Karla Homolka, Media Superstar
Karla Homolka has been getting an enormous amount of media attention lately. I’m not convinced that all this attention is in the best interest of society and I don’t think it’s fair to the families of her victims, either.
Homolka served a paltry 12 years for her crimes because of an often-criticized deal where she agreed to testify against Bernardo. Her light punishment has led to two things, I think: first, many feel as though justice was not served, and second, it’s easy for many others to get the impression that her crimes weren’t really all that severe.
The idea that justice wasn’t served has led many in the media to seek revenge by ensuring that she cannot escape the wrathful public eye. Large groups of reporters milled around the prison yesterday in the hopes of getting that precious first shot of Homolka’s first taste of freedom, and she’s been the subject of plenty of vociferous attacks in the press.
As an attempt to make things difficult for Homolka, however, I think this strategy is backfiring. Her lawyers are making the case that this treatment is unfair, that she has served her sentence and deserves freedom from relentless media intrusion, not least because it jeopardizes her safety. Homolka has furthered this strategy by granting an exclusive interview with SRC (the French version of CBC), where she appeared demure and reasonable, playing to the sympathies of the public as a misunderstood, remorseful woman who deserves a second chance.
The impression that her crimes must not have been all that severe, given her light sentence, helps her make this case to the public, especially since the memory of what her and Bernardo did has faded over the years. And it’s easy to argue that she has paid her debt to society because she served her sentence in full. What’s easy to forget (as Senator Michel Biron must have done, when he appeared in court to support her), as the glare of the media spotlight glints off her carefully coifed hairstyle, is that her debt is paid so soon because she was never held fully accountable.
This spotlight is all about Karla. Karla sells papers and grabs viewers, so when those in the media consider the bottom-line – money – Karla is a good thing. She was interviewed by the French media partly because, according to her interviewer, Joyce Napier, she feels the English media gave her a “bad rap” (how unfair). With the power to boost the fortunes of broadcasters and journalists by granting exclusive interviews, perhaps it’s unsurprising the media is willing to have her appear in their studios – well-dressed and well-rehearsed, looking better (and speaking French better) than many of our politicians.
Her appearance in this manner scrapes open the wounds of the families she hurt so terribly and disrespects the memory of her victims. Why allow her to garner sympathy? What effect does this have on those unbalanced individuals in society who may look up to her, fantasize about her, perhaps even try to emulate her?
Better, I think, to ignore her. Let her scuffle off into the shadows of anonymity to live with her demons. Turning her into a celebrity just isn’t right, no matter how much it might sell papers and airtime. Our media should know better.
July 5th, 2005 at 4:07 pm
I know what you mean. I blame slow times – a lack of imagination perhaps – and nothing else to sell papers. Bring back the scandal-ridden Liberals, or fast forward to Steven Harper’s next candid love-in with the Canadian public. Live 8 came and went with little of a lasting impression; I suppose we are left with Karla. For the record, I don’t think she’ll last very long – draw your own conclusions.
July 6th, 2005 at 6:35 am
Adrian you hit the nail on the head. I grew up in the area where she committed her crimes. I was a teenager then too, and at times felt afraid for my safety. All this media attention is just disgusting to me. I would really prefer it if this woman just disappeared and never committed a crime again. I also want that people leave her alone…we are not “God”, I don’t really think its neccesarily our choice to take a life as punishment for a crime. I believe Karma will get her in the end, I have no doubt about it, if not in this life, then the next or elsewhere. What is happening right now is such a disservice to the families…I just can’t find the words to express my disgust with the situation. Is this really a case of “the public has a right to know” or is it just a sensational news story?
I wonder, if we look back at our media through history, has there ever been a case where one or more media service felt that the nature of a story was so disgusting that it did not warrant reporting, even though other new services did? Has any Canadian new service EVER stopped acting like a little child and actually given mature thought to the consequences of their actions, or have they all remained disallusioned within the cloak of freedom of information and “the public has a right to know?”
July 6th, 2005 at 9:22 am
I’ll take a freely unprincipled media, over one governed by timid morality anyday.
July 6th, 2005 at 1:46 pm
If the media applied the same unprincipled tabloid pursuit of “the story” to their treatment of government, business, foreign affairs and the concealed injustices of society as they do to serial sex killers, I would agree with you.
