Not sure why the headline says sexual misconduct when the allegations pretty clearly describe rape. Misconduct makes it sound like someone expensed the wrong line-item.
To minimize the claims?
I suspect so many people have made such avocations of minimizing sexual assault in general and rape in particular that it’s seeping into the narrative just as they wanted it to. Which isn’t to let the LA Times off the hook. And I’d give equal odds an editor - my very possibly wrong understanding being that editors usually write the headlines - was covering their own ass. But recognizing and pointing out rape apologist psy-ops is the first step toward defeating them.
ETA: Also not to give the LA Times a cookie just for doing the right thing, but it certainly feels like something fundamental has shifted when people as powerful as Weinstein and Simmons are losing some of their protection in major media outlets. It’s too soon to celebrate. But I have some hope things are really beginning to change.
Absolutely. I’ll say it’s certainly seeped into the discussions here for sure.
Let’s hope so.
Not surprised and not even ‘disappointed’ in Simmons; he’s always seemed kinda creepy to me.
That said, it’s yet another sign of how shitty ‘the status quo’ really is.
It may be different in America to here in Australia, but it’s usually sub-editors who write the headlines (if there’s any left after the decimation of the industry, that is). They make the article ‘fit’ in the available space, check for typos, decide how many decks of headline, what the headline states. Editors check for factuality, that it’s written to house style, that it all makes sense, that there’s no unsupported claims, etc etc., before the subbing process. That said, it may be that to satisfy the legal team, all that was previously written/subbed has been watered-down or even re-written to cover the paper’s arse.
TL;DR: Writer/journalist/reporter > editor > sub-editor > possible legal check > publish. There may be additional steps along the way, such as returning to the writer for clarification/correction, returning to the editor and subs, etc.
Thanks. Good to know. One reason I also linked the author’s Twitter (her tweet showed up in my feed this morning which is how I found out about it) is that I figured there was a much longer pipeline to get any updates or corrections into the story.
Updates, not much of a longer pipeline. Corrections, often yes because of potential legal issues with articles such as this.
This topic was automatically closed 30 days after the last reply. New replies are no longer allowed.