World gone mad, day eleventy billion

[sigma7]

Challenge: try to explain the arrest of Henry Louis Gates and the resulting kerfluffle -- culminating in the beer summit -- to someone who hadn't heard of it, without having to interrupt with "I'm not kidding, this really happened" whenever you pause for breath. But you have to, to get the full effect of Cambridge Cop Accidentally Arrests Henry Louis Gates Again During White House Meeting.

rewil brings word that Mr. I-Don't-Photoshop Except When I Can Get Away With It has released an...essay? I guess? I suppose it's to respond to the allegations against him, but it's hard to tell. It's one of the most obnoxiously pretentious and still somehow content-free pieces of shit I've read in a long, long time, so it's worth it for entertainment value and reinforcing the validity that any additional energy expended upon this "artist" is entirely wasted except as a cautionary tale to others, or possibly as an exercise in either steel-reinforced denial or merely merrily prancing about with the English language before beating it to death with the sledgehammer of the tortured misunderstood artist.

EA's not releasing its annual incremental roster patch for its NFL game for the PC for the second year in a row. I smell a spite-torrent or two. Pity Red Alert 3 wasn't worth seeding.

When the rape allegations regarding Ben Roethlisberger (oh God I can type that from memory now) surfaced, I skipped through my usual parade of web sites, pausing when I hit ESPN, thinking they just hadn't filed their story yet. No, as it turns out, they've taken a most curious stance toward the civil case re: Roethlisberger: speak no evil. It took the self-proclaimed worldwide leader in sports 48 hours to casually mention that there are allegations against the Super-Bowl-winning quarterback, and had any other story simmered in the background for two days, ESPN would kick itself for not covering it. ESPN's half-hearted defense is that the allegations are too weak to merit coverage and that ESPN doesn't cover civil suits -- but even a casual observer will remember allegations with similar if not equivalent levels of veracity trumpeted by the network against Kwame Brown or Larry Johnson. And if you do make the mistake of talking about Roethlisberger on ESPN airwaves, don't worry, they'll correct you soon enough. Is this a network just wanting to keep the premiere sports franchie (and business partner) and one of its brightest stars happy? Or just another manifestation of rape culture?

For the record, that last link explicitly says that suggesting the accuser may be a "lying gold-digger" is rape culture. Maybe I'm missing something, but to me that's just healthy skepticism -- I don't think leaping to a conclusion in either direction suits anyone at this juncture, and if someone wants to paint me with a brush of condemnation for not immediately grasping their standard and waving it frantically, then I guess I get painted. But that's another, much larger can of worms -- removed from the accusations themselves is the issue of ESPN's coverage of them, or lack thereof. It's inconsistent with precedent and its own mission as a purported newsgathering organization, and ultimately it damages their brand (unless they choose to go the route of so many cable channels and change their mission, from sports news to sports entertainment -- and cynics may well ask what the difference is and if that hasn't happened already). To report on allegations as allegations and not foregone conclusions shouldn't threaten Roethlisberger, the Steelers or the NFL, but it's a pity ESPN chose to capitulate. It's not discretion, it's cowardice, and no institution is better served by such.

Comments

[vulpisfoxfire.livejournal.com]

'Rape culture', today's buzzword? Personally, I'm with sigma7 on this..it *isn't* a simple situation. In a better world, where the majority of people were honest...then I'd be behind you all the way. Unfortunately, all too many people have learned they can abuse the system and make false accusations in order to get paid off (which digusts me due to it causing the very disbelief that causes problems for the real, legitimate rape victims) --so there's a place and need for healthy skepticism towards *both* sides of the issue these days. :-/
You could be right and it's a cut-and-dried rape case. Others could be right, and she *is* a gold-digger just out for money. Or, it could be more complicated than that--say, she *was* raped, but only decided to pursue the issue later when she realized the money she could get, not out of justice. Or, possibly, this is an incredibly inappropriate marketing ploy by this guy's PR engine to get his name in the news and they're *both* lying. Given the stunts EA has pulled lately, I wouldn't be surprised. :-/

[patchsassy.livejournal.com]

The two things that jump out at me is - A, she already knows what kind of cash she wants to get and it's hideously lower than what most try to get out of famous people. And B - he's Ben Roethlisberger and as jupiter9 pointed out, he can sleep with anyone he wants to. Why would he force himself on a woman who doesn't want to have sex with him when there were most likely many, many other women in the hotel who would have been more than willing to have sex with him?

The thing with this being filed now is there's no proof, so it's going to turn into a case of "he said, she said." There was never anything mentioned about her seeking medical attention after the initial contact.

[jupiter9.livejournal.com]

Way to misread, people. I didn't say "he could have anyone" to suggest that she's lying. I said that people will say "he could have anyone," to suggest she's lying.

But in literal fact he can't. For example, he can't have me (happily married). He can't have any number of women who don't know who he is, don't care who he is, find jocks revolting, are gay, are in a relationship, don't like his type, are morally opposed to premarital sex, don't have sex on first acquaintance, and so on.

"Anyone" wasn't in his hotel room that night. There was no pageant of women who wanted to have sex with him. The plaintiff was. It was her or no one, or maybe her or incall, and maybe he chose her, even though she didn't want to, because it was better in his mind not to have to pay for it, because "he could have anyone."

He might in fact get off on it being someone who doesn't want it.

Or maybe he was horny, didn't score with whoever he was trying to score with that night, felt the plaintiff would acquiesce because she was nice to him, and didn't want to accept a "no" because, well, he's so special he shouldn't have to.

Or maybe he literally thinks no one would turn him down and a "no" is just a coy way of saying "yes."

Not seeking medical attention: often happens when you just want to scrub it off you and try to forget it ever happened. Then later you realize that scrubbing it off doesn't really remove the disturbing feelings and you can't just forget it happened.

She "knows" how much money to ask for because when you go into civil court you must sue for a specific dollar figure. You can't just say, "I'm suing you for no specific amount." She and her lawyer sat down and figured out what she spent on therapy, what it will take to support her while she can't work while on trial, and so on. She is suing for damages.

If she were asking for 50 million, would you think her case was better because she asked for "enough," or worse because she is now "obviously" trying to get rich? Is there a "right" number that would suggest she's not making it up?