The horror stories of sexual abuse of the victims of October 7 have become part of our lives. It will begin with a sad-eyed reporter announcing that we are sparing the worst details, which she knows, of course, and move on to articles in which shocking details are given by eyewitnesses to the massacre. The intentions of the witnesses themselves are good, but the consequences are harsh.
Discretion in advertising and public and personal responsibility are required, beyond considerations of ratings and public mission.
Did the dead victims really "ask" a ZAKA man to speak? Or does the risk of family members and others identifying the rape victims he is talking about mean that the media should protect the dead and the living, not publish the horrifying details?
This is not the fault of the storyteller, who is in a traumatic situation. This is the fault of Knesset members, journalists and others, who are fighting to find the golden goose - an animal victim - and meanwhile, are "settling" for a competition to obtain new evidence secondhand. This was evident in the Knesset debate, which was supposed to deal with mental health and became a platform for stories and shouts, and in countless requests from journalists: Maybe you know?...
The focus on rape alone forgets other victims—murdered, for example—and men and women who have suffered horrific gender abuses other than rape.
Another aspect of this concentration is placing a heavy burden on the living victims. For example, the returning abductees, who are almost immediately suspected of being victims of sexual abuse. These suspicions will not promote complaints, but will only push them away, in a climate where sexual abuse is already extremely difficult.
Legally, in Israel the deceased has no right to privacy, but now is the time to reconsider this determination. The deceased leaves behind life, and their suffering from the terrible death may be intensified as a result of the publications.
This is not the fault of the storyteller, who is in a traumatic situation. This is the fault of Knesset members, journalists and others, who are fighting to find the golden goose - an animal victim - and meanwhile, are "settling" for a competition to obtain new evidence secondhand
The Protection of Privacy Law was amended several years ago to prohibit the publication of a photograph of a deceased person. The legislator did not imagine the state of terror in which we live, in which there are no photographs but the dead can sometimes be identified from the stories, or thought that they might be identified. That is why it is necessary to expand the law and apply it to details from investigations. Until that happens, if at all, the only solution lies in journalistic ethics and self-discipline.
The complexity is there. Clearly, there is a need to raise international awareness of the crimes committed, and the weak condemnation of women's organizations around the world is terrible. But today, when it is clear that things actually happened, is there a connection between the broad publicity and condemnation? Or has the border been crossed and there is voyeurism, death and further harm to families, which are already unbearable? The answer is obvious. Cooperation with the publication of voyeuristic details is cooperation with factors that aggravate existing trauma of the victims. Worst of all for those who have lost family members and are already tormented by the thoughts of what they went through in their last moments. In the language of wikitymology, this is "secondary victimization", and everyone who contributes to it is responsible. It's time to think about community and personal safety before thinking about spreading the next story.
Wrong? We'll fix it! If you find a mistake in the article, please share with us