And Again Diana Shurygina. Media Crime Against Society

2024 Author: Harry Day | [email protected]. Last modified: 2023-12-17 15:43

For more than a year, the "passion for Diana" did not subside, and now there is a new story - two channels, vying with each other to arrange programs dedicated to the release of the convicted guy, then more - a second participant appears, and so on. The show must go on … And you know what I think about this? This whole show story, a real crime of the mass media, is about the formation and consolidation of victim blaming in the minds of viewers. How does this happen?

Here, we are watching a program where the personality of Diana is actively discussed. The events of the evening when what happened are being reconstructed. The aggressively-minded audience, together with polygraph specialists, initially in an accusatory and edifying tone asks questions on the topic: is it true that Diana herself came where she came? Yes its true! Is it true that she drank there? Yes its true! Is it true that she kissed a guy accused of rape? Yes its true! Well, that's right - the audience makes an obvious conclusion. Anyone in the guy's place would have done the same: she wanted to! "The bitch won't want, the dog won't jump up!" he is not guilty of anything! he was slandered, set up! he is an innocent victim of the insidious Diana, who is now actively promoting herself on this! yes, look at her, how she behaves now - not as a victim of rape (they themselves, by definition, should behave about someone else - she does not cry, does not tear her hair, does not hide from shame!).

If we digress for a second from the personality of Diana Shurygina, which may not be very pleasant, understandable, and really may not arouse sympathy, what will we see? And we will see the following objective reality: despite the fact that the person was found guilty of a crime by the court of the Russian Federation, his guilt was proven, the entire “progressive” community stood up for him, accusing the victim of provocative and unworthy behavior.

And, this is a PRECEDENT! This is a time bomb.

Let's clarify what rape is, in the understanding of the Criminal Code.

Rape (Article 131 of the Criminal Code of the Russian Federation) is a type of sexual violence, usually involving the commission of sexual intercourse by one or more people with another person without the latter's consent.

WITHOUT AGREEMENT!

And now, let's imagine that the girl wanted to walk and have fun, wanted to drink alcohol, and even kiss with the young man she liked, but at the same time she did not want sex! Well, could she not want to? Does she have the right NOT to WANT TO HAVE SEX? And disagree? Or does all the behavior that the girl showed before the incident unambiguously indicate that she agrees to have sex? Or is it so interpreted by young people, and at the same time by the majority of the population of our homeland? Where is the correlation between these unrelated desires and needs: do I want to spend time with my reference group, drinking alcohol and flirting with boys = "I want sex?" automatically? No!

But the audience, which with their questions leads the girl to the answers that only confirm them in their own opinion, is sure that yes!

Did we, adult aunts and uncles, after flirting and kissing with a potential sex applicant, understand that “nope, not mine. I don’t want to, not ready, not now”? And refuse! At any stage of any process - THE PERSON HAS THE RIGHT TO REFUSE! And the other must respectfully treat someone else's right to protect their own borders, through self-control, to refuse an action that is not accepted by the partner.

The word no is the stop rule! And respecting someone else's "no" is the primary task that sane adults should set themselves when teaching and raising their children.

What allows the audience of these programs to form their opinion in the “self-overruled” style? As I think, the subjective assessment of the personality of Diana Shurygina herself - how dare she behave like this, after all the “type of experience”? how does she sit? what does he say? how does it behave? and so on, in general, not the most pleasant person, in the perception of many.

Probably yes, maybe it's true, does not cause sympathy. And therefore the public does not believe her. And the conclusion makes - such a linear, primitive. Can't be a victim of SUCH. This means that she is not a victim at all. And that means that the boy, she said, but she herself is still rubbish. And the rapist is quite the opposite - so well-mannered, calm. Good boy, in general!

But, let's remember, the rather famous film "Voroshilovsky shooter", where the grandfather of the raped girl took revenge for her granddaughter, because the investigator tried to slow down the case on the "brakes", imputing "two ways", asking the victim the same questions:

- Didn't you, girl, know those young people who allegedly raped you? Oh, I knew! Excellent!

- Didn't you voluntarily go to the place where you were invited? Oh, let's go! Great!

-And did you not have a glass of champagne with them? For a birthday, a glass ?! Ah, duck, well, I understand …

Does the girl from "cinema" evoke sympathy? Calls. And grandfather's revenge is not condemnation, but a complete understanding. Why? But because the image of such a correct victim is created and conveyed to the viewer. What kind of victim is she supposed to be? A quiet, humble lamb, an eternal sufferer, a bashful recluse. Such is the heroine of the film - a really naive girl, in whose life experience and picture of the world there is no duplicity, violence and betrayal. And she evokes sympathy. Both righteous anger and a desire for retribution.

