It’s Time to Erase the Moving Dot

Follow the bouncing blotch.

The judge has ordered that TV pictures emanating from inside the West Palm Beach, Fla., courtroom not show her face. Court TV, a cable network providing pool coverage, has complied by obscuring her with a computerized mosaic. CNN, ABC, CBS and NBC have turned her into a human eclipse by covering her face with a large gray dot. Local news shows and syndicated tabloid programs have followed suit.

Yet occasionally during CNN’s live coverage of the William Kennedy Smith rape trial, the alleged victim’s head moved faster than her dot when she was testifying, giving viewers a fleeting glimpse of her face. So about 6:45 a.m. Thursday, more than an hour into that day’s coverage, CNN’s large gray dot became a larger blue blur. Later that morning, the blue blur shrunk.

At this stage, does it really matter?

First, some context: It’s true that by withholding names of rape victims, the news media contribute to the unfair taint of disgrace that surrounds these women. It’s also true that the lesser of wrongs, so to speak, is to let the victim make the call about whether to disclose her identity publicly.

Thus, until she testified this week, it was proper to avoid naming the woman who has accused William Kennedy Smith of raping her. Precisely because of the nature of the alleged crime and the stigma attached to rape victims, the media had an ethical responsibility to honor this woman’s request for anonymity. That was the case even after her name was disclosed by tabloid newspapers in England and Florida, then last April by NBC News (which also ran her photograph), and then by the New York Times.

Even then, because the woman still had not fully gone public, a strong case could be made by the rest of the media for continuing to shield her.

But now, surely, it’s proper to apply the spot remover.

The woman (whose name I cannot cite here because doing so is against The Times’ policy) has testified extensively in open court. “She has to sit there in that room and face the jury and the prosecution in a real way,” said Victoria Toernsing, a former assistant U.S. attorney general, assessing the trial on Court TV during a recess.

And while testifying, the alleged victim is wearing no disguise. She has been seen--undotted and unblotched--by members of the public and the media, both inside the courtroom and as she enters and leaves the court. Millions of viewers have seen her on TV from the neck down (and occasionally facially). They’ve heard the accusation of rape from her own mouth. They’ve heard her sob. They’ve seen shots of her from the rear walking outside the courtroom.

They’ve also heard her name, if they’ve been watching NBC. Although CNN, Court TV and the other networks have continued to delete the alleged victim’s name from their coverage, “NBC Nightly News” continues to name her.

At this point, why not? Isn’t it time for the media to end their witness protection program when so little remains to be protected?

Although it showed her picture eight months ago--when it shouldn’t have--NBC has curiously refrained from doing so in its trial stories this week, when it should.

“We used her picture the first time because that was part of that day’s story (about disclosing the woman’s identity),” an NBC spokeswoman said Thursday. “What we’re reporting this week is the actual testimony.” NBC’s decision to show the alleged victim’s picture in the future will be made on a “case-to-case basis,” the spokeswoman added.

In justifying the network’s broadcast of the woman’s name and picture in April, NBC News president Michael Gartner said: “The more we tell our viewers, the better informed they will be in making up their minds about the issues involved.”

This credo would seem to be especially applicable now with regard to showing pictures of the woman. Thus, while NBC denies it, it’s possible that after getting so much criticism for earlier running the alleged victim’s picture as well as her name, the network is not using the picture again because it now is gun-shy.

Meanwhile, try this possible scenario:

Smith is acquitted and all appeals have been exhausted, leaving the alleged victim with no legal standing. If she reappears on TV, does she still get her gray dot or blue blur even though her charge has been rejected in a court of law? Is her name still withheld by the preponderance of the media? Is her anonymity a lifetime appointment, and Smith’s future--even if he is found not guilty--a lifetime of stigma?

The irony is that something as sad and tortuous as a rape trial--and an alleged victim wearing a dot on her shoulders--should make such mesmerizing TV.

By watching gavel to gavel and later comparing the news coverage, you are able to witness for yourself how inadequate a few dramatic TV sound bites are when it comes to conveying the tone and essence of the proceedings.

The best source is Court TV, which debuts in the Los Angeles area Dec. 16 on ATC Cablevision in Canyon Country (where I was given a preview Wednesday).

Court TV clusters commercials. Because its business is televising trials, it doesn’t interrupt testimony in the Smith trial for commercials or commentary, even though chief anchor Fred Graham--a former legal reporter for CBS and the the New York Times--and his colleague, Gregg Jarrett, are especially skilled at drawing information from guest attorney commentators.

CNN deserves credit for even attempting to provide near gavel-to-gavel coverage. But watching its coverage is an exasperating experience, given the network’s propensity to break continuity by repeatedly interrupting at dramatic moments. Mostly, the interruptions are for commercials.

Typical was a critical moment in Thursday’s cross-examination involving the alleged victim’s pantyhose on the evening in question. CNN cut to a four-minute commercial break. When it returned, there was its reporter on the scene, Charles Jaco, as always welcoming viewers back to West Palm Beach as if he were with the Chamber of Commerce. Then, instead of immediately cutting to the courtroom for more of defense attorney Roy Black’s cross-examination, CNN had Jaco ask its attorney analyst in Washington, Greta Van Susteren, to assess Black’s performance. Simultaneously in the courtroom, he was performing.

At times, there has seemed to be almost as much instant, minute-by-minute scorekeeping on Black and the alleged victim as there was televising of them. Just as irritating is the way Jaco has talked down to viewers by repeatedly telling them Black is attempting to “establish inconsistencies” in the story of the alleged defendant. This is a revelation? Or later, this carefully couched statement about Black and the alleged victim: “It would appear he is trying to pick holes in her testimony.” Yes, good thought.

Another good thought: Keep the blue blur and put it in front of you-know-who.