Until the recent election of the Orange racist misogynist, the public seems to have had mixed feelings about the press. On the one hand, people use it as a means of achieving justice via social pressure and shaming when our legal system fails them. On the other hand you have people unreasonably targeted in the court of public opinion thanks to the press and social media, ruining their lives before the courts can decide their innocence, liability, or guilt. On top of that, news websites are covered with politically or corporate sponsored pieces masquerading as real news that claim to be offering sound advice and information when they’re really just pushing products or agendas no one needs.

It is in this new age of juggling fake vs. real news that we as a society need to take a serious look at what real journalism is, and the laws and ethics of those who practice it.

The simplified definition of journalism is the occupation of a diverse bunch of people who write, edit, and distribute electronic, print, and audio visual material on subjects of public interest. People think of journalists as strictly doing the news, but most news websites have everything from the news, to animal sob stories, to entertainment stuff, to insight on fashion and tech trends to ranty editorial pieces.

That said, though the press is universally recognized as playing an important role in any healthy democracy, there is little in Canadian law explicitly protecting its members. Journalists are widely considered to be the watchdogs of our democracy, calling bullshit and demanding justice before everyone else, but there’s no special law guaranteeing their rights.

Most of the rights of journalists come from the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms. In Quebec, the Charter of Human Rights and Freedoms and the Civil Code, and in the rest of Canada, case law.

In the Canadian Charter of Rights and Freedoms, we have article 2(b) which guarantees freedom thought, belief, opinion and expression, including freedom of the press for everyone.

In the Quebec Charter, we have sections 3 and 9. Section 3 is a lot like 2(b) of the Canadian Charter in that it protects freedom of opinion and expression. Section 9 protects our right to the non-disclosure of our confidential information.

Last but not least in Quebec, we have civil law, written into our Civil Code and Code of Civil Procedure. The rule is that any evidence found to be obtained under circumstances that violate someone’s fundamental rights and freedoms can, to a certain discretionary degree, be rejected by the courts.

Journalists’ fight to protect their sources is one of the more frequent issues that come up before the courts, forcing our justice system to define the rights of the press outside of any definitive legislation.

In 2010 in Globe and Mail v. Canada (Attorney General), the Supreme Court was asked to come up with a way of deciding under what circumstances a journalist should be made to reveal their source.

Anonymous sources are extremely important for societal watchdogs as it allows them to get information from people in circumstances where their job, their reputation, or their lives would be jeopardized by publicly sharing the information themselves. On the other hand, you have the right of the authorities to know where important information is coming from in order to successfully resolve a criminal investigation, and the right of lawyers to have access to information and people in order to successfully defend their clients against criminal charges or lawsuits.

The Supreme Court in Globe and Mail used the Quebec Civil Code and the Canadian and Quebec Charters to come up with the following test as to whether a journalist should be made to reveal their source:

First, one must ask if the evidence resulting from making a journalist answer questions that could reveal their sources would be relevant to the case. If the answer is yes, the courts must consider the following four factors about the anonymous source:

  1. The relationship must originate in a confidence that the source’s identity will not be disclosed
  2. Anonymity must be essential to the relationship in which the communication arises
  3. The relationship must be one that should be sedulously fostered in the public interest
  4. The public interest served by protecting the identity of the informant must outweigh the public interest in getting at the truth

In addition to those rules and tests, you have the criminal code and the rules regarding civil liability.

Hate propaganda, public incitement of hatred, and promoting genocide are all criminal offenses in Canada.

If someone causes you damages such as those that could cost you your wealth or livelihood, damages that negatively affected your health, or damages that caused you psychological problems, you are allowed to seek reparations for those damages. People in Canada have successfully sued journalists and media companies for damages because their actions ruined their reputations and/or violated their right to privacy.

Outside the law, the press tends to regulate itself. Lobby groups like the Fédération professionnelle des journalistes du Québec put out codes of ethics for the profession that set out the rules they all should follow. This includes no plagiarizing, making sure to put out accurate information, and making clear distinctions between their personal opinions and the facts they present.

