How Corporate Media Uses and Abuses Survivors
A survivor does not come forward the way a politician walks onto a stage. She comes forward the way someone steps onto thin ice: gingerly, aware that the surface may crack, knowing the water is frigid, and understanding — often from bitter experience — that telling the truth does not guarantee being believed, protected, or helped. In fact, much of the time, a survivor comes forward knowing that the repercussions will be much worse for her than for her assailant.
We like to believe that disclosure is the beginning of justice. Sometimes it is. But for many survivors, it becomes the beginning of a second ordeal, one that feels less like healing than institutional whiplash. First comes the telling, then the retelling, then the waiting. And then, too often, the silence. The story is delayed, softened, quietly shelved, or killed outright. The survivor, meanwhile, is left to live with the consequences of having spoken anyway.
What makes that sequence uniquely cruel is this: the story is often buried only after a reporter has taken the most dangerous step of all — calling the alleged abuser for comment. In the abstract, this is framed as journalistic responsibility. In reality, it can function like a warning flare. It alerts the very people who have the most practice at discrediting, intimidating, and silencing. If the newsroom then hesitates — if editors dither, lawyers panic, executives intervene, or corporate owners decide the story is too risky — the survivor is left exposed in the worst possible way: visible enough to be targeted, but not visible enough to be protected.
This is a pattern, and many survivors know it.
https://saltypolitics.substack.com/p/the-enraging-way-the-system-lets
= new reply since forum marked as read
🎈🎉