The Stuebenville Rape Victim Either Wanted It or Brought It On Herself, Says Todd Akin President of Local Chapter of NAACP

Of course. From the IBT.

Royal Mayo, a lifelong resident of the Ohio city that gained national infamy following the rape of the girl by two Steubenville High School football players, says that attention should be focused on the role of the young woman, whom he calls the “alleged victim,” saying she was drunk and wanted to go out with one of the football players. He also claims that other teens involved in the incident were let off easy, because they were “well-connected.”

...

In a phone interview with the International Business Times, Mayo described the 16-year-old girl as the “alleged victim” and said she might have been having consensual sex. “She said her mother brought her to the party, at 3 o’clock, with a bottle of vodka,” Mayo said. “Where did you get it, young lady? You brought it from home? Where’d you get it? You came to the party with your mother.”

Mayo added that she might have been a willing participant, apparently unfazed by the inflammatory nature of such statements. “They’re alleging she got raped; she’s acknowledging that she wanted to leave with Trent. Her friends say she pushed them away as she went and got into the car, twice telling them, ‘I know what I’m doing; I’m going with Trent,’” Mayo said.

The Media will not report this, of course, because it tends to discredit the Democratic coalition, by association.

Wouldn't this demand some coverage, given that Todd Akin's remarks had flooded the airwaves during campaign season? But that would assume the media decides which stories to run based on news-worthiness or neutral standards, an entirely false assumption.

The media picks which ancillary political stories to champion based solely on one criterion: Whether they discredit, indirectly, the conservative cause.

The Media's game is despicable. Their "ethic" of pretend objectivity means that they do not address issues head-on, honestly. If they were to honestly object to, and argue against, Republican/conservative positions, two good results would flow:

1, they'd be outing themselves as far as political bias, which would be honest, and informative for their viewers.

2, the argument being honestly joined, with the positions of the various partisans (including those of the press) plainly identified, a rational conversation could be had.

But they don't do this. Which leads to the Worst of All Possible Bias Reporting -- rather than honestly attack Republican positions through argument, they instead seek to discredit them by a welter of negative reporting on the various sins and gaffes of Republican personalities. They do not join the argument honestly, but dishonestly, and not frontally, but from the side, by feigning neutrality on the position under discussion but making sure that every wart on every Republican face is magnified 100x.

Todd Akin's rape comment is worthy of endless repetition, and not just in Missouri, where it was relevant, but across the nation, to discredit each and every other Republican running in each and every other race, including the Presidential one. The endless repetition was intended to, and did in fact manage to, discredit all other Republican office-seekers. Note well: It did not refute their positions, but it discredited them personally.

Imagine an alternative world where the media was still biased, but honest: In such a world, the media could, rather than running this game in which they endlessly regurgitate negative reporting on Republican gaffes and scandals (both real and contrived), they could simply take ten minutes at the end of every news-hour to offer their opinions and beliefs candidly, and make honest arguments about the issues they care about. 50 minutes of straight reporting, unbiased; and then ten minutes of honest, out-in-the-open partisan agitation.

Because their "ethics" supposedly prevent them from openly taking a side, however, they instead inject their opinions into all 60 minutes of every hour. Todd Akin's views on rape are endlessly reported to discredit his entire party; this NAACP president's odd views on rape are never spoken of, not even a single time, by the liberal establishment media. (IBD, which reported this, is not liberal establishment media.)

In law this technique is called "collateral attack" -- you're not challenging the actual issue head-on, because you can't (for example, because you have forfeit your right to challenge it by missing a filing date) but instead mount a logically unrelated attack on your opponent, hoping to achieve the same goal as a frontal attack would have. Different tactic, different argument, separate logic -- but mounted for the same goal.

The media is nothing but collateral attacks all the live-long day, because "ethics" supposedly compel them not to make any frontal ones. (And this "ethic" incidentally is a corporate code created to maximize profits by withholding the organization's actual partisan bias from the public and thus permitting it, in theory, to appeal to every possible partisan in the entire universe of potential news viewers. It does not exist to better inform the public; it exists precisely to keep them less informed. It does not exist to keep reportage free of bias; it exists to keep reportage full of stealth, unacknowledged bias, a much more potent method of propaganda than straight-ahead argumentation would ever be.)

It's dishonest and cowardly and shameful.

You cannot trust someone whose first words to you are a blatant lie. And the media's first, second, and last words to you are lies.

posted by Ace at 12:52 PM

| Access Comments