In the case of the SRC’s exclusive interview with Homolka, allowing Homolka a forum to garner public sympathy is at best a gross error in judgment, at worst a callous disregard for victims and their families.
July 7th, 2005 at 9:57 am
Absolutely!! Forget Homolka! But why is she out? Why is she not rotting in jail for the rest of her life? Why does the media not put some of the spotlight on the justice system that has allowed her to be free?
July 7th, 2005 at 10:54 am
You honestly think there is something special (or carnivalesque) about the current mainline Canadian media coverage of Karla Holmolka? I get the feeling both you and Ilia are “so disgusted” you are putting the proverbial cart before the horse on this one.
Certainly, there are different depths (and touch-points) to a story on business or foreign affairs, than there are to a story on dear Karla. But, that’s just the point, it’s a shallow story. It isn’t shallow journalism! (What kind of esteem do you hold Canadian newsrooms in anyways?)
You have made a judgement call: saying the SRC interview was a rallying point for public sympathy. That’s fine, you are entitled to your opinion, and you may be marginally correct to assume that Karla’s legal team wanted to humanize her in the public eye – an unscupulous act in some regards, but perfectly legal. However, your desiring newsrooms to tailor their coverage of KH in order to pretend that modern media-makers are sympathetic to a sensitive public, or to pretend that they have some code of ethics to uphold, is (to give both you and Ilia a metaphorical return) dissallusioning and a gross error in judgement.
Ade, you’ve written many times on dubious media coverage – stories that in your estimation are biased, loaded, and now, “tabloidesque.”
You know that that’s how it works. It’s part of the bargain. They can write about anything they want (with a nauseating capacity for repitition) and so can you.
Anyways – I digress – the real point I wanted to make is that, when we talk about media (as an umbrella term meaning all information communicated for profit or profitability) I am surprised to see people trying to exact moral obligations. It is a perilous argument that sets the value of freedom of speech up against the value of the public good (the value of the public good often being defined by a barometer for good taste, or the desire to avoid violence/hate.) In this case, I think we are debating the position of Homolka-mania on the barometer of good taste. (Unless of course you think Homloka-mania threatens public safety as well)
Do you think, with the argument in this context, that freedom of speech defensible even when it pushes our limits? Is freedom of speech more important than balanced, objective news media?
(*as an aside – what will you expect from the western feed of Al Jazeera?)
July 7th, 2005 at 1:39 pm
I think freedom of speech is defensible (and paramount) in all situations except where the speech is used to incite violence, as the law already prohibits. Yes, it is more important than balanced and objective news media, simply because there will never be agreement on what is “balanced and objective” anyway (Fox News’ slogan, “fair and balanced” is a prime example) and attempts to enforce someone’s idea of “balanced” belong in repressive police states, not in free democracies. When Al Jazeera starts their western feed, I’m sure a primary criticism will be that they are not balanced or objective, but I will defend their freedom of speech.
That’s why, in my criticism of the media coverage of Homolka, I never called for limits on their freedom of speech or advocated enforcement of a code of ethics (of which various exist). You are correct that this is, in a way, about good taste. But it’s deeper than that. Although the story may be shallow, the impact Homolka has had on people directly affected by her crimes is not, and that’s why calling it “good taste” – implying a sense of manners – is a little deceptive. It’s not about politeness vs. impropriety. It’s about the way we treat the victims and perpetrators of serious crimes.
July 7th, 2005 at 1:53 pm
I should add, re. your comment:
“the real point I wanted to make is that, when we talk about media (as an umbrella term meaning all information communicated for profit or profitability) I am surprised to see people trying to exact moral obligations”
You know I’m a small-l liberal, it should come as no surprise to you that I advocate corporate responsibility.
July 7th, 2005 at 2:54 pm
I think you are asking for propriety. If not, then what do you mean by “how we treat the victims and perpetrators of serious crimes?” What are you implying? How should we treat them, and what’s the specific problem with this media coverage?
How does this coverage counter corporate responsiblities to uphold either a)victims rights; or b)the public good.
I’m not even sure that there is a corporate responsibilty to uphold victim’s rights? Unless their actions contravene a law. Is there a law that applies here? I can’t think of any law.