In an age where politicians feel free to accuse the press of undermining democracy, media literacy is more important than ever. We have a responsibility to keep our eyes open for the thinly veiled sponsored pieces and the ranty conjecture masquerading as fact.

Journalists who expose this to us are more important than ever and we need more rules to protect them. Politicians may not like reporters, but without them there’d be no democracy, and no one would know who they are. As Oscar Wilde once said:

“The only thing worse than being talked about, is not being talked about.”

Let’s keep the press free, so they can keep talking.

* Featured image by Pete O’Shea via Flickr Creative Commons

Last week’s Montreal snowstorm was quite the disaster. People stranded in cars on Highway 13 for hours, busses just not showing up, sidewalks still not cleared days later. It was a disaster on a political level and an institutional one. Fortunately, it was not a disaster on a human or social level.

That’s not how Andrew Potter and Maclean’s Magazine see it, though. In a much shared (primarily for the purpose of criticism) editorial, the Director of the McGill Institute for the Study of Canada posited that the real culprits in last week’s snowmageddon were restaurants that gave two different bills, one for cash payments and one for “traceable” payments. Um, what?

I have lived in Montreal my entire life and I have never been offered a different fee depending on what payment method I chose for supper or drinks. Not saying there isn’t any sketch in Monteal’s service industry, just saying that if there is, it’s way smarter and nowhere near as obvious.

Regardless, how does this have any relevance to the issue he is discussing? Oh, yeah, it’s societal decline that led to what happened last Tuesday. People just not caring about their fellow human. No sense of community.

Clearly, Mr. Potter doesn’t have the faintest clue what he’s talking about. But I guess that doesn’t matter to right-leaning Maclean’s readers in the rest of Canada who just had their preconceived notions about Quebec and Montreal justified.

This “editorial” reads like something Potter wrote months ago and saved for an appropriate news item to come along that he could tie it to. Maclean’s must have been all too happy to get yet another article blaming Quebec culture for something.

Now don’t get me wrong, there is plenty of blame that should go around because of what happened last Tuesday. Blame our political leaders who let over 300 9-1-1 calls slide until 4am. Coderre and Couillard do have a lot to answer for. Blame their nonsensical attempt to pin what happened on a trucker who allegedly refused to be towed (unless he was stalled across all highway lanes, I fail to see how this is even an excuse).

Potter and Maclean’s let them off the hook. Instead, like the politicians, they pinned it on the community. My community.

Last Tuesday I remember seeing people helping to push cars stuck in the snow, taking people in who couldn’t make it home and stuff like this online:

Image via Facebook

That’s right, people getting out and pushing a bus that was stuck in the snow. That’s Montreal, that’s my community. Sure, we have our problems, but when the shit hits the fan, we pull together.

It’s a real shame that Maclean’s chose to publish the one guy in town who refused to see it that way, either out of ignorance or a desire to grind his favourite ax.  It truly is amateur hour.

Dammit. The following sentence is one I never wanted to type and never thought I would, either:

Kudos to CNN, The New York Times and the rest of the corporate mainstream media for fighting the good fight and speaking truth to power in the US.

Ugh. I know. But credit where credit is due.

Since Donald Trump was elected President of the United States and especially since he took offfice, they have been calling him and his administration out on absolute falsehoods, some so glaring it’s astounding they were put forward in the first place. They have also been critical of the more extreme points of his policies.

In short, they are doing their jobs, finally. And the Trump administration has been fighting back, calling them fake news and of course, who could forget:

Then yesterday, White House Press Secretary Sean Spicer cancelled his regular press briefing in favour of an off-camera “press gaggle” with select media outlets. ABC, NBC, CBS and FOX were there and so was Breitbart, the far-right online bastion of bigoted news presentation that used to employ Chief White House Strategist Steve Bannon. Not invited: CNN, The New York Times, The Los Angeles Times, the New York Daily News, the Hill, Politico and Buzzfeed.

That’s right, the White House invited Breitbart over CNN and the New York Times. To put this in perspective, imagine if the White House invited Breitbart over CNN and The New York Times. No real need for allegory with this administration.

