Edwidge Danticat Speaks on Mac McClelland Essay

I appreciate the article written here. I read the rape trauma article, as well as the response of female journalists and researchers to the article (http://blexi.blogspot.com/2011/07/female-journalists-rese...). Now, I've never been to Haiti, but I know that her description of the country is off the mark. She was only there a short time. If I relied on journalists such as Ms. McClelland to give me the full picture of what a country is about I don't know if I'd ever consider going to a place like Haiti, or the West Bank of Palestine - which I did 3 years ago. I would never want to go to places that are discussed in the media the way Ms. McClelland wrote about Haiti, and my life would be less for it.

As far as the rape trauma, it simply seems to be common sense that you don't do what she did. If she were to put herself in the place of K* what would she want? It doesn't matter to me what kind of consent she think she got, what kind of reporting is it to tweet what she did? It bothers me when "human rights" journalists sensationalize people's lives like Ms. McClelland did. Human rights journalists are supposed to get it, yes I understand they are imperfect, but I expect more of someone who covers human rights for a living. I expect you to understand the delicateness of the situation, I expect you to understand the impact of what you may write, I expect you to understand that these are human beings and they deserve to be treated with nothing but respect and honor. Honor the Haitian culture, honor Haiti, and most of all honor K* and what she went through and continues to go through. Please.

Finally, those of you from Mother Jones, Ms. Flemming, the IJDH, and Ms. McClelland - please take this discussion offline. Is it really appropriate to be discussing such sensitive things in this public arena? This is someone's life, as well as the impact on someone's career that is being discussed on a message board. Get on the phone with each other, if you are in the same city - meet somewhere private over coffee. Please stop throwing accusations, apologies and defenses around on the internet. Like I said above about K* - these are human beings you are discussing. I am getting a PhD in a field that revolves around the internet and education and so I can tell you that it's my, almost doctoral, opinion that the internet is not the place to solve issues like this. The place to solve these problems is face to face or on the phone, listening to each other. Good luck to all of you.

Let's be clear here -- this woman McClelland sodomized the guy "Isaac" who "raped" her with a fake ***** a few years ago. It was described in detail online by "Isaac." http://www.alternet.org/sex/83459/
So there is a pattern of self-promotion in describing unusual sex acts between these two to get attention... what adds a layer of utter cynicism is McClelland's use of a woman's rape in Haiti to make the whole thing "transgressive."It has the real effect of turning upside down the pretenses McClelland has as a human rights journalist, and if you stare long enough at this whole story and read the various accompanying articles--it's actually an on-ramp for all of us to see that human rights journalism as we know it is part of the imperial project.
If you look at the articles that have appeared by McClelland and her editor at Good's friends and sympathizers, there is a clear pattern of outright support with very weak disclosures at the bottom of their ties to the author and editor. Watching this unfold 3,000 miles away from it all, it looks like the worst kind of clubby corruption by a bunch of amateur journalists, proud of something, not sure what: that McClelland has a strong personality and they like that enough to show they are cowed by it?, or that she described something they wanted to be a part of it?, or they are maybe just tame human beings and live vicariously through her GOOD essay. Who knows. But we should care, because this is not virtuous activity going on here. It's writers' narcissism, imperial storytelling dressed up as universal trauma, shameless self-promotion with a touch of America in the post-Gitmo era to top it all off.
I applaud Essence for continuing this dialogue, and I know in my heart there is a chance for all of us to learn something from this.

Monika Bauerlein here, clarifying at IJDH's request: Brian, indeed the consent for Mac's reporting did not come from IJDH or BAI. Our comment was not intended to suggest it did, but simply noted that the fixer who conveyed K's and Jayne Fleming's consent to Mac had also done work for your organization.
We have great respect for the work IJDH, Jayne FLeming, and of course the brave Haitian women organizing around this issue, have done. And we can all agree that respect for sources, especially in situations of trauma or conflict, is crucial.

