"Excuse me miss?"
You have probably heard about this, but pop-star Chris Brown was arrested Sunday night for allegedly attacking a woman. He is currently out on bail. At first there was speculation as to whether the victim of the attack had been his girlfriend Rihanna. Most newspapers protected her identity as they would any victim of domestic violence. The LA Times decided to run her name as the victim of the crime.
R&B singer Chris Brown has been booked tonight on suspicion of making felony criminal threats in connection with an incident involving his girlfriend, pop singer Rihanna, according to Los Angeles Police Department sources familiar with the case.
Is it OK that they ran her name? Celebrity culture currently thrives on depicting the stories of women's demise. We have seen this with Amy Winehouse, Britney Spears, among others. There is an obsession with making spectacle of women. So, all the more reason to keep her name out of the initial press materials.
On the other hand, Rihanna is really famous and one would hope that she has the resources and support to deal with a situation of domestic violence. She is a model to young women and they are affected by how she responds to this problem. This is a tremendous amount of pressure for anyone, let alone a young woman who is a victim of domestic violence. So it is the double edged sword of fame. She has the power and influence to make a statement, get the help she needs and take whatever legal means she needs to. But what if she doesn't want to? What if she doesn't have the support she needs? There is a strong possibility she will be demonized by the media as well. When the mainstream media covers domestic violence, it is generally not on the side of empowering women, but instead how the legal system victimizes men.
I had a conversation on my facebook about this with some of my friends and one of them said, "what if she doesn't want to be the posterchild for DV?" I think this is an apt point. What if she doesn't want to become the spokesperson for this issue? Is it already not traumatic enough about what happened, let alone have it happen in front of millions of people watching?
I think this so sad for a variety of reasons. Rihanna is a model for young women of color who statistically have a close relationship with violence in their communities and historically a lack of access to resources. Chris Brown is a role model for young men of color. What do we tell our youth when our stars are plagued by the same realities they face in their homes? This startling example lets us know that it doesn't matter how successful you are or how rich you get, you can still be a victim of a violent assault at the hands of a man. I am almost scared to see how this will play out in the media.
0 TrackBacks
Listed below are links to blogs that reference this entry: The media reminds us, famous women have no right to privacy..
TrackBack URL for this entry: http://www.feministing.com/cgi-bin/movabletype/mt-tb.fcgi/11886
There are so many reasons to hate the LA Times..... this is just one more for my list. Either they didn't do any ethical thinking at all and ran her name in the same way we repeat rumors as if they are confirmed.... OR they just don't care one bit about her privacy.
Either way...
So far the media response seems to center around "image" - as in, will this tarnish Brown's image as a good, clean guy and will it help Rihanna's image because she looks like the victim (although not everyone thinks this way - a female coworker was insisting that Rihanna must have done something to set him off, as if there was ever an excuse for violence). It does seem as if people are taking the accusations seriously - Wrigley's dropped him from their advertising and the news reports I've seen have written about the severity of the assault rather than trying to downplay it as the rantings of a hysterical woman. The LA Times certainly should not have run her name - although the tabloids would have speculated that it was her, they still should have protected her privacy unless she chose to come forward.
I thought that as soon as I found out. I almost feel guilty for knowing about it. It is so personal. We do not know the exact facts. Their are so many rumours going on.
And this whole "we dont know what Rihanna did." It just burns me. Sets me afire. As if women have something within them that they can just set a man off where he has no responsibility for his phsycial reaction. I dont care how much someone is talking trash, cursing all that good shit. I dont even care if someone hits you. YOU make the decision to retaliate, walk away, whatever. Let's not take the responsibilty from someone. Its ridiculous. I hope BOTH of them are okay. Chris Brown's mother was physically abused by his stepfather and I think its so sad that he may be continuing the cycle of violence. I think its important that he gets help. Seriously.
Also, I also think we forget how young these people are...so young. And as far as them being role models for the Black community...I just hope this is dealt with in the proper manner. *sigh*
i never understood why the ID alleged victim is protected but the ID of the alleged assailant is not. the crime hasn't been proven so why does the assailant have to live with the scarlet letter, no matter how the matter turns out.
That's the first media report I've seen actually using her name, and I think it's terrible that they did. I'd even seen one media source explaining the rationale behind not releasing victims' names, and I was heartened by that.
