Steinke trial coverage

11 posts / 0 new

Fri, 2008-11-21 16:18

bagkitty

I realize that the MSM (thinking here of CBC, G&M and other print media) are going to continue to provide extensive coverage to the freak show of the Steinke trial -- but do they really have to continue to refer to the minor co-accused as the defendant's "girlfriend"? (see example linked below)

It has been bothering me since the trial began... are they not normalizing the "relationship" between an adult male in his 20s and (at the time) a 12-year old child by referring to her as his "girlfriend".

I do not know what term should be employed, but I am finding the coverage really disturbing. I have also noticed that the comments sections in the media covering the trial are always closed... I wish they weren't, I would like to pose the question each time I see the the term being used.

http://www.theglobeandmail.com/servlet/story/RTGAM.20081119.wsteinke19/BNStory/National/home?cid=al_gam_mostview

Fri, 2008-11-21 21:14

Polly B

Bagkitty, I agree 100%. This has been driving me nuts too.

My daughter is 13, and if she started up "a relationship" with a man in his twenties there would be something so wrong (and not allowed) with that. I shudder at the thought.

Sat, 2008-11-22 07:29

Tommy_Paine

You can say "not allowed" but, really, if a child of this age is insistant, there's not alot that can be done, within the boundries of the law and civilized behavior.

I think that Dawn Walton and her editor have some personal issues to deal with if they think the word "girlfriend" can be applied in this instance.

Sat, 2008-11-22 13:23

Unionist

There is pretty clearly a relationship between them. What term would work better? I thought "partners", given the gruesome scheme they committed together. That describes their proven collaboration without categorizing their relationship, about which we know little or nothing.

I also agree with Tommy's point about "not allowing". The age of consent for sexual acts has always been 14, until all our child-loving MPs (with the sole exception of Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for his stand) voted (or were absent) to raise it to 16. That should solve the problem once and for all, right?

ETA: Interesting - in googling this subject, I just found the name of the girl and the murdered family members, as well as her photo. Canadian law doesn't have much influence on the internet...

Sat, 2008-11-22 14:07

bagkitty

Polly - as akward as it would look, modifying the reporting with the inclusion of the modifier "so-called" (i.e., so-called girlfriend) would at least draw attention to how bizarre the use of the word girlfriend is in this story (at least when the word is used outside of direct quotes from Steinke himself) would at least start to draw attention to what is going on.

I wish at least one of the reporters, from whatever media, would produce a sidebar piece about the use of the word girlfriend in the stories they are writing... surely at least one of them must be having some doubts about normalizing the relationship by the language they are using.

Sat, 2008-11-22 14:40

remind

bagkitty wrote:
I wish at least one of the reporters, from whatever media, would produce a sidebar piece about the use of the word girlfriend in the stories they are writing... surely at least one of them must be having some doubts about normalizing the relationship by the language they are using.

One would think so...but yet I have observed no coverage of the separate fact that his "relationship" with the girl was also illegal.

Why is she in a mental facility serving her 10 year sentence by the way? As I must have missed the reason in the news.

___________________________________________________________
"watching the tide roll away"

Sat, 2008-11-22 14:50

Unionist

remind wrote:

One would think so...but yet I have observed no coverage of the separate fact that his "relationship" with the girl was also illegal.

True, but as I mentioned before, we really know nothing at all about the details of their relationship, other than the act they committed together. It's sex, not the "relationship", which would be unlawful under the Criminal Code.

Sat, 2008-11-22 19:08

Tommy_Paine

unionist wrote:

There is pretty clearly a relationship between them. What term would work better? I thought "partners", given the gruesome scheme they committed together. That describes their proven collaboration without categorizing their relationship, about which we know little or nothing.

"Accused co-conspirator" would seem to fit the bill.

Sun, 2008-11-23 16:59

Aristotleded24

Unionist wrote:
I also agree with Tommy's point about "not allowing". The age of consent for sexual acts has always been 14, until all our child-loving MPs (with the sole exception of Bill Siksay, who was disciplined for his stand) voted (or were absent) to raise it to 16. That should solve the problem once and for all, right?

She was 12 at the time, so still too young to legally consent anyways.

Sun, 2008-11-23 18:00

#10

Unionist

I was being ironic. Anyway, you and I have had this discussion before.

Sun, 2008-11-23 18:06

#11

Fidel

I'm afraid our two old line parties don't give a shit about children in Canada or any other country