There is leaked audio from inside the gaggle of Spicer trying to defend his decision:

To their credit, the Associated Press and Time were invited to this exclusive event but declined in solidarity with their colleagues. That’s right, I just used the word solidarity to describe the actions of a division of a multinational corporation. That’s just how things are now.

Clinton News Network

It wasn’t always that way. In fact, during the Primaries a few short months ago, the mainstream press, the very same outlets that I am now defending, were pulling out all the stops to defend the status quo.

Calling CNN the Clinton News Network wasn’t a Trump supporter thing, it was a Bernie supporter go-to. I remember being livid with the network for breaking away from Bernie Sanders speaking live to a shot of Trump’s empty podium before he took the stage.

Obviously, it wasn’t a move designed to help Trump, it was clearly a way to silence Sanders and make everyone think the Trump-Clinton matchup was a done deal. You see, the Democratic Party establishment thought Trump was the ideal foil, someone who couldn’t possibly win, and as such, they wanted to elevate him…and CNN helped do just that.

The New York Times also ran countless articles discrediting Sanders and his campaign. It’s clear they saw him as more of a threat than the orange buffoon reality star B-list celeb who was running for the GOP.

But it goes further back than that. For years, the mainstream press had a very cozy relationship with the powers that be, regardless of who the President was. Barack Obama, George W. Bush and even Bill Clinton enjoyed a far less critical glare than they should have.

Yes, the corporate media did question and call the leaders out on some things, especially scandals, but they were far too trusting of the official narrative most of the time. Otherwise, the whole story about Iraq having weapons of mass destruction may have not led to a war, or at least not a media-championed war.

What it took for the mainstream media to do their jobs

It’s quite possible that the Trump Administration thought that they would have an easy ride coming in. What they failed to realize is that the reason the establishment press was so cozy with previous establishments is that those administrations knew how to play the game.

Did that game involve deception? Of course it did. But clever deception. Wording things in a way that could technically be defended as factual. Rarely an outright lie and then never one that is blatant and easy to de-bunk.

The unwritten rule? Don’t insult the press or the public’s intelligence with your BS. A rule that the Trump Administration clearly never heard or considered following for a moment.

So that’s what it took for corporate press to finally start doing their jobs. A narcissistic carnival barker with the temperament of a spoiled child trying to shove outright lies down their throats and punishing them when they don’t present his ridiculous claims as absolute truth.

Well, at least there was a bridge too far for them. Now we know what it is.

Not a good day for independent media, either

As someone who has always championed independent or alternative media sources (including this one) as well as media with a declared, or at least obvious, bias (like this one), what happened yesterday in Washington was in no way a victory for the non-corporate press. In fact, it signaled a rather unwelcome transformation of the very concept of independent media.

With biased sources like One America and the Washington Times as well as biased and independent sources like Breitbart included in the press gaggle, independent media has become a mouthpiece of and propaganda tool for the government. It would be different if the White House had also granted press credentials and given special treatment to, say, The Young Turks and Democracy Now, but that’s not the case.

No, it’s the mainstream sources who haven’t investigated the President that hard and indie outlets that are so far right that in this White House they are considered mainstream which make the cut. It’s not about independent versus mainstream, it’s about kissing Presidential ass or not.

It is important for independent media to stand with their corporate colleagues on this one issue. Then we can all go back to criticizing them for lack of coverage on extremely important issues like Standing Rock.

For the corporate press, here’s hoping you don’t go back to the old ways and have finally learned that:

“Journalism is printing what someone else does not want printed: everything else is public relations.”
– George Orwell

Leonard Nimoy lived long and certainly prospered. I was very sad to hear that on February 27th this legendary man passed away at the age of 83. He was more than just a nerd culture icon as the half Vulcan half human Spock on Star Trek.

spockHe first appeared on screen in 1951 and began an illustrious career in acting while working for wage equality behind the scenes. He always cared about people. This is evident in a very touching letter in a 1968 teen magazine responding to a girl from biracial parents who identified with Spock, saying “Not everyone will be like me but there will be those who will accept me just for who I am.”