Ever since the "news" of McClelland's essay started infesting my Google news alerts on Haiti, I have been tempted to weigh in, but have resisted until now. I first went to Haiti in 2009 and have been back several times since because I love the place and am humbled by the people. I'm a writer and I understand the temptation that McClelland falls into again and again in her reporting (I'm not just talking about her personal essay) of thinking that the story is really about her. She is positively reinforced for this because she is a fabulous wordsmith with a lively voice. I always enjoyed reading her stuff in Mother Jones until she turned her pen to Haiti and I could see that she didn't really get the place -- which is her loss. Her apology here to K* sounds like that of an immature kid -- who still is making it all about her (and not a little disingenuous because it sounds like she's, just now, somehow, realizing that she hurt K* despite apparent ample evidence months ago). It makes me angry to read it. Compare that with the true strength of K*'s letter that Edwidge Danticat shares here. Compare that with the courage of a woman who speaks three languages and who has a beautiful singing voice and uses that beauty to inspire her fellow survivors. I hope that McClelland will use this experience to deepen her humanity and comp***ion -- both of which failed her here. And that, if she does, she won't write about how fabulous she is for having the tiniest fraction of the comp***ion and courage Haitians like K* quietly show every day.

Edwidge Danticat's piece is wonderful. After reading several pieces it's beautiful and comforting to hear the humanity that exists in this victim and how's she's overcome.

I absolutely respect personal essays and the right to write what one feels. I however, could not connect to the writers sentiments and couldn't readily identify the empathy for the victim. This disconnect only deepened after reading this article, and discovering the author had been tweeting about the altercation. It makes subsequent work look disingenuous, however again I can acknowledge it was a personal piece.

But again I'd like to thank you for writing such a lovely piece. It is so very important in this story to shed light back on the victim. I think it's so important to not just paint her as a victim but to restore her characteristics as a human being.

I am the Director of the Ins***ute for Justice & Democracy in Haiti (IJDH).

The statement by the Mother Jones co-Editors, Monika Bauerlein and Clara Jeffery above, that Ms. McClelland "connected with a local ***ociate/fixer for Ins***ute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and affiliated human rights advocates who allowed her to accompany him as he took a rape victim to a clinic" is, as far as we know, untrue. Our investigation concluded that IJDH and its affiliate in Haiti, the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux, were not involved in any way with obtaining consent for Ms. McClelland to broadcast the details of K's case. We have asked Mother Jones and the Co-Editors for proof of the ***ertion that IJDH personnel were involved. Mother Jones responded contesting our characterization of their allegation, but has not provided proof that an IJDH representative was involved.

It is true that IJDH, along with the Bureau des Avocats Internationaux (BAI) and other partners advocate for justice for rape survivors in Haiti. Our collective work has led to the arrests of over 50 alleged rapists and a groundbreaking decision by the Inter-American Commission on Human Rights). In order to publicize the issue of rapes in Haiti, we did provide advice, information and contacts to Ms. McClelland.

I agree with the second point made by Elaine. I am not a journalist but I know enough to understand that live tweeting someone's traumatic experience is inappropriate.

I also think it's inappropriate and unprofessional for all parties involved to defend themselves in the manner displayed. It's really too much. Everyone is losing sight of the victim and the vulnerable situation she has been placed in.

I've watched/commented on this story with great interest. I have two primary thoughts: One, McClelland has every right to write her personal essay and I, for one, applaud her courage to share such a personal experience. In no way do I confuse "essays" with "reports" and never, ever, thought that her account of PTSD in some way compromised the other reports I've seen of hers. It didn't bother me, for instance, that she referred to Haiti as a hellhole in the context of writing about her reactions to what she saw.
Two, it probably isn't wise to tweet about a recent rape victim *even if consent has been given* only because, in the context of severe trauma, researchers (like myself) would be cautioned against trusting that the consent had been given willingly/with full understanding. it's the nature of trauma. that said, I can easily imagine how, in the context of reporting, one can *think* they have consent and then learn later that the person changed their mind or felt they never gave it. Tough situation.

Bottom line: reporters can write essays and I admire McClelland's work.

I’m Monika Bauerlein, MoJo’s coeditor. Jayne, you have my cell number and I'd be happy to talk about any concerns you have anytime. For the record: As you know, following the email you posted above, we agreed to substantially limit the ways K’s story was reported in Mother Jones. After receiving K’s letter, we removed any direct mention of her from our stories entirely.

But the reporting you address in the above email took place prior to that point. Before going on the ridealong with your affiliate and K, Mac asked your affiliate to obtain explicit consent from both you and K. She wanted to make sure K was able to make her decision in private, rather than suddenly being confronted with a stranger.

Your affiliate ***ured her that consent had been given.

