To mention what a murder victim was wearing, when last seen, is called "reporting." To suggest there's any implication the victim was asking for it is insane.

from the clueless at Broadsheet.

Has it occured to you, Katherine, that MSNBC might have mentioned what that victim was wearing in order to jog the memory of anyone WHO MIGHT HAVE SEEN HER LAST??

You know, the way news reports have ALWAYS DONE?

As a PUBLIC SERVICE?

Some days I'm just embarrassed to call myself a feminist. Thanks, Broadsheet.

The victim's body had already been found, just two days after her disappearance. The police have video of her entering the place where she died with the main suspect. That suspect also used the victim's cell phone to make a call.

In this case, I really fail to see how describing her outfit is a public service. Sure, if it was a local story, and the police were seeking more information from witnesses. In that case, maybe the piece would give more of a description of the victim's physical appearance as well, as well as the main suspect's. Maybe they'd include a phone number to call if you have information about the case. This is a national story. Call me crazy, but it seems rather prurient.

[

by a liberal publication that distorts a study to promote the myth of massive gender discrimination in the workplace. This time it's the Times of London.

Check it out. Read the article. It begins by declaring forthrightly that women could earn less than men for 150 years because of discrimination and ineffective government policies. This, it claims is what a study by the Centre for Economic Performance of the London School of Economics shows.

Except of course it doesn't. What the report actually says, as detailed by its author is that men and women are equally represented in the workplace at age 20, but, by age 30, there are 20% fewer women than men working. He goes on to point out that, when they do return to work, women are more likely than men to work part time.

This is discrimination? It's hard to see how. Employers don't pay people who don't work for them (Bush cronies excepted of course) and they don't tend to pay part-timers the same as full-timers. Does that strike people as unfair?

As I've said in previous posts, it seems to be an invariable rule that, when liberal publications report on some study they claim shows massive victimization of women, it's either a gross distortion or an outright lie. This is yet another example. I mean think about it. Here's a reputable publication that takes a study that shows that women are paid less than men in large part (20%) because they work less and converts it into rampant discrimination. That's not just bad journalism, it's intentional dishonesty.

Some people are too smart for their own good...

Just because it mentioned what she was wearing when she was found, does not mean it remotely suggested that she was somehow asking to be killed. The article mentioned that she had been out clubbing, and then noted that she was found wearing what sounds to me like club wear. There was even a quote from someone that she was just in the wrong place at the wrong time, and some creep followed her and took advantage of her vulnerability (her car was towed, her friend passed out, etc.) Nothing in the article sounded at all judgmental to me.

Sorry, after reading the MSNBC article, I found nothing wrong with mentioning the victim's clothing. As others here have said, my impression is that it was being reported so that maybe others would come forward if they remember seeing someone dressed like this. Doesn't matter if her body has already been found and the perp arrested, any type of information for the police would probably be appreciated so that they can present a more solid case against the murderer.

As much as I enjoy Broadsheet, this does smack of trying to make a story where none exists.

There was no mention of her other features such as hair color or height so it doesn't appear her attire was mentioned for identification reasons. Do you think the reporter would have mentioned what she was wearing if it had been business attire?

Why didn't the report just say "Witnesses said Moore was last seen early Tuesday as she walked alone along a major roadway along Manhattan's west side. Her body was found Thursday in a trash bin in West New York, N.J."? That would have covered the facts. Mentioning the miniskirt and halter top send a subtle signal that many readers would inevitably interpret to mean she was 'slutty' or 'asking for it.'

If I can find enough other articles where people who were ultimately killed are described partly in terms of what they're wearing, will Broadsheet admit that it's now officially entered the realm of making up things to be angry about?

Ridiculous. Broadsheet has officially gone bazoo.

The author writes:

Are murder victims "asking for it" now too? Note that this story mentions an 18-year-old was wearing, a black halter top and white miniskirt at the time of her abduction.

I would much prefer a world in which we could each wear whatever we wish, without having to risk negative consequences.

Likewise, it would be a distinctly better world if only we could walk through a tough neighborhood at any time of the day or night without having to risk negative consequences.

Alas, these preferences are not aligned with the real world.

A woman wearing revealing clothing will attract more attention from men than one who is not -- and some of that attention will sometimes be from dangerous people.

The above observation does not -- in any way -- excuse the perpetrator, mitigate the crime, or blame the victim.

Yet it is true nonetheless, and all the protestations in the world won't change that.