And Diana Shurygina does not evoke sympathy, she is the wrong victim! It does not fit into the stereotyped and stereotyped perception of the majority. She is cheerful, oars. Overconfident and impudent. And she doesn’t cry at home behind the stove, but quite the opposite, she had the audacity to talk about something shameful, but to the whole country to speak and show.

Now what? If she is not a cliché, not a template, not a stereotype - she CANNOT BE a VICTIM? And if she did, then EXACTLY HIMSELF PROVOCATED IT? How? Duck herself - she went, drank, kissed.

People are very dangerous beliefs!

If we separate the personality of Diana from the consideration of the CASE itself, then are we not afraid that the created precedent for discussing the case in the media in such a context, on the basis of which the very possibility of blaming the victim and justifying the perpetrator takes root in the minds of people, will lead to dire consequences?

The mass media today have a decisive role in shaping the worldview of any person. If you do not have a clear, tough and uncompromising position regarding ALL cases of violence without exception, regardless of persons, statuses and exceptional conditions, if it becomes possible to discuss in the media (!!!) the guilt of the victim (the victim recognized by the court!), Then very soon we will see where this leads:

First, to a neutral position - when something like that, discussed for the hundredth time in a similar context, no longer causes shock, condemnation and public outcry among the general public.

Then, gradually - towards loyalty, tolerance and tolerance for unacceptable things.

And then it will become the norm. This is how, smoothly, step by step, imperceptibly for itself, society comes to the acceptance of what cannot be accepted under any conditions and circumstances.

On one, separately taken example, the condemnation of Diana Shurygina, unpleasant for the majority, society can, imperceptibly for itself, find itself in a situation of accepting violence as a norm, come to the conclusion that the crime can be provoked by the victim. If society simply considers it possible to divide victims into “right” and “wrong”, and by the same principle to identify criminals, based on stereotyped perception, we can imagine what such a flattened perception can lead to?

Chikatilo really looked like a killer and a psychopath?

The famous "Bitsevsky maniac" offered his victims "a little drink". Often a person who is not burdened with addiction often agrees to drink with a stranger? Most of his victims are alcoholic and antisocial individuals.

All the victims of the "Angarsk maniac" Popkov (about 80 brutally murdered women) themselves got into his car, easily agreeing to share alcoholic drinks with an unfamiliar person.

Do the personal qualities and lifestyles of these people affect their rights: the right to life, health, dignity and security of the person?

About provocative and seductive behavior, all, as one say, pedophiles, raping their growing daughters and stepdaughters. In our society, the “presumption of guilt” of the victim is taken as a basis - you first prove that you are a real victim! When they were raped and killed - yes, you can't argue with that, there is no such thing as a victim. And so - it is still necessary to prove, did you not give it yourself?

Think about it!

Speech, in general, is not at all about Diana Shurygina, who, it may well be that, really gave consent to sex, and now chops the grandmother. We will never know the truth. This is a completely criminal, from my point of view, media policy, which, by exaggerating this hype story, allows itself to create a precedent of public condemnation and accusation of the victim of a crime. Diana will be shown a couple more times, until everyone gets tired of this topic, and they forget about its existence.

And the precedent will remain! The practice of blaming the victim for her “wrong, provocative” behavior, while simultaneously justifying the rapist, will remain the norm. There will remain a scheme of gradual acceptance of violence, when under certain circumstances it is “as it were justified”, and, as it were, violence at all: neutral attitude - loyalty - the norm (“and what is it”).

Justifying violence should not be a field for discussion. Especially the public ones!

There are things in life that do not tolerate half measures, ambiguous interpretations, alternative attitudes.

You can't torture animals! You can't beat children! It is illegal to be violent, period! And there is nothing to discuss, condemn, justify! No double standards!

To determine the guilt of a criminal, there are bodies of inquiry, investigation and court, which should be puzzled to take into account all the circumstances of the case on the merits and not convict the innocent. A woman's defiant behavior, her dubious morality or alcohol intoxication is neither a reason to commit violence, nor its justification. And it is not the business of the public and the media - to judge incompetently, emotionally, publicly.

It is a crime to allow in the field of public and mass discussion the issues of "admission and justification" of a crime, no matter what context we are faced with in particular.

Radionova Yulia Anatolievna