In your later emails, you stated that you had conveyed a request that any reporting should be run by you prior to publication. Our standards do not, nor have they ever allowed sources to review material prior to publication. Mac maintains this request was not relayed to her.

You confirmed to us that you had agreed to the ridealong, and in your emails to Mac at the time of her initial reporting did not raise any concerns about consent. You only asked that K’s name and two other details be removed, with which she complied. (“Thank you for the work you are doing in Haiti!,” you wrote in one email on September 21. “I look forward to talking.”)

As you know, after you contacted us raising additional concerns, we agreed not to publish any further web stories pending more discussion with you. We then came to an agreement about which details should be not be included in future stories. Eventually, after receiving K’s letter, we removed any direct mentions of her from Mac’s reporting on Haiti.

I’d like to reiterate that we had no prior knowledge of the content of Mac’s article for GOOD, or that she planned to revisit K’s story. As noted in our comment above, we have spoken to her about this and she understands that it was a serious lapse in judgment. We remain confident about her reporting for Mother Jones and stand by the work she has done here.

Again, happy to chat about this anytime.

I am the attorney for K. I have represented her since the day after she was ***aulted and have seen her every two months since then. I will see her in Haiti again tomorrow and I have her permission to post this comment.

I disagree with the representations in the "comments" posted above by the editors of Mother Jones and Ms. McClelland. Rather than rewrite history, I will simply copy and paste an email I sent to the editors on September 30, 2010, which captures my perspective and is the culmination of a series of shorter emails aimed at protecting K's privacy. I have redacted the name of one of my colleagues for privacy's sake. I have redacted confidential portions of the email that would put K at risk if published.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
"From: Fleming, Jayne
Sent: Thursday, September 30, 2010 6:16 AM
To: 'mbauerlein@motherjones.com'; **; 'bauerlein@motherjones.com'
Cc: 'cjeffery@motherjones.com'
Subject: Re: Response from Jayne Fleming

Dear Monika,

I am in Philadelphia with a very intense schedule this week. I will then be in Haiti for five days and then back in California. Let me try and make several points:

I have devoted a decade of my practice and many more years of my life to supporting and protecting rape survivors from further trauma. The overwhelming experience of a rape victim is powerlessness. My goal in my work is to restore that lost sense of power and control. I do this not only through legal representation, but by protecting a victim's privacy, security and public exposure. I am VERY careful to set ground rules when I work with reporters and I have worked with many, including in Haiti. I thought I had set these rules with Mac when I asked her (through Alain) to speak with me before writing about my clients. I have never in ten years had a reporter violate such a verbal agreement. Ironically, I just spent several days "fact checking" another story on Haiti for a major CA publication and they did not find this an inhibition on their journalistic integrity. They felt it enhanced the accuracy of the story and protected the interests of my clients. This is routine practice in my work with reporters because my work always involves trauma and crisis. I do not insist on reading copy. I insist on discussing confidentiality and privacy issues in rape and torture cases before stories run. No reporter has ever protested this.

I give Mac the benefit of the doubt and ***ume there was a misunderstanding of my expectations. However, let me clear up any confusion on some issues now.

I never affirmatively invited Mac to cover the lives of my clients. I have never in ten years solicited media in a case. I have sometimes allowed it, but always with the best interest of my clients in mind. My understanding is that Mac sought out the stories she intends to report by contacting Favilek and Alain. She asked Alain if she could ride along with him as he escorted victims to me***al care. Alain called me and asked my permission for this. I said it was okay on the condition Mac talk to me BEFORE writing about our clients.

Mac never suggested she would be giving play-by-play "tweets" of painful and confidential information about our clients throughout the day as she rode along with Alain. Had I known this was her intent, I never would have given her (or any reporter with these intentions) access to my clients.

To put it bluntly, I find the "tweet" media wholly inadequate for meaningful reporting about rape in Haiti. It may be provocative for readers outside of the disaster zone, with no historic grasp of gender based violence there, and no sense of imminent danger to their own life, but it is destructive and potentially life threatening for victims in Haiti.

Identifying a Haitian rape victim by name, geographic location and physical description in a tweet, all of which Mac did, places a victim in extreme danger in Haiti. I have personally placed more than a dozen women in safe houses there because they faced death threats for publicly revealing they were raped or helped another rape victim. These women have no police protection. They have no access to justice. They live in constant terror.

