Folks would be surprised to learn that often I hear accounts from witnesses *first*, and it’s the victim herself who isn’t willing to come forward because it’s a very, very painful process. That may persist for YEARS of leads.

Again: Reporters have no story until we get consent to tell one.

April 11, 2026 - 00:58 UTC

6
5
546
Perhaps if more women's lives weren't destroyed by going public it would be easier.
1
1
94
Absolutely correct 🎯
0
0
31
I think a lot of y’all don’t understand that standards are different for assault reporting because it’s trauma reporting. Generally hold to “do no harm” — whether we’re talking state politics or world leader. This is the industry standard in most media orgs; it only works if we get consent.
1
0
214
It's not so much that ALL THESE PEOPLE knew and did nothing, it's that they're fucking popping right up and seemingly bragging about knowing now.

Maybe they could shut up and sit down or AT LEAST act like they WISH they could have said SOMETHING.
1
0
11
Does not surprise me a bit, but i have been one.
0
0
1
This is insightful
0
0
1
Thank you for taking care not to expose survivors of abuse to more abuse until/unless they expressly consent.

(Because we know and they know, going public will invariably expose them to more abuse, including from 'the good ones')
0
0
6
I'm not arguing with you here but there's probably a disconnect in some people's mind, if you have witnesses to abuse, but no permission. I saw a Congress member abuse someone *seems* like a story
1
0
2
The way we handle assault reporting is a whole different kettle of fish because it’s considered trauma reporting. Generally hold to the ethical standard of “do no harm” — whether we’re talking state politics or world leader. One can argue, but it’s absolutely the industry standard in most media orgs
2
0
28