Roman Polanski Child Rape Arrest Continues to Confuse Media

When you read the transcripts about how Roman Polanski drugged a 13-year-old girl with alcohol and pills, told her to take all her clothes off and then took advantage of her in a hot tub - only one real conclusion comes to mind: rape rape rape.

Sadly,  most of the mainstream media seems to be avoiding this possibility. If you take a look at the coverage to date,  much of the media has been unwilling to call a spade a spade and tell the public that the Oscar-winning Hollywood filmmaker did something wrong. Really, really wrong. And he should be in jail regardless of whether or not the incident happened 30 years ago.

Just take a look at some of these headlines - where is the outrage?

The one article I read in the mainstream media that seemed to accurately describe what happened comes from the Los Angeles Times and includes part of the grand jury testimony:

Q: Did you resist at that time?

A: A little bit, but not really because . . .

Q: Because what?

A: Because I was afraid of him.

That's Roman Polanski's 13-year-old victim testifying before a grand jury about how the famous director forced himself on her at Jack Nicholson's Mulholland Drive home in March of 1977.

I'm reading this in the district attorney's office at the Los Angeles County Criminal Courts Building, digging through the Polanski file to refresh my memory of the infamous case, and my blood pressure is rising.

Is it because I'm the parent of a girl?

Maybe that's part of it.

But I wish the renowned legal scholars Harvey Weinstein and Debra Winger, to name just two of Polanski's defenders, were here with me now. I'd like to invite Martin Scorsese, as well, along with David Lynch, who have put their names on a petition calling for Polanski to be freed immediately.

What, because he won an Oscar? Would they speak up for a sex offender who hadn't?

To hear these people tell it, you'd think Polanski was the victim rather than the teenager....

...I'd like to show all these great luminaries the testimony from Polanski's underage victim, as well as Polanski's admission of guilt. Then I'd like to ask whether, if the victim were their daughter, they'd be so cavalier about a crime that was originally charged as sodomy and rape before Polanski agreed to a plea bargain. Would they still support Polanski's wish to remain on the lam living the life of a king, despite the fact that he skipped the U.S. in 1977 before he was sentenced?

Women's Media Center also pushes back on the impotent reporting done by many journalists about this case:

Too often, the media is complicit in misrepresenting or silencing the victims of sexual assault. The Women's Media Center calls on the media to report the unfolding story of the Polanski arrest and possible extradition with clarity and specificity. The rape of a child is at the heart of the case. That is not disputed, and should not be represented as subjective.

The media cannot continue to report on this story as something other than what it is:  child rape. That is not a "so-called crime" either. Nor should it be called "sex with a child." And just because Polanksi has a little golden statue on his mantel doesn't mean he can avoid the ramifications of breaking the law - in fact it makes it even worse that he used his power and influence in such a destructive and irresponsible manner.