AVP and the Sunday Mirror

Two Coronation Street stars investigated over 'four-in-a-bed romp with two underage girls'

 

Rather than bore you with explaining the AVP in the above article, that the media sometimes reports like this, here is the e-mail I have sent to The Daily Mirror. I have also raised this with the press complaints commission - lets see what (if any) response I get. Knowing Ryan Parry from previous complaints, I will receive either nothing at all, or an e-mail asking me not to waste any of his time on complaints like this.

Anyway - here goes.

"Hi,
 
I have as you will have known, desisted from e-mailing you regarding your continued (but not quite so much) use of the trivialising way that you describe indecent images of children.
 
However, I must complain about the disgusting way that the above story has appeared in Sunday's Mirror.
 
2 points -
 
Firstly the way that the girls are merely described as under aged (before you point out to me, I know they are) rather than as children. Someone seeing a headline about underage girls would assume that they are within a couple of years under the age of consent - not somewhere between ten and twelve years old. These should not be described as "underage", but as children - as children are exactly what they are.
 
Secondly and more importantly, the choice of words by the Mirror "Four in a bed romp".
 
Please - even the Mirror must know that this sort of statement implies some sort of steamy orgy - a mutual sexual consent between all four parties. Reading a headline describing a four in a bed romp, should be best left to some celebrity gossip column, a "Sunday Sport" special maybe, an article in NUTS or ZOO - but never to describe 2 Corrie stars being allegedly caught sexually abusing two 10-12 year old children.
 
I would be very grateful for a reply this time - I realise the last e-mail I received from Mr Parry advised me that I was wasting too much of his precious time by e-mailing him my concerns, but child abuse is a serious issue and should never ever be trivialised and downplayed in the manner you are doing. This has to be one of the worst headlines to describe alleged child abuse I have seen in a long time.
 
Many thanks"

Not holding my breath - it's bad for my health!

 

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 6 - "Historic"

"Historic" Abuse?



 

Continuing on my "AVP theme, a short but brief posting on what seems to be an all too common term used almost daily by various media outlets. The term being "Historic abuse".

 

 

Consider the following three recent articles relating to crimes that were committed some time in the past:

 

Roman Catholic priest, 66, and 71-year-old man charged with historic sexual abuse at children's home

 

 

Jersey's historic abuse investigation put on hold

 

and

 

Crime that will not be be forgotten

 

 

The first two articles referring to firstly the child sexual abuse at Grafton Children's home during the 1970s and 1980s, and secondly the Committee of Enquiry into decades of child abuse committed in various Jersey's children's homes. The third article referring to the murder of Tuula Hoeoek on New years Eve 1966.

 

Now, why the difference in headlines?

 

Is this a deliberate ploy to diminish this type of crime, or is this the usual "AVP" that the media continually churns out?

 

Cynically I cannot help but wonder if it is deliberate - why does the media (not just Jersey's) always refer to any child abuse investigations involving crimes committed a matter of years ago as "historic", and any other crimes committed as what they are, without the word "historic" - even ones committed further back in time?

 

I will leave readers to read this guest posting on Voiceforchildren to find out. Originally I had forgotton this Guest posting and was looking for Tom Perry's blog posting on this subject, however I have been unable to find it. As an adult survivor of child abuse, Tom puts the specific reasons far better than I can, so without further ado, here you go.

 

Thanks go to Tom and VFC for this publishing

 



"Historic" Abuse? A Guest Posting From Tom Perry



 



Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 3 - "Affairs"

A brief posting tonight, on another way the media downplays the crime of child abuse.

Definition of affair by The Free Dictionary

"A romantic and sexual relationship, sometimes one of brief duration, between two people who are not married to each other."

 

Teacher jailed for affair with schoolgirl

 

 

 

The age of consent in the UK is 16 (Age of consent).

 

Call me picky, but when I think of the word "affair", I think of an extra-marital sexual relationship between 2 adults who are not married to each other (one or both being married to other people).

 

The key word here, being adults.

 

Not children.

 

If someone has unlawful sex (rape) with a child, it is classed as "sexual assault - it's a criminal offence".

 

Not an affair.

 

In the above story, the "affair" began when the girl was 14.

 

So still a child.

 

This way of reporting is another inaccurate and prejudicial term that is extensively used by media worldwide.

 

Why is this so often described as an "affair" by the media, instead of what it actually is - "Sexual Assault"?

 

What do victims think when their lives have been ruined by sexual assaults by adults, seeing their abuse being downplayed and trivialised in the media, by having it described as merely "having an affair"?

 

"Accuracy of language is one of the bulwarks of truth" - Anna Jameson.

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1, "Indecent Images Of Children - a follow up"

Following my first post, (Media Prejudice), now that we all know that images and films of child abuse and child rape should never be referred to as any sort of "porn", the question now is what exactly should they be called?

