University of South Carolina Libraries
Sex scandal: ^ A man's view The recent sex scandals involving two congressmen have brought to light a problem that is not confined to Capitol Hill; the use of a male employer's power to obtain sexual favors from his female employes. The situation is a bitter reminder to us all that women are not yet truly considered equal to men in our society, for if they were, they would not have to yield to the sexual pressure of their employers in order to keep their jobs at a decent rate of pay. There is no way of determining how widespread this sort of thing is (statistical data on the sexual affairs of male employers is difficult to come by), but the incidence is not rare. All too often we hear of women who are pressured into "going to bed with the boss" in order to get anywhere with their career. ine employer s pracuce ui curuenug nis> leuictie eiupiuyc into the bedroom is worse than criminal. When a burglar steals a television set, the TV can be replaced. But when an employer pressures his employe into having sex with him against her wishes, he robs her of her self-respect; something that is not so easily replaced. For the time being at least, the disclosures of Washington secretaries Elizabeth Ray and Colleen Gardner might discourage male employers from taking advantage of their Vinlrv Hi it if tlin nraccnro io oil Atudrl t n nnnl r\f f Q ftor o 1111 CU Liui 11 wilt pivooui V 10 uiiunvu iu vwi un Kivv.1 u brief while, the situation will continue unchanged. Although slavery was abolished in this co'intry in 1863, many women are still the sexual slaves of bosses who hold the paycheck, like the sword of Damacles, precipitously over their heads. Two things must happen in order to right this injustice. First of all, the Equal Rights Amendment (ERA) must be ratified. It is only through a constitutional amendment that women will pvpr hflvp thp lp^al levpraee to fight their onnressors in court. Secondly, women must be willing to fight, even at the expense of their jobs, to expose those employers who use their position and power in such a dispicable manner. Of course there is another side to this issue. What about poor old congressmen Hays and Young who got their hands caught in the carnal cookie jar? . . . Let 'em fry. *$&i mm ^!^Bj^v< > v.... j/ \^v* jf^SS By J. James IV Objectivity in journalism is a phrase tossed about in obser public and in media circles as though it appeared on the parti< stones from Mount Sinai or in the Sermon on the Mount In cathp truth, a journalist who claims to be purely objective is Aft merely whistling down the wind. timei The key word here, of course, is "purely." A journalist facts who claims pure objectivity would be holding a mirror to man) events, would be attempting to be dispassionate, would be the n< attempting neutralism. That is why those who have ob- of un served the work of journalists over the years state the The problem simply as "the myth of pure objectivity." by tl When I use that Dhrase in erouDS of nrofessionals or in sitnai classes of beginning journalists, I see the familiar ex- How pressions of disbelief which meet almost any statement that whicl causes one to think. The explanation, however, is simple. jectn And that is probably why many journalists cannot accept used the idea of pure objectivity as "myth." Sto The subjective judgments which enter into handling of publi any news account are responsible for the lack of purity. I^et with us look at the development of a news story for a "imp newsoaoer?not for a newsmagazine, not for newsfilm volvt Because making the assignment to cover an event or to Wh interview an individual is a subjective judgment, the editor and I exerts news value judgment. The reporter's familiarity elem with the subject is likewise subjective. How much research the c (or backgrounding, as it were) does the reporter attempt over1 before covering a story? What preconceptions does the wher rpnorter carrv to the event? How manv times has the Ob reporter seen such an event, causing him to be less than impc Hio is at n ? in C/f**h /%+ - /.e/iy 7^4^ r<*/SC Ti VI - IcElveen icyVif <bjectivity9i vant? How closely related is the repo :ipants? How much time does the repor ir information? er returning to his desk to write the story does the reporter have to organize informa are eliminated because of the crunch of ' facts are eliminated because of the "sacr ewspaper? How much information is left < derstanding the issue or the event? 