Brett Kavanaugh Rape Accuser Admits She Made Up Her Story
https://www.breitbart.com/politics/2018/11/02/brett-kavanaugh-rape-accuser-admits-she-made-up-her-story-doj-fbi/
What experts say about ‘corroboration,’ a keyword from the Kavanaugh hearings
https://abcnews.go.com/US/kavanaugh-hearings-wrong-corroboration-hurts-survivors/story?id=58254664
Both articles focus on the recent reports of Brett Kavanaugh’s rape allegations made by Christine Ford. Despite the allegations, Kavanaugh is still holding his seat on the supreme court. Both articles begin to dissect a lot of the language and things that were being said in the courtroom. Starting with some basic facts and the little background information needed to understand what this means for the country.
ABC’s headline has the word “corroboration” in it. Which is kind of what this assignment is, it’s looking at news articles about the same topic and looking at the differences between the two. Both being respected or accredited news sources yet, two different articles and headlines on the same event. This is where the story begins to change and where people begin to enter the “echo chamber”. A theory that says people of a certain side will only believe truth if it is produced by their media.
We look at this situation thinking we don’t want to put an innocent man in jail while also respecting the rights of the victim and listening to them. ABC’s article looks at some of the legal opinions that the “experts” voice. The lawyers claiming that corroborating is not required despite the popular beliefs. The use a good example of saying that if someone were to get robbed its like telling them that they are not believed until they see security footage. As though someone would go so far to fake a disturbingly popular crime.
ABC looks at another case at a smaller scale without a political powers name in it. Helfert Moësse is a sexual assault victim and advocate but spoke about the “evidence burden”. What victims often go through is no support from the authorities to conduct an investigation and the difficulty of evidence presentation. As these crimes are done away from others it is difficult to present evidence. Additionally, it was added that her mother had told her that if this wouldn’t pull through it would be difficult to pay for her school. It brought more to light on the victims suffering outside of the courtroom.
Breitbart article was on the same court hearing but had a drastically different headline. Breitbart article claims that one of the accusers were lying about her allegations. This however, was in less focus in the article. It focused more on the conspiring of the accusers to set out a democratic plot against Kavanaugh. “When questioned by Committee investigators she admitted it was false, a “ploy,” and a “tactic.” She was opposed to Judge Kavanaugh’s confirmation.” Adding the fact that she opposed Kavanaghs confirmation makes the article seem more like this was the reason for an allegation.
All in all the two really leave out the “moral” of the story. Surely not every story has meaning but if it did have a meaning it would be a real story. The two just seemed like the regular reporting that goes on under the Trump presidency. Where both side blame the opposing party for irrelevant things and just claim the news is fake.