Nimoy was a true Renaissance man: actor, poet, writer, musician, director, activist, feminist, photographer, and genuine friend to all. He boldly went where no photographers have gone before. In his controversial 2007 series The Full Body Project, Mr. Nimoy gave an honest depiction of real women and challenged societal standards of beauty.

He photographed The Fat Bottom Review, a buxom burlesque troupe hailing from San Francisco, California. In these images he imitates the poses of Henri Matisse and Marcel Duchamp while capturing pure joy and unabashed confidence, a ferocity that is purely female, and an “I don’t give a fuck what you think of me world, I love my body!” attitude.

Leonard Nimoy was disgusted at the sad fact that many women and girls suffer because the body they live in is not the one advertised in fashion magazines. Pop culture is distorted and mean. These women are proud of their skin and look the camera right in the face. They are more than just fat and flesh, they are visions of loveliness, joyously celebrating diversity and the art of sensual movement through dance.

He even spoke of this project on the widely popular Colbert Report. This was huge! He allowed Steven Colbert to geek out about Star Trek only with the condition that he could talk about his photos. Nimoy mentioned in the interview (sadly you can only watch it in the US, ComedyNetwork.ca doesn’t have the clip anymore) that the average woman weighs 25% more than what you see in magazines. By opening this door with his photos and words he facilitated an important (yet taboo) conversation about size in the media and how it affects our youth.

full body project
The Full Body Project by Leonard Nimoy courtesy of R. Michelson Galleries. See the whole set and buy the book!


These photos changed my life and paved the way for a new generation of women who are celebrating every curve of their unique beauty. Now we have models like Tess Holliday, size 22, tattooed, and very reminiscent of The Fat Bottom Revue girls.

She has started a sensation with “Eff Your Beauty Standards” and inspires me like crazy. She just recently signed a major contract with MILK Model Management UK and is championing Torrid’s no photoshop campaign. Even the Sports Illustrated swimsuit edition is featuring slightly more curvaceous women than before. Mainstream culture is being taken back by real beauty, oh you’ll see. Every body is lovely, doesn’t matter if you are a size 0 or a size 30 (or all that’s in between).

When a large woman is on stage or in an ad it is most definitely a political statement, it is also a reassurance that it’s ok to be who you are. Even the burlesque community is not safe from fat shaming. Recently Ruby Rage was fired from Lucky Pierre’s in New Orleans for not fitting the correct body type for their show.

This outraged every burlesque dancer who heard the news, especially the world renowned plus size dancer Dirty Martini. Burlesque is about celebrating every shape, size, age, and color of bodies. It is about confidence and exploration, an undeniable fearlessness and freedom, connecting to your audience because you ARE them. Showing off your “flaws” make their “flaws” ok because you are together in being imperfect perfection.

The moment I found out about Nimoy’s death my first thought was to share some of these images on my personal Facebook page (with a “friends only” filter just in case) since the images had such an impact on me. Now if you know me you know that I am not scared of nudity, despise censorship.

To my dismay this post was flagged and taken off my wall, I was pissed to say the least! I couldn’t believe that someone who calls me a friend would report that. Recent sharing of The Full Body Project photos has caused a stir across the whole internet, some of my friends have also been flagged and there are reports from someone in Toronto having the same problem.

Thinking about this now I am almost happy that someone got that upset, these flagger trolls are just insecure and don’t want to see someone they think is abject in the lime light. We got um Len! The conversation is on the table. Kim Kardashian move over, it’s time for The Full Body Project to break the Internet.

I started doing burlesque shortly after coming across these stunning images, knowing these women existed and flourished in a world that always told me I was too big was a game changer for me. I knew I could do it too and inspire change in others with this classic art form. After seeing these beautiful, large nude bodies I was confident enough to pose naked for figure drawing classes and then beyond.

I was once so self conscious that I wouldn’t even go swimming in gym class out of fear that someone would see my body. I am going to be posing for my own black and white artistic nudes soon, everything goes full circle. I am a stronger person and better artist because of the legacy of Leonard Nimoy’s work.

