« Shooting the Messenger » does not help anyone

Should a reputable newspaper talk to sex offenders? If, in what form? These are serious questions that can be filtered out from the wave of indignation on social media about the « word » criminal reporting last week.

For the background: the call to the accused was part of an ongoing research. What the journalists received in response was remarkable for other reasons. After internal advice, the « word » has published statements so that the reader can understand how the perpetrator stands for his deeds. For some, the statements were too much, for others there were too many open questions. We apologize for the triggered discomfort.

Journalism is intended to map reality and provide the reader information in order to form their own opinion. At the same time, the heading « self -image of a sex offender » shows that it is neither the views of the journalists nor the editorial team, but rather condemned the subjective perception of a first instance.

Journalistic is required to check statements, that is, to name which statements can be proven or not. Official statements and unchecked statements must be identified as such. The « word » does that to the best of our knowledge and belief.

The « word » has classified the fact that the perpetrator does not think of the victim in context, as well as a previous one Word articles The question raised how the perpetrator could have contact with minors despite investigations.

Sensationalism, even voyeurism, did not move the « word » for research and will not be in the future either. That is part of the editorial line. The consideration of how reports on victims of crimes can work takes place in every report on a criminal case. That is why our journalists refrained from describing the acts of violence in detail.

Anonymization to protect minors in the process

Journalistic research on abuse and violence are a balancing act: the survivors, especially children, are to be kept anonymous and protecting from stigmatizing, re-traumatizing stress. That is why the « word » did not mention the name of the accused from the start, although it is a well -known person. And contrary to false claims: nobody from the research team knows the perpetrator personally. But in a rule of law, the presumption of innocence applies until a criminal is legally convicted.

From the rape process in Mazan around Gisèle Pelicot, it remains as an insight: only if the perpetrators are in focus, can the shame change the side. Only if sexualized attacks and the perpetrators are no longer taboo is there a chance to prevent the deeds. « Shooting the Messenger », on the other hand, does not help anyone.

All too often, people with inconspicuous CVs, doctors, teachers, bus drivers, family fathers are behind unimaginable violence. The reasons and excuses for their violence are often disturbing. That was exactly what the « word » contribution showed.