So does K*, which was obvious to Mac when K* saw the rapist on the way back to her camp and dove to the floor of Alain's vehicle. Rather than considering K*'s emotional condition and safety, Mac described the man in a tweet. She then identified the exact location of K*'s camp, describing it as "rape central" for added impact. Yes, the camp is one of the most dangerous in Port au Prince. Did it occur to Mac that perhaps that provided reason for caution in reporting on and identifying a victim from there?

Mac rationalized revealing K*'s name and other identifying information, post-tweet, by pointing to local Haitian journalists who had already used K*'s name on television. She failed to mention that Alain had already told her how dangerous this reporting was to K*. Furthermore, I ***ume Mother Jones is a leader rather than follower with respect to standards on confidentiality in rape cases. Apart from this, I had an agreement with Mac aimed at protecting K* and it was not pre***ated on what local reporters had or had not done. I know we disagree on the scope of this agreement, but I feel it was violated for the sake of tweeting in the heat of the moment. I never agreed to this approach.

Beyond the safety issues and violation of my understanding of our agreement, however, I feel compelled to ask, how could this tweet possibly capture the whole story? What, for instance, was gained by adding that one rapist **************** other than pure shock value? Sadly, this gruesome detail makes K* easily identifiable as the victim (how many others in her camp **************?), which puts her at risk.

And what was gained by stating K* was verbally accosted by a doctor who accused her of ***** and bearing the blame for the rape? Was that protective of K*'s privacy? Did it enhance her legal case? Did it consider her legal interest in seeking to prosecute the rapist? Did it consider that it took a week to find a doctor in Haiti willing and able to provide emergency care?

Yes, the doctor was out of line in her comments, but the one line tweet bashing this doctor was hardly complete reporting. Did Mac, for example, interview members of the Haitian National Police or other Haitian organizations that share responsibility for this cultural blame-the-victim at***ude? Perhaps a discussion of deeply entrenched Haitian at***udes about rape and the shame attached to it would have been more illuminating than a one-line tweet that hurt rather than supported K*.

I read all of Mac's tweets last night. I see she also threw in a one-liner about one of my clients who died last week. Mac did not have my permission to write about this client. Nor does one line even begin to tell the story of our eight month effort to help this woman, which is a story I will not share in detail lest it appear in print without my permission.

Mac refers to Alain in another tweet as "her driver" and even brags about giving him an exorbitant tip. That is simply false reporting. He was not her driver. She was shadowing him in his work as a project director working on a project for me.

There are other inaccuracies: She refers to my safe house project and says an NGO offered K* a house but it was too far away. I offered K* the house. I am not an NGO.

She provides a link to Favilek as the organization paying for K*'s care. Although I appreciate the support for Favilek, I pay for K*'s care with private funds I have raised in the U.S. If Mac had called me before writing her tweets, they might have been accurate.

I could go on, but it seems pointless. The truth is I am distrustful of any story about my clients because of the damage that has already been done. I ***ume you will print what you want, but it will be without my consent. I hope you will have the professional ethic to leave out names, locations and facts that would identify victims or witnesses and put them at risk.

In closing, everything in this email is confidential and may not be printed, tweeted, blogged or shared in any medium. If you still feel a call is needed, I am free at 2:00, as is **.

Jayne E. Fleming"

Sadly, nine months after I sent this email the debate about Ms. McCelland's reporting on my client is still raging and K is still exposed and traumatized. I hope that those who are concerned about K will find a way to conclude the debate and allow her to finally have peace.

this story gets more and more painful by the minute. i respect edwidge and i respect mac tremendously. you are two of the writers i admire most on the planet. you both have written extensively about trauma and have put your lives on the line for this.

i hope the editor of mother jones won't deprive us of mac's fabulous reporting because of this tresp***. i hope this gets worked out to everyone satisfaction. i hope mac's integrity gets recognized and her courage honored, and i hope k* feels the respect and honor she clearly deserves.

trauma has a way of splitting people apart. that it should split traumatized women apart -- women who are suffering because of having endured, directly or indirectly, the same trauma -- is heartbreaking to me. i hope reconciliation and understanding is reached here. i hope all women involved -- k*, mac, edwidge, the signatories of the jezebel, etc. -- can get together and understand that trauma is complicated and makes our lives an often untanglable mess. in this mess, we need to stick together and fight the forces that threaten to divide us. i wish you all forgiveness and love.