I’m also wondering if you can shed light on the journalistic code of ethics? Of which you attest there are many. (I’m not being fecicious either – if you know of some, I’m curious) Are these enforceable, or are they taken in convention. I know that a newsroom can’t print anything they would like, but is there an ethical code that accompanies that legal fact?
Again, I digress (if only to probe the nuts and bolts of our conversation)
Back to Homolka-mania –
At this point, I should go on record and say that I don’t think the news media coverage of KH is at risk of trivializing her crimes writ-large – or making it seem that she might not be such a bad girl (insofar as that she was released from prison after a paltry 12 years and must be less guilty than Bernardo). Anyone who has read the recent shit storm of media on KH should know, it is largely anti-Karla. She is not getting a leg up on starting over from all of this. In fact, one could argue she’s doing herself a huge disservice by holding a post-jail release interview. Clearly, a few of us are not amused.
Maybe you are right, in that, some folk might not be privy to the larger scope of stories, and draw “a headline opinion” that KH is a girl done wrong – or worse, a reformed criminal; someone who has paid her due to society. But I’m ok with that; let me explain:
I’m the first to say that the Canadian legal system is grossly out of touch when it comes to handling violent crimes, and therefor, I’m not ready to make the newsmedia culpable for the opinions people have about Karla. I say the more coverage the better. (I think we can expect a wheel-barrow more to come as well) I’d rather a few people draw a misguided opinion, and we get some conversation about the legal background to this case, than we get minimal (tasteful?) coverage, and a sense of propriety in our treatment of the ‘victims.’ *I’ll keep using these words until you set me straight Duyzer
Karla’s not a celebrity – she’s a disturbing example of how counter-intuitive legal bargaining, and a relaxed set of laws have failed Canadians.
That’s what’s disgusting. Quite frankly, it deserves coverage, of every form, whether the victims like it or not.
July 7th, 2005 at 4:43 pm
I’ll respond one at a time:
>> “What do you mean by ‘how we treat the victims and perpetrators of serious crimes?’ What are you implying? How should we treat them, and what’s the specific problem with this media coverage?”
I’m not just implying, I’m outright saying, that the victims and the perpetrator in this case have not been treated properly. The way much of the media have behaved toward KH’s release does not give me the impression that they think to themselves, “how does this affect victims and their families?” As much as KH’s crimes were against society in general, really, the crimes were committed against just a few people, namely Leslie Mahaffy, Kristen French and her sister Tammy. Most of the media stories don’t express outrage because KH violated the norms of society, they express outrage because of what she did to these people – in other words, it’s about them. They were the ones who were hurt then, and they’re the ones still getting hurt now.
The specific problem with a lot of the media coverage is this: it’s sensationalist; it’s “tabloidesque”, leaving out reasonable discussion of important issues (such as the legal bargaining and the “relaxed” laws you mentioned in our post); much of it is characterized by virulent personal attacks on KH which lead to impressions of unfair treatment, further leading to people feeling sorry for her, expressing support for her, perhaps not thinking about what the effect such support has on her victims and KH’s sense of entitlement; some of it is misleading, like the one article I read in the Star describing an interview with Bernardo that turned out to be years old (it appeared to be current), I attribute this to eagerness to join the fray; much of it is just plain stupid, like the Globe’s handwriting analysis bits, and there are probably many other criticisms that could be made. These types of things are problems with the media in general, but they’ve been at their worst for this one.
>> “I’m not even sure that there is a corporate responsibilty to uphold victim’s rights?”
I make a distinction between enforced responsibility (pollution laws) and moral responsibility (paying your employees a fair wage). Whether or not a corporation is bound to uphold victims’ rights is something I don’t know. News organizations already have policies in place that are similar, for instance they will not identify the victims of sexual assault except in cases where their identity is already known (e.g. the recent case of Shasta Groene in the US). So let me ask you: should the media report the identities of sexual assault victims? Doesn’t the fact they don’t indicate that they do walk a line between being “freely unprincipled” and being “governed by timid morality”?
>> “I’m also wondering if you can shed light on the journalistic code of ethics? Of which you attest there are many.”
This Google search turns up lots, the first of which is the Society of Professional Journalists – Code of Ethics, which includes the instruction to “Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.” I do not think there is a particular code that could lead to “disbarment” the way you can lose your license to practice law.
