I learned of this story from my Facebook news feature, but soon realized it's has been continually going on for 17 years. Essentially, Gwyneth Paltrow recently testified again against a man who has been stalking and threatening her for almost two decades. As I read different articles, I was interested in the story itself and in how it would be portrayed by journalists.
The first article I read (from Refinery29) discussed Paltrow as a mother, which I thought was an interesting twist on the virgin/vamp idea. If she's a mother specifically, rather than a woman in general, does that make the stalking less socially acceptable or seem like more of a crime? The second article, from Wetpaint, describes her as "the 43-year-old actress" and also discusses the lengths she's taken to ensure safety for herself and her children. I think the choice to add this shows Paltrow as being more sympathetic and the stalker as more threatening. Portraying Paltrow as an "older" actress and a mother works as a sort of "virgin" frame in these stories, emphasizing her innocence and making the readers sympathetic to her case.
Another thing that I noticed immediately is the description of the perpetrator, Dante Soiu, as "psychologically unstable." While this can be viewed as a rape myth, his mental illness is actually a big part of the story - he apparently threatened her in various ways and sent her 66 letters, including pornographic material and flowers. In this case, calling the perpetrator insane isn't just a tactic to make him seem more dangerous - he really is dangerous and mentally unstable. However, I also think that's one of the reasons this case is being reported on - because it is such a classic case of stalking and gendered violence.
I'm not sure how to feel about this coverage. Is the stereotypical victim/perpetrator frame necessary for this case, or are there other, more helpful, ways to cover it? Or is its stereotypical nature the reason it's being covered at all?
Another thing that I noticed immediately is the description of the perpetrator, Dante Soiu, as "psychologically unstable." While this can be viewed as a rape myth, his mental illness is actually a big part of the story - he apparently threatened her in various ways and sent her 66 letters, including pornographic material and flowers. In this case, calling the perpetrator insane isn't just a tactic to make him seem more dangerous - he really is dangerous and mentally unstable. However, I also think that's one of the reasons this case is being reported on - because it is such a classic case of stalking and gendered violence.
I'm not sure how to feel about this coverage. Is the stereotypical victim/perpetrator frame necessary for this case, or are there other, more helpful, ways to cover it? Or is its stereotypical nature the reason it's being covered at all?
I found this story really interesting as well. I think the media did a good job covering it by not using vamp language to describe Paltrow. I believe that the virgin frame the journalist went with was the right choice because it showed the affect that the stalking had on her personal life and intimate family. Since she is a mother, having a stalker is even more of a concern because there are more people drawn into the picture. I'm not really sure what you mean by "stereotypical" victim/perpetrator frame because there isn't really a different way to spin this story without victim blaming or discussing how Paltrow's fame may have 'caused' her stalker to start stalking her.
ReplyDeleteI think the article did its best to not fall into the rape myth or virgin/vamp traps and just report the truth about the horrific incident.