Thank you, friend, rest in peace.

That’s it, it’s over. Bill Maher, we’re through.

If you’ve ever left a relationship because your partner’s bad traits start making it impossible to appreciate their good qualities, you know what I’m talking about. I don’t care if he’s funny, and spot on when it comes to things like pot and the militarization of police. He’s downright ignorant and bigoted when it comes to anything related to Islam.

I first saw signs of trouble in his film Religulous, when he poked fun at the Christian Right, criticized Muslims in a much harsher way. He pretty much gave Judaism a pass, except for some Orthodox Jews, and was critical of the State of Israel. I chalked it up to his fervent atheism, remembered that he really did a great job with the Christians and forgot about his unfortunate bias for a few years.

Fast forward to a few months ago. While Israel was indiscriminately bombing Gaza, Maher tweeted this:

As if glibly justifying a willful humanitarian catastrophe wasn’t enough bile for 140 characters, he managed to throw in a bit of misogyny too. I decided to watch his next HBO show Real Time, a show which, to be honest, I generally like.

This time, though, I was watching to see if he would apologize or defend the tweet. He didn’t even address it, but he had George Takei as a guest, and I adore George Takei.

I don’t ignore him enough to forget why I was watching, so I decided to be wary of Maher, applaud him when he deserves it, but be ready to call him out when he crosses the line again. I was giving him a third and final chance and he blew it.

Two weeks ago, he closed off his show, as he always does, with New Rules, a comedy bit that is usually quite insightful and funny. This time, though, it was neither.

He started off by making a point that it is easier to poke fun at Christianity than Islam in a Western context. Fine, it is. But Christianity is the dominant religion in the West, and the same point was much funnier when South Park made it.

If he had left it at that, then fine, boring but fine. But instead, he proceeded to make an argument that you can’t call yourself liberal if you don’t speak out against Islam. Here it is, if you want to watch for yourself:

Forget for a moment that no one made this guy the arbiter of what is liberal or progressive, just what does he mean by speaking out against Islam? If he’s referring to objecting to extremism, then fine, religious extremism is a bad thing regardless of the religion, but that’s not what he means.

The following week, the topic came up in the panel section of his show. It had to. The comments had caused such a stink that even Reza Aslan, noted religious scholar, progressive and practicing Muslim appeared on CNN and deflated the argument.

In the discussion on HBO, Maher made it clear that he was, in fact, talking about condemning the religion as a whole. Another panelist, Sam Harris, clarified even more by trying to argue that Islamic extremism wasn’t the exception but rather the rule.

I would have called bullshit and bigotry, but fortunately Ben Affleck did it for me. That’s right, an uber-mainstream, Hollywood A-lister who was on the show primarily to plug a movie called the host a racist. Give it a watch:

To paraphrase Michael Moore, one of Maher’s celebrity leftist friends: “When progressive scholars and Batman are against you, Mr. Maher, you just might be a bigot.” Moreover, you’re probably not a liberal at all.

What’s so liberal about telling people what they can and can’t believe? As an agnostic who also thinks, I find Maher’s comments offensive, and worse, ignorant.

When supposed progressive allies start sounding like the radical right they claim to despise, it’s time to move on.

No, I don’t want people to boycott HBO; I need my John Oliver and Game of Thrones as much as you. I also don’t think guests should refuse to appear on Real Time, as long as they make sure to call Maher out when needed, just like Affleck did.

I do think it’s time the progressive left realizes that a bigot is a bigot. Maher and his ilk aren’t allies, despite making good points from time to time.

Bill Maher, we’re done!

It’s trickling down. Snow falling from the condensed steam of downtown high rises. It begins to fall gently and you barely even notice it. But when that perfect storm hits, those snowflakes will blind you. Winter is coming.

Regular Canadians, us, our friends and families, who watch tv, listen to the radio and live normal lives are being manipulated by career tricksters and their corporate puppeteers. In English Canada, it’s Brian Lilley and Michael Coren, in Quebec it is Michel Hebert and PQ minister Benard Drainville, all so called journalistsBrian, Michael and Michel work directly for one of richest people in Quebec and Canada, Pierre Peladeau.

