"Two weeks ago, a woman filed a federal lawsuit against Donald Trump, alleging that he raped her in 1994, when she was 13 years old. Also named as a defendant in the lawsuit is Jeffrey Epstein, a man who has already served a year in prison for soliciting an underage prostitute, and who was recently described by Donald Trump as a “terrific guy.”
This story was first reported on June 20th by The Real Deal, a publication dedicated to covering New York real estate news. It was picked up by Gothamist, The Daily Beast, Snopes, and a few other websites. I did not learn about the case until a friend of mine shared this Huffington Post blog about it. The case was not covered in Huffington Post’s news section, nor in the news section of any major publication.
Meanwhile, I received two New York Times push notifications this week with updates about Hillary Clinton’s emails.
Has the media decided Donald Trump is just so despicable that it isn’t worth covering another atrocity allegedly perpetrated by him, while Hillary Clinton is expected to be a perfect human being, so more coverage of her emails serves the public good? Have they decided Donald Trump is just so immune to negative coverage that reporting this lawsuit is a waste of time, while another story on Hillary’s email server is guaranteed to make her even more unpopular?
Or, is giving credence to rape accusations against powerful men still socially unacceptable? (Re: Peyton Manning)"
Phenomenal question/s.
Very related: Vox on why we're going to hear terrible things about Hillary
FB: "In this country, the principle of “innocent until proven guilty” tends to serve the privileged. That principle goes out the window when we discuss accusations against women and people of color."
No comments:
Post a Comment