And making her Facebook posting central to the story suggests that it was in some part her fault. Classic victim blaming.

Jessica,
At the risk of being called a troll, this is the exact same complaint that Glenn Sacks often makes about domestic violence against men.
-Jut

Jessica, I agree completely. As always, they focus on the "interesting" not on the "important".

"And making her Facebook posting central to the story suggests that it was in some part her fault. Classic victim blaming.
Posted by Rachel_in_WY"

Could you explain that further? I don't see many people blaming her for being murdered because she changed her FB status to reflect the fact that she was single - he'd moved out. It makes him look extra psychotic, if he claims THAT was the last straw.

Jut Gory, please point me to where in this post or anywhere on this blog Jessica or any other blogger on this website has claimed that domestic violence against men doesn't exist. And yes, your attempt to derail the thread by interjecting baseless claims to distract from the subject at hand is indeed trolling.

The BBC, of all people, should be better than this.

I am very disappointed in them.

He abused her and then murdered her - that is the language we should be using here. To call domestic violence and murder a 'Facebook Crime' seems like an attempt diminish the severity of the violence. And, while I understand that the BBC is just looking to write traffic-attracting headlines, after all the stories about 'its what you posted on Facebook that ruined your career / swayed the jury against you / etc.,' I'd have to agree that this headline seems to imply that the the woman's murder was somehow prompted by something she posted on Facebook - which is untrue.

Blitzgal,
That was not an attempt to derail the thread.
It was an attempt to point out that the media has blinders on, in general, when it comes to talking about this issue.
If I am a troll for trying to finding area where MRA's and Feminists can find consensus about a COMMON problem, then I guess I am, because that is what I was doing.
-Jut

I agree with Habladora--calling her murder a "facebook crime" is just like calling a rape an "incident." These labels weaken the devastation they cause.

grumpgirl.blogspot.com

I agree that this should not be addressed as a "Facebook" crime. Her husband was an abuser and the fact that they mention she changed her status, almost implies she was wrong, when she was not.

I don't think that the article is implying that she was in the wrong by changing her status - I agree that it really just makes the guy seem crazier.

But.

It does demonstrate that the media has this stupid way of looking at the internet instead of the crime. It reminds me of their coverage of internet bullying. IT IS JUST BULLYING. Focus on THAT, please, not the fact that it happens through email and MySpace. The bullies would still be bullying without email there to facilitate them - I know this, I WAS bullied by this group of girls in the 6th grade, long before anyone had email addresses. Sure, it's easier to harass someone online than to their face since it requires less courage, but the internet does not turn the problem into something new and sparkly.

In the sentence, "A man has been jailed for life for stabbing his wife to death over a posting she made on the social networking site Facebook," the word 'after' is more accurate if we're just describing the chronology of events. Or adding that the claim came from the perp rather than stating it as a fact. But journalists, in general, suck when it comes to using words carefully.

alixana: "Internet bullying" makes sense as a title because it happening over the internet, which changes how it needs to be handled. This didn't happen over the internet, it happened in the real world, so it's not an internet crime or an internet problem.

Brianna G, you're right that the internet only served as the vehicle for the abuse in one case, but when it comes to journalism, the media ignores the crux of the abuse and focuses on, "The internet! Look at how the internet played a part!" As I said, as someone who was bullied in the 6th grade, all the articles I've read on internet bullying (out of interest in handling my future kids' potential bullying better than my mom handled min) don't relate anything different than I endured - I just got notes in my locker instead of emails! - but they treat it as a different phenomenon and act like the internet is the problem. The internet is not the problem. Changing her status on Facebook did not make this woman's husband kill her. The internet does not cause bullying that wouldn't exist without it. But the media misdirects.

it's really pathetic how everyone wants to blame myspace, facebook, youtube, and other websites for people's actions. people do things because it's in their head, not because of a certain change on someone's profile.

aleks, of course there aren't many people explicitly blaming her for it, just like nobody these days explicitly blames a rape victim for dressing in a sexy way. Imagine if an article said something like this: "Ms. X, who was dressed in a short skirt and low-cut top, was sexually assaulted after spending the evening drinking with friends." It would be obvious to everyone that the author was implicitly blaming the victim, because this is an issue that has gotten a lot of attention, thanks to feminism. Putting the two together implies that her action led to his. If the author didn't think this had some relevance then why would they include it?

Here's another example. Imagine I said this: "after eating a Granny Smith apple she went into labor and delivered a small but healthy premature baby." You'd wonder what eating an apple had to do with premature labor and why I'm such a dumbass that I think there's a causal relationship there, right? Moral of the story: don't state things that are not relevant together unless you intend to imply some relationship between the two.

I'm not trying to troll, but I would like to understand more.

I can see that making her facebook status central to the article (despite being mentioned very briefly in the actual body) implies victim-blaming, which is obviously bad.