The internet responses to this attack have been both scary and promising. I do feel like for every "But he's my favorite singer, he seem so nice, Rihanna is just controlling and pissed him off," I see a response smacking them down and calling it domestic violence and saying that it's not acceptable.
No, it's not ok that they used her name, unless and until she decided to come public. Celebrities should have all the rights to privacy anyone else does.
However...
This is true, but it's not the whole truth. Celebrity news thrives on spectacle of any kind. Yes, this is often self-destructive women, but also includes self-destructive men (OJ Simpson, Tom Cruise); sexual or romantic spectacles (Jennifer Aniston and Brangelina; Bennifer Affleck/Lopez); and on and on.
Image, on the other hand, is a very important part of celebrity culture. Being on the "a-list" is worth many millions of dollars, and what those celebrities do off camera is an intimate part of their position in the court of public opinion. That is why so many celebrities retain public relations specialists.
And, one never knows. Rhianna may have leaked her role; the details of public relations are often subtle. If she thought it would improve her image, she might well choose to leak it rather than proclaim it. It will inevitably come out eventually.
...and frankly, I have other things on my mind right now. Yes, this will have in impact on the perception of women, particularly women of color; but the stimulus package will have far more impact on the lives of women, particularly women of color, so if you care about it, get on the phone and call your senators and house representative (especially if they are Republican) and tell them to put back the funding for medicine, education, and state funding. The conservatives are actively harming everyone in the country, especially the underprivileged, and there really is something you can do right now to influence it. Make the call, write the letter.
Look what those bastards axed:
http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/7/21448/79390/963/694659
Oh, god. I just hijacked the thread. Sorry -- ignore me. Don't respond to this. But please, if you care at all, call. Here's how:
http://www.visi.com/juan/congress/
I've already seen at work the effects on teens who look up to these young people. I did a teen dating violence presentation last night for a group of teenage girls and one of the first things they said when I explained we'd be talking about relationship violence was "you mean like Chris Brown and Rihanna?" We then had a decent conversation about the situation, ranging from "I didn't think he'd do that" to "Rihanna should leave his ass," which led perfectly into "well, what makes you think he wouldn't do that? do we always know who will and won't be absuvie?" and "well, what are some reasons people stay in abusive relationships."
So, as much as I abhor the fact that this happened, it ended up being a useful tool to make the issue seem more real to them.
Side note: the fact that Chris Brown is 19 and Rihanna is 20 makes me feel very old.
I think what is significant about this case is that the reaction has been different from other high profile cases of DV where the victim is not famous. In those cases, nothing happens to the perpetrator, it all disappears and has no effect on his career.
In this case, people feel they "know" Rhianna, that she is somehow their friend or family. This makes it unacceptable that Brown would have done this to her. People are outraged because "their" Rhianna has been hurt.
It will be a big day when an annonymous victim inspires the same outrage.
It certainly makes me uncomfortable to see news outlets using Rihanna's name, as well as to see coverage that talks about the recent rumors that she was controlling/clingy/etc. Yes, if Chris Brown was involved in an incident of domestic violence, people will assume that it was his well-known girlfriend and people will speculate on his "motivation" (as if domestic abusers have real motivation), but that doesn't mean real media organizations should be getting in on it.
I agree with Mama Mia, however, that this is an interesting case study in people knowing a celebrity's victim. High-profile actors, musicians, pro-athletes, etc are charged with domestic violence and sexual assault all the time, but it rarely recieves much media attention and when it does, the perpetrator's fans often end up taking his side or explaining it away. In this case, since Chris Brown and Rihanna share fans and are equally famous, that's not as easy for people to do. It will definitely be interesting to see how this all pans out.
This is a concept that is completely foreign to us Swedes.
Over here, the standard policy for media is to never ever name anyone connected to a crime in the mass media, unless there is very good reason the public needs to know (like if it's a politician or other public servant that is doing the bad stuff). This policy extends not only to victims (where it is absolute, victims are never named), but also to the culprits. If this story had appeared in a Swedish newspaper, it would not have said "Chris Brown arrested for illegal threats", it would have said "Famous music star arrested for threats" or something like that (of course, when it comes to celebrities, the name will often leak out, but you wont find out who it is by reading the papers).
I remember even in the weeks after the assassination of Anna Lindh (most of you probably don't remember this, but in the early morning of September 11, 2003, a very bad date, our wonderful foreign minister died after having been stabbed the day before), the press was very, very reluctant to release the name of the primary suspect (who was in fact guilty). One reason was that before they had arrested him, they arrested an other guy, who turned out to be innocent. What if this new guy was innocent too?