3 questions are numerous and often not evi le reader who assumes automatically tion and a vacuum in which the story migh much subjectivity is evident, for instanci i carries "value judgment mat is, ho /es and adverbs (lifts of the eyebrow or to describe the event, exceeding neutral ries are handled by editors in the next s cation. And, of course, editors were not on the person interviewed. When editors 41 rove" copy, how much news value judf ;d? What is the element of subjectivity? ten editors determine whlfre the story will tne size oi headline the story will carry, ent of subjectivity? When a news story ap ontext of other events of the day, some c whelming and receive more attention fron e is the subjectivity? jectivity in its most nearly perfect sen ?ssible, or a myth. The sad fact is that man fault? A woman's view While the public points its righteous, accusing finger at congressmen for misusing federal funds for purchase of sexual favors, it is ironic that the accomplices (in every sense of the word) in this neinous crime are me suujecis 01 sympathy?even pity. Elizabeth Ray and Colleen Gardner were pawns, so I am told, caught in the clutches of wicked, licentious employers who barter in lust. Oh, wicked, nasty congressmen! But this line of reasoning implies an attitude toward these women I'm not ready to assume?that Ray and Gardner (and frw* oimil or> rlnf ioc ^ oro minHlocc cimnorinrt ctll^ UlIICl 9 l^dHI 1171 OllllllCll VIUllVO / U1 v 11UI1U1V.UU, mg women, unable to perceive the immorality of their behaviour and-or prisoners unable to refuse. Oh, poor, helpless women! But wait, Why is the public so ready to accept this pathetic view? In effect, this view of Ray and Gardner denies them the 1 ? f 1 1 ? ? - ? 4^111 tunmnn Anlif i rfnnrnnnn At* Deneill 01 Ut'lliy lllltflllgdll, mcliuic WUIUCH. v/in_y Iguuiuiiv v, VI willing complicity would prevent them from taking the obvious alternative?simply saying "No." That is, either they """ nnitio (*-!/-? lilrol^r in lioht r?f thpir rpppnt ill C 111V.1 CUlUlJf naive MIUi, unvij ?? ?. v.v/.. . statements) or they agreed to the arrangements, until, in Ray's case, exposure would promote sales of a book. Yhe latter description is the accurate one. Once Ray and Gardner discovered what the "rules of the game" were, they agreed to the arrangement. "Consenting adults," I think it's called. Perhaps, in the amoral atmosphere of Capitol Hill, they lost their moral perspective, but I give them more credit for intelligence than that. So, fine. The congressmen involved were wrong, ineir behaviour is reprehensible. But let's not be too quick to excuse the "second party" in the deal?Ray and Gardner. If congressmen are caught with their hands in the carnal cookie jar, well, that's sad. But, if the jar lid is open and one smart cookie lurks within ready to sell her wares, then who's to blame? Let them all fry. ____________ _ he Gamecock ewpoint is purely a myth rter to the cease understanding the myth of pure objectivity at this ter have to point. They believe that these subjective judgments are license to present information without accuracy, balance, , how much fairness and thoroughness. tion? Which Here we turn to the goals of the responsible journalist, time? How This person tries to achieve accuracy, balance, fairness ed cows" of and thoroughness to the greatest degree possible, con 3ut for want sidering all the subjective judgments and problems which arise in covering a story. *n imagined Thus, we arrive at what many of us think objectivity a purity of means to today's journalist. Obviously it cannot mean t be written. holding a mirror to events. Certainly, However, it does J, in a word mean bringing to the assignment a certain amount of w many ad- passion which must be filtered in the writing. smirks) are Furthermore, the neutrality of the reporter is tested on ity. every assignment as familiarity with surroundings and teps toward with background increases. The overwhelming problem to the scene or the reporter is learning how to respect facts, how to give an correct" or honest and complete report. The myth of pure objectivity *ment is in- does not permit the reporter to overlook information purposely. Instead the myth of pure objectivity increases the be displayed reporter's consciousness of doing n inh what is the pears within )f which are Fd. note: Mr. McElveen is a professor at the College of ) the reader, Journalism. Faculty Spotlight is a column which will appear regularly on the Viewpoint page. Faculty members ise, then, is interested in writing on current topics dealing with their y journalists field can contact the Gamecock at 777-7181.