Pierre knows whats up. He’s watching his billionaire buddies in Europe. They’re ripping their countries apart, privatizing everything, destroying pensions and throwing people on the street. He’s got his eyes on Hydro Quebec, as the CLSCs are closed down, perhaps private health care too. They’re softening the blows with distractions. Cue the Charters. Attacking minorities becomes a pastime in Europe and slowly, in Canada.

Those few allowed to speak against it publicly don’t make sense. Liberals talk about loving the “others.” They spend their precious words whining about political correctness. The words fly over our head. Racism sells easier than political correctness. Reasonable accommodation, the ultimate liberal mental masturbation, hides a deep austerity. Are we so impoverished that we cannot provide for those whose spirituality calls for the covering of hair or not touching others who are not their spouse? We all work in the same places, play in the same parks, love the same and laugh the same. We don’t need to embrace the language of difference. Why can’t we accommodate everyone? Why are we so impoverished? Who stole our money?

On the banks of the Ottawa River, in the dirt of industrial Montreal, on the piers of Newfoundland, in the mountains of British Columbia, we were played against each other. Quebecers fresh from the farm and Irishmen fresh from the famine fought to the bottom for pennies in factories and forests. Immigrants from Eastern Asia met violence from angry Englishmen in Vancouver over starvation wages.

Historical memory is short. There was a time when Catholics, in many countries, were not allowed to have jobs in the government and were oppressed mercilessly. Now their descendants want to share their forgotten experiences with Muslims, Sikhs and Jews.

If there has been one thing consistent across time and space, it is that good, regular people, unfiltered by the poetic trickery of the elite and the pain of poverty, have always shared a bond. Humans have a natural solidarity and, I believe, want to love one another. It is the rich and powerful that benefit from dividing us.

Top hat wearing English blokes, not so far removed from Brian Lilley, used to write poems and stories about how much they hated those poor people working in factories and living in slums. Even today, think about how big television stations now portray trailer parks and ghettos in popular culture. They call us fat. They call us stupid. They want us to hate ourselves. And then, as if stealing from the poor of their own country wasn’t enough, these top hat wearing, cigar smoking monopoly men wanted the world. They sold lies about Native Americans, Indians, Chinese people and African people so they could send poor white folks to murder them, steal from them, and die.

The bodies of the poor are the weapons of the rich. And not much has changed. They still use us. Their ranks have swelled. They look and sound more like us. They’ve removed their hats, but they hold their reigns tightly and they’re riding us into each other with the force of a nation.

On March, 17th, 2013, Trent Mays, 17, and Ma’lik Richmond, 16, of Steubenville, Ohio, were found guilty of raping a 16-year-old West Virginia girl.

The defendants, both members of the town’s cherished Big Red football program, dragged the victim to a series of parties on August, 11, 2012, sexually assaulted her and documented the brutal and public rape that took place that evening. Video and photographic footage taken by Trent Mays and observers (who stood idly by as the victim was abused and publicly humiliated) soon circled rampantly on social media sites and cellphones.

Ma’lik Richmond and Trent Mays received offensively weak juvenile sentences for which they will serve one year and two years, respectively. Mays received a longer sentence for being found guilty of illegal use and distribution of nudity oriented material containing a minor.

The Steubenville rape case gained international attention following posts by the known blogger Alexandria Goddard, who raised questions concerning the integrity of the investigation and the attempted cover-up by the boys’ football coach and brought to light the social media backlash that had begun, defending the actions of the rapists and publicly shaming the victim. Twitter and other social media networking sites flushed with posts condemning the victim for being inebriated, accusing her of being promiscuous and discrediting the claims that she had been taken advantage of, despite graphic trial evidence.

See for yourself (WARNING: the previous link contains an amassment of pathetic, social shortcomings and a lack of sensitivity, worthy of instilling anger in even the most sentient of beings).