Legally (in the UK and Jersey at least) they are referred to "Indecent Photographs of Children" (Protection of Children Act 1978, UK Sexual Offences act 2003, and Protection of Children Jersey Law),  so if we want to be 100% accurate, we should always be using this term. However these laws only relate to the UK and Jersey - there is a big world out there, a world that in many places uses the term "child porn" not only in it's media, but in it's laws as well.

From a personal perspective, as these images and films depict either the sexual exploitation (at the lower end of the copine scale), or actual sexual abuse (mid to high end of this scale), I would use the term "child abuse images". This term covers both ends of the scale, actual abuse and abuse of privacy of the child. Whilst some images may not portray actual abuse, having a collection of images in the lower end of the copine scale for self-gratification and distribution by paedophiles would be considered in itself a type of abuse for the vast majority of people - especially if your image was in amongst such a collection.

Calling these "child abuse images" (shortened to "child abuse pics") would also help the media in another way. A lot of the replies I have received, particularly from the BBC, state that they only have a certain number of characters that can be used in a headline and "indecent images of children" simply would not fit, meaning that they prefer to use "child porn". Whilst personally I think that this is just a poor excuse, calling them "child abuse pics" is a much shorter and snappier way of describing this crime.

My challenge ( to the UK at least to start with) is to stop using this phrase. People have been highlighting this for years now, and so far it falls on deaf ears in far too many cases. Listen and try to understand views like this. Listen not only to people like myself who have not had to live through this hideous crime, but from actual victims of this crime who have had to grow up being re-abused continually by seeing their abuse described as "pornography" by prejudicial UK media organisations.

Child abuse is exactly what it says... child abuse, and a visual recording of this should be described the same.

Not Pornography.

Media AVP (Anti Victim Prejudice) 1 - "Indecent Images of Children"

Having spent a bit of time thinking about a relevant article in the media that best describes how not to report the crime of downloading / making indecent images of children, one tabloid immediately came to mind. Not that I am singling this particular paper out, but out of all the UK tabloids, this one uses the term that I am highlighting in this post, namely "child porn" on almost a daily basis.

My journey into the hell that is internet child porn

I wish the media would stop using this phrase. In reality, these are images of children who have been sexually exploited or abused - "crime scene photos". Using this phrase trivialises this crime hugely by labelling it as just another type of porn. We already have "food porn", "car porn" "poverty porn" - indeed anything and everything can be labelled as "porn". Should we be trivialising pictures and videos of child abuse by labelling them as just another "porn"?

Expanding on this a little, it could be said "yes", however we really need to be asking ourselves, would any normal person refer to these images and films as porn? My guess would be no, we wouldn't. Pornography is defined as "the explicit portrayal of sexual subject matter for the purposes of sexual arousal and erotic satisfaction", however the only people who would actively look at these images and describe it as such are paedophiles. Why should the media use such paedo-friendly language in their reporting - facilitating and helping paedophiles somehow justify their crimes? Answer - they shouldn't and they need to stop!

And what of people who have been abused and filmed? How do they feel having their abuse described as porn? Did they consent? Did they get paid to produce these abuse images and films for the sexual gratification of paedophiles? Of course not, and I am again taking a well educated guess that most take great offence having their abuse described as "porn".

Despite the fact that most child protection agencies actively discourage the use of this term, it is frustrating and disappointing that the media refuses to accept the prejudicial way that they report this crime.

The NSPCC state "The term child pornography remains a legal term in many jurisdictions and is commonly used in the media. However the NSPCC favours the term "child abuse images" as the NSPCC considers that to refer to images of child abuse as "pornography" detracts from the seriousness of the crime by implying that there is consent from the children involved and that it is neither abusive or harmful"

The IWF state "Please note that 'child pornography', 'child porn' and 'kiddie porn' are not acceptable terms. The use of such language acts to legitimise images which are not pornography, rather, they are permanent records of children being sexually abused and as such should be referred to as child sexual abuse images" (IWF).

The Phoenix Post state "Calling Indecent Images of Children ‘child porn’ is deeply offensive to the victims, it undermines their justice and recovery, it facilitates the paedophiles denial and helps them and the perverts to sell what are in fact ‘crime scene images’ on their own dark online market" (The Phoenix Pledge)

The excuses that I have been given by the various UK media are inexcusable and ignorant. Apart from the few that took time to think and see sense, the rest need to wake up and 'smell the coffee' I will be publishing some of the responses in my comments for you all to see.

As a post note, one paper has been particularly good in listening, hearing and taking action, and that is the Guardian. Not only did they agree to stop calling these images "porn", they went as far as to amend their style guide to reflect this as well (Guardian and Child Porn), one day it would be good to see all the UK media taking this stance.