How should the media report sexual assault? Take Caixin's Bao Yuming case report as an example

In recent days, the case of Bao Yuming, an executive of a multinational company and legal expert for returnees, who was accused of sexually assaulting his adopted daughter Li Xingxing has attracted a lot of attention after it was reported by "Nanfengchuang" and other media. Especially yesterday (April 12) after Caixin's report "Suspicious Clouds in the Case of Sexual Assault of an Adopted Daughter by Executives" was posted online and quickly taken down, many people were discussing the media performance in this case, and many members and friends sent In emails, some people asked, "How to do a good job of reporting on sexual assault? Especially when minors are involved, how to make a good report that is not novelty, can accurately convey information to readers, and is accepted by readers?" Some people also asked "Writing The reporter's circle of friends said that girls' stories will have personality, etc. Is it wrong from the perspective of the reporter's profession?"

In today's newsletter for members of the News Lab , we will talk about the media's performance in this case so far, focusing on the analysis of Caixin's report.

Reporting principles of sexual assault

Reports of sexual assault incidents have been discussed many times in previous member newsletters (see member newsletters 120, 182, 204, 226, and 228 for details), so I will not review them in detail here. In summary, the most important reporting principle in sexual assault cases is to recognize the widespread power asymmetry between the perpetrator and the victim (this asymmetry is often related to gender, age, identity, status, etc.), China should consciously fight against this inequality, rather than maintaining or even exacerbating it.

For example, a common misunderstanding is the imagination and pursuit of the "perfect victim"-the victim cannot have flaws, cannot dress or behave in any way that shows openness, and must take all possible measures to protect his safety Otherwise, it is "to bear certain responsibilities", or even "to take the blame". This obviously puts unrealistic demands on the victim and further exacerbates the disparity with the perpetrator.

On the other hand, if the perpetrator has rich qualifications and social connections, it is easy to shape and provide a lot of information that is beneficial to him to "feed" to the media. If the media does not have enough vigilance and questioning, it is easy to fall into the problem of sympathizing with the perpetrators.

When reporting on sexual assault incidents, some media will imply that the victim actually consented in advance, but there is not enough display and discussion of the context in which "consent" arises. Whether this kind of "consent" happened in a situation of considerable autonomy or whether it was a choice made by the victim when the information and vision were highly restricted, the media does not have to judge, but they can show more More background information to present the complexity.

There are also some media that question the credibility of the victims in their reports. It is of course the most important duty of journalists to verify the authenticity of information, but in sexual assault cases, there are often inconsistencies in the accuser's dictation, because experiencing trauma often affects people's memory. Journalists should take this context into account when questioning, and not simply assume that the victim must be lying because of inconsistencies.

When reading reports of sexual assault, some readers may question: Why didn't the victim report to the police, why didn't he run away? However, due to social pressure, lack of information, fear of reprisals, etc., it is actually very common for victims to choose not to call the police immediately; even if they call the police, they will not be accepted for various reasons. The media should provide this background information for readers to understand the victim's situation.

In addition to the above principles, there is another very important principle (which is also applicable to reports on various subjects), that is: Do not make sensational reports on individual cases, but pay attention to the public value behind the individual cases.

Problems in Caixin Report

Using these principles to compare Caixin's reports, it is easy to find specific problems in the operation.

In this case, there is a huge gap in age, intelligence, social status, and economic status between Li Xingxing and Bao Yuming, so the media needs to pay special attention to this background when reporting.

First of all, compared with the first report by Nanfengchuang, Caixin's report provided a lot of material from Bao Yuming. However, when faced with these materials, Caixin did not show enough doubts. For example, why do you post around and actually propose adoption when you know you're not eligible for adoption? How to ensure the integrity and authenticity of chat records?

Secondly, for the inconsistencies in the narratives of the two parties, even if the woman refuses to be interviewed, she can still ask her lawyer for verification. Even if the lawyer refuses to interview, he can still seek evidence through a third party (such as a school) who understands the situation. The manuscript did not do enough cross-validation, and the draft was obviously too hasty.

Third, the experts and social workers interviewed by Caixin's report were basically directly involved in the case. Although they have a better understanding of the specific situation, they may also bring too much personal fetters and judgments with the parties involved. In terms of professional ethics, the social workers involved in the rescue should not disclose details to the media. Even if they tell, journalists should better interview third-party experts to provide professional opinions from a more neutral perspective.

Fourth, the writing style of Caixin's article is quite different from the boring but rigorous style of this media. For example, the much-criticized sentence in the introduction, "This is more like a story about a girl who lacked love since she was a child, seeks a sense of security from her 'adoptive father'" is a surprising judgment directly thrown out in the face of a complicated case. .

