https://www.npr.org/2023/07/21/1189186725/video-showing-sexual-assault-of-2-women-in-india-sparks-outrage-and-protests

I heard this interview on the radio on my way to work yesterday. The warning at the beginning was clear - this story involves the inhumane treatment of people by other people of the sexual violence variety. The interview focuses on the sexual assault of several women in Manipur, India.

It sounds like a truly horrific event, several women brutally sexually assaulted by a large mob of people. The violence stems from an overarching issue of cultural/ethnic violence between several groups over immigration and territory. There are further issues including the use/misuse of information (control of flow, disinformation, misinformation, fake news), as well as the state's inability to act in a timely manner in the face of viral social media.

The woman being interviewed describes the horrific event including a detail that two men, the father and brother of one of the sexual assault victims, were beaten brutally and murdered while attempting to intervene with the sexual assault.

I was baffled that the article was presented in such a way that focuses entirely on the sexual assault of several women by a large group, when there are many striking topics to cover. I feel that the sexual assault portion of the story is given center stage because it is most likely to outrage the largest group of people to gather the most attention to the situation.

This is indicative of several issues -

Firstly, that a story of sexual assault is being used to gather attention to a larger story. I feel that this type of reporting is effective, but is insensitive to the victims and disingenuous to the overall situation in a sensationalist sort of way. I guess this is status quo for news now.

Secondly - The interviewer and interviewee tell the story from the perspective of the sexual assault victims (i.e. the women) who had to endure a brutal sexual assault and watching their family (father and brother) murdered before them. At first it seems to just be the interviewee steering that way. The interviewer seems shocked to learn of the murders. Then the interviewer leans in to the sexual assault victims' perspective and follows up with "Why were the women singled out and attacked in this way?"

It feels insensitive, because the two men who died trying to stop this from happening feel like an afterthought - brought up only to further indicate the sexual assault victims suffering. Let alone the struggles of an entire region. Men are continually minimized and erased in the news. Even the warning at the top of the article indicates disturbing details of sexual violence. Why doesn't it also warn of the disturbing details of the murders?

Finally - The choice to focus on the sexual assault - not the murders/ongoing ethnic violence/effects of viral media/response by the state including the control of flow of information/misinformation/disinformation - implies that the news outlet believed the intended audience would be more likely to give attention to a story about sexual assault than any of those other topics - and they're probably right.

The specific choice to lead with the sexual violence against women over the fatal violence against men is telling of the comparative value of women to men, the empathy bias toward woman or the empathy gap toward men.

If the goal was sensationalism - why not focus on the two men who gave their lives trying to stop an abhorrent act of sexual violence?

Shouldn't the news be informative? Wouldn't it be better to focus on the cause of the violence? The overall conflict? The reaction to the violence? The potential solutions and outcomes?