I have seen multiple people say they do not like single source stories (by which they mean, instances where later stories are copied from another story), and this sticks in my craw for sexual assault stories, because this requires that victims of sexual assault speak to multiple reporters.
Doing it once is incredibly hard. They will ask you lengthy questions poking at a traumatizing subject. They will read all your correspondence. They will talk to your friends about what your friends think about it.
They will also, by the way, want exclusivity until their story drops.
Not everyone is comfortable speaking in their own words about what happened. Not everyone has a platform to be heard on. Victims who speak up publicly get sued—not all of them can afford to get counsel to vet what they’re saying twice.
I personally find this to be a pretty horrific standard, and I’m begging people who claim it to be reasonable to think about what you are demanding of victims.
I’m also linking Kathryn’s transcript of the first podcast: the transcript makes accessible a first-person description of what happened.
bsky.app/profile/kath...
I have listened to and transcribed the first episode of the Tortoise Media podcast series "The Allegations Against Neil Gaiman." This is NOT a certified transcript and should not be relied on for legal or journalistic purposes without confirming with original audio. drive.google.com/file/d/1Ql2b...
Thank you for going through the pain of explaining this, and I apologise because I was one of those people. I have learned from your remarks and will seek to do better.
Yes, to all of this. And there’s also the reality of the public reaction to deal with. People are already picking through the testimony looking for things they can use to deny the assault happened and suggest the victim had consented.
Yes. Christine Blasey Ford has apparently just written a book about the traumatic impact of disclosure. I read a very thoughtful compassionate review of it last night.
I suspect people are saying this bc they don’t want to believe it’s true in *this* case, and this is not a standard they would normally hold stories about sexual assault to. But I’m so frustrated at the amount of equivocation happening here… it’s appalling.
Of course it’s everyone’s prerogative to be critical of what you read, but casting doubt publicly on the words of the victims, often without even having heard or read THEIR WORDS, or demanding higher and higher thresholds of proof, strikes me as irresponsible if not nakedly cruel.
Wait, is that what that means? Followup stories should look elsewhere, build on the interview, not be more interviews.
Waiting for corroborating information makes sense - we should do it for EVERY breaking story. Withholding belief until the same survivor gives repeated interviews is just cruel.
