothing can trigger men's
>biological tendencies to demand sex by force, he's merely "suggesting the
>only way to prevent rape is to understand it scientifically." Rudolph's
>comments were bolstered by visual images capitalizing on the sensationalism
>of the story: close-up shots of women in tight shorts, and a clip from "The
>Accused," a movie centered on a graphic, brutal gang rape of a woman in a
>bar.
>
>NBC seemed more interested in stoking the controversy surrounding their book
>than examining its scientific validity. Dateline's segment was prefaced by
>the teaser, "And the big story that everyone is talking about: a shocking
>theory about rape... Is this a new field of conflict in the battle of the
>sexes?... Are all men born rapists?"
>
>Though this segment did include a brief quote from evolutionary biologist
>Jerry Coyne denouncing Thornhill and Palmer's theory as "bunk," Dateline
>never posed any questions that could illuminate whether or not their work
>has scientific merit. Instead, Rudolph ends her report by telling viewers
>that their book, when it is released, "will likely fuel the debate over
>whether it's irresponsible runaway science or a frightening insight into
>human behavior."
>
>Irresponsible science or frightening insight into behavior? That's an
>interesting question. Too bad there was so little actual scientific debate
>in the two NBC shows supposedly devoted to answering it. In the typical
>"science in one corner, feminism in the other" paradigm so often favored by
>the media, Today viewers received a whole lot of hype and very little
>information on which to judge this contested theory.
>
>What Thornhill and Palmer received as a result of this type of coverage (by
>NBC as well as in the national and international press) was much more
>tangible: MIT Press capitalized on the book's PR hype by moving its
>publication date from April 1 to February 1. An MIT Press representative
>told FAIR that as of the first week in February, the initial print run of
>10,000 copies has already sold out, and at least another 10,000 copies have
>been ordered.
>
>ACTION: Want to know why NBC devoted so much air time--and so little
>scientific scrutiny--to a dubious theory that women can reduce their risk of
>rape by dressing conservatively? Ask them. Express your concerns to:
>
>Dateline NBC
>corespondent Lisa Rudolph: dateline@nbc.com
>Fax: 212-644-7073
>30 Rockefeller Plaza
>NYC, NY 10112.
>
>Today Show
>news anchor Ann Curry
>mailto:today@nbc.com
>30 Rockefeller Plaza
>NYC, NY 10112
>
>Please "cc" your letters to Jennifer Pozner, Women's Desk Director, FAIR,
>at: mailto:jpozner@fair.org
>Fax: 212-727-7668
>
> ----------
>
>
>Feel free to respond to FAIR ( fair@fair.org ). We can't reply to
>everything, but we will look at each message. We especially appreciate
>documented example of media bias or censorship. All messages to the
>'FAIR-L' list will be forwarded to the editor of the list.
>
>Also, please send copies of email correspondence, including any
>responses, to us at: fair@fair.org .
>
>Feel free to spread this message around. Put it on conferences
>where it is appropriate. We depend on word of mouth to get our message
>out, so please let others know about FAIR and this mailing list.
>
>Don't miss a single e-mail from FAIR-L.
>
>You can subscribe to FAIR-L at our web site:
>http://www.fair.org/emaillist.html
>Or, you can send a "subscribe FAIR-L enter your full name"
>command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
>
>The subscriber list is kept confidential, so no need to worry about
>spammers.
>
>
>You may leave the list at any time by sending a "SIGNOFF FAIR-L"
>command to LISTSERV@AMERICAN.EDU.
>
>Please support FAIR by becoming a member.
>You will receive FAIR's magazine, EXTRA! and its newsletter, EXTRA!
>Update. You can become a member by calling 1-800-847-3993 from 9 to
>5 Eastern Time (be sure to tell them you got the information
>on-line) or by sending $19 with your name and address to:
>
> FAIR/EXTRA! Subscription Service
> P.O. Box 170
> Congers, NY 10920-9930
>
>
> FAIR
> (212) 633-6700
> http://www.fair.org/
> E-mail: fair@fair.org
>
>list administrators: FAIR-L-request@american.edu
>
>------- End of Forwarded Message
>
>
>
>
>
- ------- End of Forwarded Message
------- End of Forwarded Message