The first (luckily) wasn't named, so no one knows who he is. The second guy was, and fortunately he was the guilty party. But even in this moment of deep national trauma, the press held off.
The reason for this is that it's not the media's job to destroy lives. If a news outlet names someone in connection with a crime, that guy's life is essentially over. Doesn't matter if he's guilty or not. It will follow him for the rest of his life, it will never go away. I think this is commendable, and I'm really proud to be living in a country where this is standard. I think it's horrific that Rihanna was named in this incident. The event alone is enough to handle, you don't need to be scarred for life by having the entire world, every person she'll ever meet know the intimate details of something very traumatic that happened to her. That's just wrong.
"Over here, the standard policy for media is to never ever name anyone connected to a crime in the mass media ... I think this is commendable, and I'm really proud to be living in a country where this is standard."
Why do I have to live in such a backwards country? I feel like you guys are living in Star Trek and I'm stuck here in the Beverly Hillbillies.
thats nice to know. i know understood the double standard of naming the "culprit" but not naming the "victim."
The first thing that I would like to say is, I no longer have a creepy old woman crush on Chris Brown (because unfortunately I did before). Next, I work in DV and I know exactly what kinds of questions this is going to prompt. Whenever I tell people my line of work they always ask "Why are those women weak?", "Why do they stay?" "Why do they put up with that?". The one question I've NEVER been asked is "Why doesn't he stop brutalizing his partner?" And again, the same things are getting asked in this situation.
Also, apparently Wrigleys ended their contract with him, but just yesterday I saw the gum commercial with him in it airing on a major channel (during the Tyra Banks show, HMM). If Michael Phelps loses his endorsement contracts for hitting a bong at a party, and I still have to see this kid on a commercial the day after he viciously assaults his partner there is something wrong with that.
I don't know about anyone else, but I am really struggling with this case in general. On one hand, I am outraged and understand the importance discussing how this might impact how young people of colour see intimate partner violence. HOWEVER, the legal/political student in me is stuck, because we are ALL assuming that Brown is indeed guilty. And as fas as I know, and continue to believe, he is innocent until proven otherwise.
How can we rectify these two different ideas...supporting Rhianna in case she did experience intimate partner violence, but not running out and condemning Chris Brown before he has been proven guilty?
According to the accounts I heard, he was beating her outside his car standing on a public street and a passerby called 911. That's enough presumption of guilt for me.
Normally I'd say no, but I'm kind of glad that they ran her name. If they didn't, the tabloids would keep running it into the ground and would NOT have covered it well.
Incidentally, this is one of those situations where reading comments will make your head explode more than usual.
I live in Rihanna's home country of Barbados and it is very painful to see and hear the reporting on this issue.
Barbados is a small island and Rihanna is the first (and only) local artist to reach the level of acclaim and popularity she has. We are not at all used to seeing one of our own talked about in the international media in this way. As a Barbadian, it is very hard to watch. I want to tell the world to leave my countrywoman alone. I want her to come home, away from the glare of the international media that sees her as a product rather than a person.
Regarding the question posed by clarityinprint, while I understand your concerns about Mr. Brown's rights under the law, I think we can give him the benefit of the doubt AND recognise the injustice that has been done to Rihanna by her attacker and by the media.
Though the circumstances are unclear, it seems pretty clear that a young woman was brutally assaulted. She identified Mr. Brown as her attacker and I must give her the benefit of the doubt as well.
Our young sister deserves our support as she begins the process of healing.
This situation is as predictable as it is regrettable. 44% of all students will have been in an abusive relationship by the time they graduate from college.
FORTY-FOUR percent!
As reprehensible as Mr. Brown's actions are, hopefully it will help to increase awareness of this problem. Just last week was National Teen Dating Violence Awareness and Prevention Week but little mention was made of it in the mainstream media. Protect yourself and those you care about by sharing the information about Teen Dating Violence.
Three years ago, on February 15, 2006 my 18-year-old honor student daughter was murdered by her ex-boyfriend. It's too late to save her, but hopefully not too late to save those close to you.