The Steubenville case in its entirety is horrendous, and that includes the media’s coverage and portrayal of the defendants. Major media outlets such as NBC, CNN, ABC and USA Today paint the rapists in a sympathetic light, emphasizing the demise of their “promising football careers” (as quoted by NBC) and the heavy emphasis on the victim being drunk.

Of the news media outlets that were guilty of putting unnecessary stress on the victim being drunk, USA Today opens their article with: “Two members of Steubenville’s celebrated high school football team were found guilty Sunday of raping a drunken 16-year-old girl…” This begins the outline of a very obvious media bias. cnnn

CNN’s reporter Poppy Harlow empathized with the defendants and had this to say when asked (by CNN anchor Candy Crowley) about the emotional setting of the courtroom during the trial’s verdict: “I’ve never experienced anything like it, Candy. It was incredibly emotional — incredibly difficult even for an outsider like me to watch what happened as these two young men that had such promising futures, star football players, very good students, literally watched as they believed their life fell apart.”

CNN goes on to highlight the trials and tribulations these young men are now faced with as registered sex offenders. There is little, to no acknowledgement for the victim and the lasting effects this rape is going to have on her.


These comments and implications intended to lessen the monstrosity of May’s and Richmond’s actions shocked the public, and serve as a depressing assertion to the prevalent desensitization of society caused by rape culture.

Making excuses and attempting to invoke pity for the defendants in the brutal raping and mocking of the unnamed 16-year-old victim, just because they were “promising athletes” or because one of the defendants broke down and cried in court, only stands to perpetuate rape culture and the harmful actions of arrogant individuals who think their athletic and academic standings grant them immunity from moral obligations.

This is only one case out of so many that has sparked a flurry of online victim blaming. The way that the media and society continually depict women as being fully responsible for their own well-being while drinking and the backwards claim that women are “asking for it” if they dress a certain way, is how this mentality continues to thrive in our society.

The focus should be on teaching people: that causing malicious, intentional, sexual and demoralizing, trauma to someone is not only vile and inexcusable, but more importantly-the blame should fall solely on the perpetrator of these actions, not the victim.

How does a tragedy such as the Steubenville case, in which the rapists are shown celebrating the victim’s public defilement and torture in front of her peers, make its way into our communities, and culture?

We can find the answers to those questions all over the world, seeping out of every crevice of our deadened and morally corrupt human capacities. Everywhere we look we can see misogyny. Everywhere we look we can find people who believe others are worth less than they are.

It is this loss of humanity that seems to be so prevalent in our society that shelters rapists. Under the guise of the media, young people are growing up not fully understanding the repercussions that come with every facet of rape.

Take for example the 2004 incident that occurred in the Abu Ghraib prison in Iraq. The Abu Ghraib incident refers to the acts of rape, torture and mistreatment of prisoners in the correctional facility. For a year these prisoners were abused and subjected to routine shaming.

This was an instance where a group of people (in this case trained military personnel) were left largely unsupervised and in charge of prisoners and within a year were not only abusing the prisoners, but sending graphic images of prisoner torture back home to fellow soldiers.

This is just one example of people feeling entitled to rape and torture, just because they uphold a certain status. Whether you are a soldier, or a football player, rape is never any less of a crime.

It is saddening to see that the impact of a culture so desensitized, that pushes such conflicting and twisted views regarding rape, could influence young people to film and boast about raping a girl to their peers.

Unfortunately this is a product of rape culture; it casts a veil over the consequences of sexual abuse, by constantly putting more emphasis on the victim and not the rapists. Young people are growing up with a skewed idea of what “consent” means and because of this more and more victims are left feeling guilty or unsure of coming forward.

Not only did news media outlets inadequately acknowledge the suffering of the victim, they are responsible for aiding the growing delusion that rape can be joked about and treated lightly. This should be considered a crime in itself.

The power of the news media is vast, and as such the graveness of painting Trent Mays and Ma’lik Richmond in a pitying light is all the more profound. These implications will have major negative impacts on the 16-year-old Steubenville victim and sexual assault victims worldwide.

Something certainly needs to change and it sure as hell has nothing to do with what women are wearing.

You can sign the online petition asking CNN apologize on air for siding with the rapists