When News Becomes Voyeurism

By WILLIAM A. HENRY III

Live cable coverage of a rape trial redefines journalism

The words that came into millions of American households last week told a story as tawdry as any soap opera, in language sometimes more explicit than any prime-time series: "I put my hands inside her pants and she unbuttoned her button . . . The two of us fell to the floor. She was laughing, I was laughing, I started pulling her pants. She was willing . . . Three or four--I don't know--people were around ... I heard from behind me for us to go to the pool table."

But the speech was testimony, not dialogue, and the courtroom melodrama could claim the legitimacy of a news story. The account came from one of six Portuguese immigrants accused of the gang rape of a young woman on a barroom pool table in New Bedford, Mass. Two weeks before, the alleged victim had described equally vividly a far different version of the same scene, in which she was forced into intercourse, but fought off oral sex, while the bartender and some patrons looked on but did not summon the police.

The trial of the accused rapists--actually two separate proceedings, both held in nearby Fall River--has been carried live, often gavel to gavel, on local cable and radio outlets, and nationally for two to three hours a day on Cable News Network. On most days CNN has accorded the case air time comparable to that given the confirmation hearings of Attorney General Nominee Edwin Meese or the Democratic presidential campaign. The network's executives say that they are covering the trial for its news value and to educate the public about how rape victims are treated in court. But CNN cuts away to other news during routine evidence, then lingers over lurid recollections of the incident, leading critics to wonder whether the trial is being turned into a sensational public entertainment.

CNN has aired a libel suit by Carol Burnett against the National Enquirer and a slander suit by California Physician Carl Galloway against CBS's 60 Minutes, but this is the first time it has aired a criminal case. Said CNN President Burt Reinhardt: "The network is devoted to allowing viewers to make their own judgments, rather than assessing news events for them." The intense attention to the gang-rape trial is a subject for debate, however, even within the staff. Says one writer: "Let's face it, they are running the trial because of its sexy nature. I do not think any of us is so naive as to believe that ratings are not a factor. And ratings are up." CNN executives counter that the ratings boost may be offset by the costs of live coverage. Still, the network's formula is working: Atlanta Entrepreneur Ted Turner announced last week that his empire had made a profit last year for the first time since he launched CNN in 1980.

Opinion about CNN is divided among its major network rivals, which have run news stories about the trial but little of the explicit testimony. Says Executive Producer Steve Friedman of NBC's Today: "If you can broadcast hostages being taken, you can show these trials." ABC's Nightline, however, aired a critical discussion of CNN's live coverage. Said Correspondent Betsy Aaron: "These trials have become spectator sport."

One of the proceedings went to the jury late last week, and guilty verdicts were handed down against two of the defendants, Daniel Silva, 27, and Joseph Vieira, 28. Local news organizations--many of which have assigned women to cover the trial--have kept their reportage generally restrained. But an interview with Defendant Victor Raposo in the Boston Herald has caused a ruckus in and out of court. When Reporter John Impemba questioned Raposo for three hours last August, he worked for the Standard-Times in New Bedford, which declined to publish the story. In February, Impemba was hired by the Herald, and within a week the story was splashed on Page One. Standard-Times Editor James Ragsdale accused Impemba of "journalistic thievery," and Bristol County District Attorney Ronald Pina won a court order that could force Impemba to hand over his notes from the interview or face a potential jail term.

Television cameras were first permitted in American courts in Colorado in 1956, and are now allowed, with varying restrictions, in some 38 states. Debate continues about whether the public's right to know outweighs the intrusive and potentially disruptive impact of television coverage on a court proceeding and its principal participants. The problem may be particularly delicate in rape cases, because the victim is often stigmatized, both by the assault and by defense strategies that portray her as a ready partner. Says Stephanie Roth of New York Women Against Rape: "Going through a rape trial can be like going through a rape again.'' Many attorneys and social activists claim that the intense national focus on the New Bedford trial has discouraged women from pursuing rape charges. Says Philadelphia Judge Lisa Richette: "This woman is being subjected to vivisection. She is just being torn apart."

In recognition of such arguments, a number of newspapers and TV and radio stations decided, before the trial began, not to carry the name of the alleged victim. But Rhode Island's Colony Communications, which is supplying video coverage to CNN and to New Bedford-area cable channels, aired the name because, an executive said, the company lacked the technical ability to bleep it out when it arose in testimony. As a result, the Fall River Herald-News and the Providence Journal and Bulletin in Rhode Island published it. Said the Providence papers' Executive Editor, Charles Hauser: "Once the name was being aired for hours on end, there was no reason for us to withhold it any more.'' --By William A. Henry III. Reported by Joyce Leviton/Atlanta and Timothy Loughran/New York

With reporting by Joyce Leviton/Atlanta, Timothy Loughran/New York