Drew Crecente
Executive Director, Jennifer Ann's Group
http://www.JenniferAnn.org
To be honest, as much as I think it sucks for her, that's what celebrities are paid for. It's not like Rihanna (or any other celebrity) is such an exceptional talent that their talent alone deserves millions while almost everyone else in their line of work is barely making rent. They're paid to be spectacles. If she wasn't making unholy amounts of money off of people wanting to see her/hear her/read about her/etc. I might feel a bit more empathy when the attention becomes unpleasant.
So if, say, a newsperson or sports figure or high-profile lawyer were to be substituted for the performer in this case, you would still feel less empathic than if a 'regular' person were the victim?
I don't feel less empathy for her as a domestic abuse victim than I would for a "regular" person. But when a celebrity makes millions of dollars from being in the spotlight all the time, I don't feel all that sorry for them when the spotlight shows something they'd rather it not. This applies to anyone who makes their living off of positive & negative attention.
What I have also been frustrated by in this situation is that few news sources that I have read are actually calling it what it is, domestic violence, most are just calling it "assault." There is also not much of a discussion that Brown himself witnessed domestic violence as a child, and children who have been involved/witnesses domestic violence are much more likely to become an assailant.
Never thought I'd say this, but MTV has to be given props for running this story http://www.mtv.com/news/articles/1604622/20090209/story.jhtml about it and calling attention to the greater issue of domestic violence more than this specific case. It's not perfect and goes into details that it shouldn't in the beginning, but it at least addresses the issue and relates it to it's audience.
I think it's very interesting that you would parse calling DV assault as a bad thing; for years a great deal of feminist thought/works (around here at least) centered around DV being called "assault" because "domestic violence" as a term lessened the impact.
That said, and with the acknowledgement that domestic violence is a terrible thing, I hope that this incident DOES start a dialogue regarding awareness of teen and young adult dating and domestic violence.
I wasn't aware of that debate. I should have specified why I found it a problem. I work at a domestic violence shelter and many of our educational elements make it a point to differentiate DV from assault because of the different factors involved- in the relationship of those involved, (sometimes) in the length of the problem, but also the effects of DV.
I wasn't aware of that debate. I should have specified why I found it a problem. I work at a domestic violence shelter and many of our educational elements make it a point to differentiate DV from assault because of the different factors involved- in the relationship of those involved, (sometimes) in the length of the problem, but also the effects of DV.
My bad.
The terminology debate is an ongoing issue in the DV community. I agree that "domestic violence" may lessen the impact of the crime for some, but changing the national language is challenging at best. That said, I do not agree with simply terming it "assault." Assault is a crime that happens out of anger and out of a loss of control, while DV crimes happen within a controlled context of patterned, coercive behavior. I'm partial to Kathleen Ferraro's term: intimate partner terrorism. Because that's exactly what it is.
Additionally, the legal aspect of the conversation cannot be ignored. Assault has specific penalties under the law, while dv assault has (and should have) different penalties. If I hit someone in a bar, I might be sentenced to anger management. If I hit my partner, I'll be sentenced to a batterer's intervention program.
Role models for young black people? Why on earth are pop stars role models at all?
And why for black people in particular?
"Cause they're black, duh!" doesn't really adress what this.
From a legal standpoint, Rhianna is considered a public figure because she is a famous pop star. First Amendment law basically allows a newspaper to print information about public figures because it's assumed that they have a voice due to their popularity. Most private individuals (or your average DV victim) do not have this kind voice and so their identity is protected.
I am not saying I necessarily agree with this, but there is some rationale for the Times being able to print her name. I also question whether there would be any doubt as to who the victim was anyway, but then again I really have not been up on celebrity news so perhaps there would have been some question had her name not been printed.
For more information see: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Public_figure
Yup! You are completely right. It doesn't matter whether you feel bad for her, you think it's wrong or tactless. Think and feel what you want, but it's called freedom of the press. She is a public figure whose aim was to be a celebrity, therefore privacy laws are vastly different.
There is complete rationale for printing her name. Is it shitty? Yes. But is she a public figure and is it totally legal? Yes.
I've been really upset how much the media was focusing on how bad this is for Chris Brown and how this is going to hurt his image. All of the radio and blogs were all "oh man Chris Brown is screwed!" as if that was a bad thing. I was pissed over it because this isn't like Michael Phelps and his pot-smoking - I just have no sympathy for Brown and whatever may happen to his career. I know some of that feeling is very personal and I know that people are interested in what repercussions he will face professionally, but it was still hard for me to hear. It's not that I want the media to focus on Rihanna, but I just think that she's the person we should be feeling for right now. But I guess they have to talk about something, and the less speculation on her (cause it is just going to head into this alternating rhetoric between what she did to deserve it and painting her as some kind of extreme victim/spokesperson) the better. Ugh, it all just sucks.