>> “I don’t think the news media coverage of KH is at risk of trivializing her crimes writ-large – or making it seem that she might not be such a bad girl”
Although this is hardly a fine piece of journalism – relying instead on anecdotes and what I see as a perhaps a typically western distrust of Quebecers, this article doesn’t agree with you. I link to this only for interest, because I’m not convinced this article is the best source. It would take a study, I think, for the real impact of her interview to be known.
>> “I’d rather a few people draw a misguided opinion, and we get some conversation about the legal background to this case, than we get minimal (tasteful?) coverage, and a sense of propriety in our treatment of the ‘victims.’”
I agree that a conversation about the legal background would be beneficial. As of yet, I have seen little discussion about this. Perhaps in the days to come, we will be pleasantly surprised.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:35 pm
This is an interesting discussion. I’m glad we’re having it, and I’m sure that Adrian’s jumping out of his britches, brimming with excitement over the controversy his blog has created.
As I was reading through this, my mind drew an interesting parallel between some of the discussion here and the discussion from my much-discussed blog entry about sexual harassment/sexual assault victims. Let me briefly sum up the relevant part of the argument from that discussion so the people who weren’t involved can have a basic understanding.
In the discussion of a victim’s responsibility in a sexual assault case (and please, I do not want to high-jack ade’s hot topic here, so no tangents!), many different viewpoints arose. Around the topic of reporting such events after the fact, one side of the argument believed that the victim was responsible for reporting the crime, for the greater good of society as a whole. In essence, to possibly prevent future victims of the same perpetrator, or to aid in the conviction of that person in a court of law. It was argued that without taking this step, without at least attempting to hold the criminal responsible, no progress could be made, and the public remained at risk. The other side of the argument held the belief that it is not the victim’s responsibility to come forward with such information – they are already victims of a horrible crime. To ask a victim to do that is unethical, and I think that there are laws in place protecting the victim in this very situation (do not quote me on that).
So, in the above situation, the victims are protected for their own benefit, at a cost to society (at least, IMO).
Now, in the situation we are currently discussing, the rights that we choose to uphold in the interest of the victims and society seems to be reversed. The (mental?) well-being of the remaining victims (in this case, the family members of the Homolka-Bernardo victims) is a lower priority than the public’s “right to know” or the freedom of information. The result that Alevo is hoping for is that this will generate discussion surrounding Canada’s lacking criminal code/system, possibly leading to changes (long-term) in the criminal system and therefore an over-all benefit for society.
I wonder, firstly, can these two situatios really be compared? If they can, why are the victim’s rights unprotected in the case of Homolka – is it because the “true victims” (Tammy Homolka, Kristen French, Leslie Mahaffey) are dead? Why do the living “secondary victims” (my own term – ha!) not have these same rights? Do you think that Karla would’ve been granted her little public appearance if even a single one of her true victims were still alive?
Well, I guess the answer to the last question is a double-edged sword. It would all depend on whether that victim was brave enough to come forward and tell their story. If the victim had done that, then the public system might not have needed to make a deal with Homolka in the first place, and she’d still be in prison. Then again, if that victim didn’t feel that they owed it to society to come forward, then today they’d still be living in fear, knowing that Karla was once again free, and not only that, but that she’s actually being given a chance to plea for sympathy on national television. And, best of all, that in truth, Karla is not being given this opportunity in the interest of freedom of speech, freedom of information or the protection of investigative rights (though they may certainly be used as excuses or support), but rather, for a sensational, top-news story.
July 10th, 2005 at 11:37 pm
^^^That last sentenec should read “jounalistic rights” not “investigative rights”. I wish there were a way to edit my comments after posting!
July 11th, 2005 at 7:36 pm
> I wish there were a way to edit my comments after posting!
As requested: click here.
P.S. There’s a problem with how this is working, please see my post about this issue for details.
July 29th, 2005 at 5:16 pm
My Perception of the Homolka Case
Right about now just about everybody in Canada and many throughout the world know about the Karla Homolka case CNN.com. After being sentenced to 12 years for manslaughter in the slaying of two schoolgirls in Ontario and the 1990 death…
October 6th, 2005 at 9:00 am
Karla Homolka should be shot, if you have ever searched into depth her crimes you would know why i feel so strongly. She’s one sick mother f****** biatch. She raped her own sister! Both her and her husband deserve to live no longer, i belive capital punishment should be used.