In fact, if we compare Caixin’s article with the second report of Nanfengchuang, we will find that the main information is similar—it is conceivable that Bao provided the same materials to various media outlets. However, the presentation of information, especially the choice of framing, is very different between the two articles. "Nanfengchuang" is more about listing the opinions of various parties without making too many judgments. And Caixin’s report seems to focus on questioning Li Xingxing, or in other words, it is a bit dedicated to “correcting” the first report of “Nanfengchuang”—this kind of energy can also be felt in the reporter’s circle of friends. get.

Perhaps it was this kind of energy that led to the technical errors and direction deviations reported by Caixin.

The public value that should be paid attention to in the case report

It should be pointed out that the first report of "Nanfengchuang" also has obvious deficiencies.

On the one hand, the report is too simplistic in its presentation of the incident, especially ignoring the important role in it—the possible role played by the girl’s mother. We also saw on Weibo later that the girl's mother seemed to be very satisfied with the report of "Nanfengchuang", but dissatisfied with the reports of The Paper and other media. However, in the face of such a complicated and controversial event, making one party very satisfied is precisely something worthy of vigilance. The satisfaction of the girl's mother is definitely not the military medal of "Nanfengchuang", but it probably means the problem of this article-it completely adopts one side of the narrative, and lacks investigation and reflection on the narrative.

Considering the unequal power of victims and perpetrators by no means means only listening to the voices of the disadvantaged and telling stories according to one side – and besides, the victims are girls, not their mothers.

On the other hand, the report tended to be sensational when presenting the details of the case, and did not pay enough attention to the public value behind the individual cases. Of course, in the current media environment, it is understandable for the media that "fired the first shot" to have shortcomings in this regard, which can be made up for by follow-up by other media.

For this case, where is the important publicity reflected?

One of the most core topics is, of course, how to determine rape at the legal level when a person is over 14 years old but has such a disparity in power. All sexual behavior between the ages of 14-18 is not directly identified as rape, because it is recognized that teenagers aged 14-18 are sexually motivated and have a certain degree of sexual autonomy-the so-called "Romeo and Juliet Clause" ( Initiated sexual activity between juveniles, even if one or both parties are minors, is not considered a crime). But this will inevitably give people an opportunity. How should we treat and deal with it at the legal level? This is not an easy issue, and because it is not easy, it is an important public issue that should be discussed.

In addition, the responsibilities of the police, the issue of "adoption", and the assistance of relevant governments and non-governmental organizations are also public issues worthy of inquiry.

How does Caixin deal with the credibility crisis?

Caixin's problematic report on the sexual assault case is reminiscent of the failure of the famous American magazine "Rolling Stone" in 2014.

At that time, "Rolling Stone" published a report on the sexual assault case at the University of Virginia, saying that a female student at the University of Virginia was violently gang-raped at a sorority party. The reporter did not cross-verify the girl's statement through other sources, but unilaterally accepted her description, which resulted in inaccuracies. Rolling Stone had to retract the story and faced one of its worst credibility crises in decades—a regrettable blunder in large part due to the editorial reporter's quest for provocative content.

Caixin is good at financial reporting, and its performance on the pneumonia epidemic this time is also very prominent, but it is not good at gender issues. However, Caixin has also done good reports when reporting on Liu Qiangdong, Peking University Shenyang and other cases, including this reporter who has also done many reports on gender issues before, which is even more regrettable-many reports have accumulated A good reputation can be ruined a lot by a single report.

It should be noted that the report was withdrawn shortly after it was issued that day, which shows that the editorial department quickly realized the problem of the manuscript. This evening (April 13), Caixin.com issued a statement , stating that "the report did not have enough interviews and the writing was biased." Make corrections and follow up reports."

It is the attitude of a responsible media to be able to withdraw the manuscript and issue a statement in a timely manner. Still, it would be more satisfying if the statement spelled out the issues with the story in more detail. We are waiting for Caixin's follow-up reports to make up for the damaged reputation.

In addition, what sparked public anger this time was the screenshot of the reporter's circle of friends. International mainstream media basically have regulations on social media speeches made by editors and journalists, and they will avoid such highly emotional and personal speeches—even if it is a personal circle of friends, it will be considered by people to represent the professional attitude of journalists, and even represent Caixin's attitude. This happened unnecessarily.

The mistake Caixin made this time is a technical problem and a professional problem, and the solution is a professional review. Human flesh and abuse against journalists on social media, as well as attacks on Caixin, are not helpful to solve the problem. In fact, when the journalism industry suffers from various external attacks and is overwhelmed with self-care, there are fewer opportunities for internal discussions, and such professional issues cannot be adequately reflected and reviewed. I hope that Caixin can eliminate the turmoil of the outside world, learn professional lessons from this report, and win back people's trust through more professional reports.

[Note] This article is a trial reading of the "News Lab Member Newsletter (No. 379)" sent on April 13, 2020. To read more similar in-depth interpretations of media phenomena, please click here to subscribe to the News Lab Membership Program .