Fair Game

I've been following with interest the coverage of the domestic violence case in which singer Chris Brown has been charged after allegedly assaulting his girlfriend, singer Rihanna. Editor & Publisher has an update on the LA Times' decision to release Rihanna's name, which they say they would not have done if she had been raped, but, per reporter Andrew Blankstein:

There isn't a set policy when it comes to physical assault or a criminal threat. In that case, there's a decision internally and on a case-by-case basis of whether to name somebody. In this case, obviously there was a discussion among the editors about this. The nature of this case—against the backdrop of the Grammys, the delay in changing things, the explanations put out by both camps—the decision was made that this was fair game.

Well, it's nice to know that as long as a woman is merely beaten, but not sexually assaulted, she's "fair game" for reporters.

Take note, ladies: You've got to be really victimized before the media is unwilling to victimize you again by turning your assault into an item for public consumption.

The thing is, there is a legitimate argument that can be made for making Rihanna's name public. (And if it were an honest argument, it would include: "She's famous, and it will help our bottom line!") Not everyone would agree with that argument, but it is legitimate.

But it does not include the term "fair game," the etymology of which is, of course, animals that hunters are legally allowed to stalk, wound, kill. I almost can't imagine a more inappropriate way to describe the decision to publish a victim's name after an assault than calling her/her identity "fair game."

People who make their living with words should know to use them carefully.