What I don't understand is why calling it a "facebook crime" is dilutive / why calling it domestic violence is in any way more accurate. Or maybe, why calling it violence against women would be more accurate than simply calling it a murder. In fact, the very first words seen on the page are "Man killed wife in Facebook row". From what I can understand in reading the article, it doesn't attempt to downplay the fact that he murdered her, and they even emphasize how brutal and violent it was. My point is, it doesn't really get worse than murder -- so why is a "violence against women" angle necessary?

@ Merk:
It's because using "facebook/myspace/youtube" as an attention grabber is gimmicky.

Merk,

Part of it is, in the police investigation, the police are probably not caring too much that a Facebook profile was involved in any way. The perp is babbling on about this, but the police are probably saying, "Okay, this guy killed his wife, blah blah blah."

But then the media says, "HEY, look, FACEBOOK!" They don't say, "Man kills wife" (which is what it is, the end). The readers are all, "Gasp! She changed her Facebook profile and he killed her!" That's not the shocking part of the story, the shocking part of the story is that the man killed his wife. The media isn't focusing on the really problematic part of the story, and it's a shame, because the media has a lot of power to make people concerned about things. So instead of being concerned abotu domestic violence, people get concerned about Facebook.

Merk,

I think I get where you're coming from, but calling it "domestic violence" or part of society's/men's* "violence against women" connects this single case of murderous violence to the rest of spectrum of interpersonal/domestic violence. Part of the problem is that people focus on idiosyncratic details like "Facebook status" and fail to connect this crime to a larger picture of a social acceptance of men's* violence against women.

*predominantly, of course women are violent at times too, and GLBT relationships aren't immune to DV, but for the purposes at hand "men" is quite appropriate

Suggested reading: "Framing Domestic Violence Fatalities: Coverage by Utah Newspapers." Conducted by Cathy Ferrand Bullock of Utah State University.

http://www.accessmylibrary.com/coms2/summary_0286-32454722_ITM

Abstract: "This study explores the framing of one year's worth of domestic violence fatality coverage by newspapers in Utah, which are embedded within a strong patriarchal culture. Deductive and inductive framing analyses were used to identify the primary content-related frames and determine whether coverage included views that challenged patriarchy. Most coverage portrayed domestic violence fatalities in ways that supported patriarchal institutions. However, a small group of articles acknowledged domestic violence's roots in patriarchy and men's subordination of women, confirming that mainstream newspapers can and sometimes do publish views that challenge the dominant ones. This coverage may help point to ways to reframe coverage of domestic violence fatalities."

Of course it trivializes it. When I hear the term "Facebook crime" I think somebody hacked somebody's page and posted something libelous, or maybe stole a bunch of personal data from the company's servers. I don't think "brutal murder by abusive husband."

Rachel_in_WY,
I see what you're saying, but if I read the article correctly the murderer said it was because of Facebook. The murderer's weird sensationalist claims regarding motive are definitely "news". If the woman in your example were Angelina Jolie so her giving birth was "news" and she attributed the birth to eating the apple, that would be reported as well.

If I murdered my buddy Joe and as the cops were dragging me off I shouted that it was because he didn't list me as a Top Friend, they'd report that too. *I'd* be blaming the victim, as I imagine the perpetrator generally does, but the newspapers would just be reporting what I'd said.

@ libdevil- that is exactly what I thought too. In fact, I skipped over *this* post twice because of that.

I'm really conflicted over this. While I agree that domestic violence shouldn't be trivialized and should be identified, I don't really have a problem with the article.

I agree with aleks' last post, because the article attributes the motivation to the man. The reason for killing the women was not the reporter's opinion, it's the opinion of the murderer.

Also, the judge calls the the murder a "terrible act" with "no excuse or justification". THAT sounds like the opposite of victim blaming. It might be sensational, but facts are facts, and the facts paint the man as pretty crazy, don't you think?

However, the other article that's linked to (the myspace one) is a little ridiculous. To connect a person's angsty musings online of "I miss/will never again see my son" and to him brutally killing his wife? This guy sounds dangerous, mentally ill and like he should never have been let out of jail. To post his myspace messages seems to call for some sort of sympathy for his behavior --look how badly the system treated him, how could this woman take his child away, etc. Instead his postings should have been a red flag to anyone reading them... IF they knew his prior violent behavior.

It's kind of a catch 22 however:
Ex-con posts cryptic, but worrisome messages on myspace and no one takes notice.

Woman posts messages of freedom on facebook and husband TELLS her parents it's a problem, threatens to kill her and NO ONE TAKES NOTICE.

when should we pay attention to what we and other write online?

so like I said, I'm conflicted.

@aleks

So why do they choose that aspect of it for the headline? If a rapist reported that he had to attack his victim because of her skimpy clothing would that be an appropriate headline? Domestic violence is domestic violence and should be named correctly in the media.

Rachel, They chose that aspect because it sets it apart from other murders. There are plenty of crimes that are committed - most of which don't get reported on with very much depth. This particular crime has a WTF involved with it, which if pointed out will make people stop and pay attention to it.

And for the people who say this is victim blaming, why? Our world is driven largely by cause and effect. Event X led to event Y. Just because X is discussed - why does that have any bearing on the importance of Y.