Now that’s “Entertainment”?
|
Posted by Jennifer L Pozner November 3rd, 2007 |
Fresh on the heels of Reuters’ continued failure of journalistic ethics (as WIMN’s Voices’ own Melissa McEwan describes here, the wire service yet again placed two stories about rape in their “Oddly Enough” section), comes another glaring example for our “Miscategorized News” files, this time from United Press International.
On November 1, UPI reported that MTV’sVincent Margera, known as Don Vito on “Viva La Bam,” was
“convicted on two counts of sexual assault on a child for fondling the breasts of two girls — one 12 and the other 14 — during a photo op and autograph session at the Colorado Mills skate park last year…”
According to UPI, upon hearing the verdict Margera threw a tantrum in the courtroom, knocking down his female defense attorney, flailing himself on the ground and cursing up a storm… not exactly brimming with remorse:
“‘I didn’t (expletive) do nothing. You can rot in (expletive) hell,’ yelled Margera…”
So, where did UPI choose to place this crime story? In the entertainment section, with the word Entertainment in bold, red letters right at the top of the piece.
You know, because sexual assault of young girls is oh so entertaining.
FYI, to put this in perspective, this means that a headline about a media personality molesting junior high school girls ran sandwiched in between headlines from the same week such as, “Mulder, Scully reunite for ‘X-Files’ film,” “Exhausted Meat Loaf shortens U.K. concert,” and “New Spice Girls video to debut on Web.”
NOTE: Have you seen examples of miscategorized news? Women In Media & News wants to know. Either post the headlines or blurbs from stories (with links/attribution whenever possible) to the comments section below, or email your examples to info[at]wimnonline[dot]org and we’ll help you hold the outlets responsible accountable.
November 4th, 2007 10:03
That is seriously messed up.
November 5th, 2007 07:44
… although … when sports celebrities get convicted of crimes, that tends to get reported under “sports”, too, without (I think) implying that the crimes are sports. I think the rationale is something like: This crime wouldn’t be national news, except you already have an interest in this individual because you’re reading the “sports”/”entertainment”/whatever section, so here’s where we’re reporting it.
I can see the concern, though, that the context is just too trivializing for such horrible things.
I’m trying to think about other analogies, and I’m not sure. When scientists, religious figures, etc. commit crimes, are those reported under “news”, or under “science”, “religion”?