Word is in that it happened because he found it she purposefully gave him an STD.
What I don't like is how they're now spreading this "you just never hit a woman, period" piece in every single reporting of the "STD" thing.
They're very focused on promoting that "women are small inferrior creatures that need special protection".
Violence = bad.
Violence toward someone weaker than you = very bad.
It's not cool to hit anyone, but if they're in a position to hit back, at least you're putting your own ass on the line. As women do tend to be physically weaker than men (not all women and not all men, but when a gender that's culturally pressured to be tiny and malnourished goes up against a gender that's culturally pressured to be big and muscly, that's usually what happens), it's particularly not cool to hit them. If a guy was beating up another guy half his size, I'd think that was just as cowardly.
I think its dangerous to real domestic violence victims to start talking too early about ALLEGED attacks and painting the accused as the bad boy. Think of Tyson. Turned out he did not beat his wife. Think of Magnum, turned out she was not the victim she claimed to be.
If activists try to act as Judge and Jury by putting pressure on the courts portesting for an outcome instead of waiting for the course of justice to unfold it does not sit well with many people.
There are enough victims of assault with an confirmed convicted agressor deserving of attention. One should stay away from the alledged ones, the risk of the boomeranging back in your face is just not worth it. Lets leave the alledged to the professionals and focus on confirmed perps.
What do you mean it turns out Mike Tyson didn't beat his wife? Where did you hear this? Because I never heard such a story. In fact, I heard quite the opposite. Robin Givens said over and over he was extremely abusive and nothing ever came out to prove otherwise. He was also tried and convicted of rape in 1992.
And I have no idea who this Magnum is that you are talking about.
Okay nevermind about Tyson, what about the other cases where people took it to the street pitchfork style only to find out she lied.
Crystal Magnum the woman who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players of rape.
Leave the alledged this and that to the professionals, untill you have a sentenced perp. The 2 or 3 dozen times where it turns out it was all bogus hurt more than bringing the 30 40 times to attention when it was not bogus.
Cassius,
In the Duke Lacrosse Team rape case, we had a poor African American sex worker accusing 3 wealthy overprivileged White males of rape.
Did they actually rape her?
We'll never know for sure - because their privilege kicked in, they got bounced from jail, THE PROSECUTOR WHO DARED TO INDICT THEM GOT FIRED, DISBARRED AND JAILED and the poor woman's character got dragged through the mud in public.
Are the Duke Lacrosse boys guilty?
Unfortunately, thanks to the intersection of class, race and gender privilege, we'll never ever know.
Okay nevermind about Tyson, what about the other cases where people took it to the street pitchfork style only to find out she lied.
Crystal Magnum the woman who falsely accused the Duke Lacrosse players of rape.
Leave the alledged this and that to the professionals, untill you have a sentenced perp. The 2 or 3 dozen times where it turns out it was all bogus hurt more than bringing the 30 40 times to attention when it was not bogus.
Being a 'victim' (I don't like that word) of domestic violence doesn't obligate Rihanna to be a 'poster child' of domestic violence, unless she wants to be one. The fact that it is possible for her to take this all in stride and go on to continue being successful in her career should be example enough.
I think Rihanna can handle a little publicity about her personal issues. She did write "breaking dishes." She must have given permission for her name to be used-- and it is widely known that she is dating Chris Brown.
I don't think that censoring the facts here is going to help progress at all -- just as I don't think ignoring Britney Spears or casting her off as totally incompetent and the victim of "spectacle-makers" will help either.
The media plays a great role in the social and cultural identity of a certain locality. A lot of celebrities, as expected, are being arrested these days due to drug use, intoxication, scams and frauds. Another celebrity who is also in jail right now is Antwon Tanner, who is known for his role on One Tree Hill. He's known for his moniker "Skills," but the skills he's going to have to learn is how to get along in prison. Antwon Tanner has been busted for running a Social Security scam, selling fake social security numbers. Evidently no installment loans could cover his needs but regardless, he was found out and arrested by Immigrations and Customs officers. He is set to begin trial at a later date, and he is currently free on bond. Antwon Tanner will need some installment loans now to afford a lawyer good enough to keep him out of Federal Prison.