First and foremost, I cannot express how heartbreaking it is to hear that I caused K* any distress whatsoever. Let me say here: K*, I am so sorry about that, and please know that I do know from the time we spent together that you are unbelievably strong. You and countless other Haitian women I met, whose fearless defense of their own rights was a main focus of the feature I wrote about Haiti for Mother Jones.

As to the issue raised here of never gaining consent, I was credibly ***ured by the driver Edwidge mentions on the ride-along to the clinic with K*, on whom I was dependent for translation, and who was an ***ociate of K*s legal representatives, that I did indeed have it. Nothing during my interactions with him, or correspondence with K*s lawyers as I was publishing the information online and on Twitter, or the time I spent with the victim and her family over the course of several days gave me any reason to question that consent, and I relied on those agreements for my initial reporting, much of the details of which had previously appeared in Haitian media before my arrival. K*s lawyers then requested that certain details be withheld in any forthcoming pieces, and I complied. A month after I returned home, my editors at Mother Jones and I then received the letter Edwidge quotes, right before the Haiti cover story went to press, and we completely reworked it so that it contained only indirect references to K*. Her legal representatives had, to my knowledge, no objections to the information in the feature, as they wrote me to thank me and compliment me on it.

Regarding the recent GOOD piece, I take full responsibility for using a few of the already-published details about K*. My editors at Mother Jones had no knowledge I planned to revisit her story, and while my editor at GOOD was familiar with my previous reporting about K*, she had no knowledge of the backstory.

Again, I can’t apologize enough to K* or her family if I caused them any suffering or anxiety.

From the editors of Mother Jones:

Mac has been at Mother Jones for four years, first as a fact-checker, then as a copy-editor, and for almost two years now, as our human rights reporter. We are proud of the work she has done for us, which is gutsy and voicey, but also meticulously researched—as well as rigorously edited, fact-checked, and lawyered.

In the course of her reporting on Haiti, which took place in September of 2010, she connected with a local ***ociate/fixer for Ins***ute for Justice and Democracy in Haiti (IJDH) and affiliated human rights advocates who allowed her to accompany him as he took a rape victim to a clinic to get reconstructive surgery. Mac asked the representative to obtain consent from both the victim and the advocates involved. (The victim does not speak English.) In both instances she was ***ured that consent was given. And nothing over the several days she spent with the victim led her to believe otherwise. Several days after the first web pieces and tweets appeared, our email records show that the advocates were enthused about the reporting, but in the coming days they then began asking that certain details be changed. First it was that the name (only the first name was ever used) would be redacted or withheld. Eventually other details. In each case we complied. But then came the insistence that access had either never been given, or that it was conditional upon review of any material prior to publication—a condition that we would have never agreed to.

Although we would never allow a politician or a corporate spokesperson to walk back access or quotes, in this case, we wanted to respect the victim’s wishes and were sensitive to the inherent communications problems. We agreed to hold off on any more web stories on the matter and to revisit with the advocates as we fact-checked a feature piece. In November, after weeks of not getting back to our requests, the main advocate sent, via PDF, a letter from the victim that requested we not use her story. We cut any direct account of this victim from the story. We received complementary email from IJDH staff following its publication.

Months later Mac then wrote, for another publication (GOOD), a personal essay, in which she briefly summarized her earlier reporting of the incident. Mother Jones editors had no prior knowledge of this decision and were not involved in reviewing the piece. Mac understands that this was a serious lapse in judgment. We are reviewing our policies regarding freelance work by staffers.

Sincerely,

Monika Bauerlein & Clara Jeffery
Co-Editors
Mother Jones

Beautiful written, clear and concise version of the event. This was a an opportunity which Ms.McClelland seemed to have grasped to ride to fame. I wasn't aware that this article was published in Mother Jones. I have been getting Mother Jones for years and will be sending them a letter of condemnation. I will probably cancel my subscription, as I never found much in Mother Jones that dealt with issues outside the U.S. Demo-Rep. drama.
Mother Jones should give a great deal more thought to what they publish and they have long ignored the plight of people outside the comfort zone of the West.

I am very sorry that the woman, "K", was used by someone with a personal agenda. The only positive thing that has come out of all this attention given to Ms. McClelland is a huge reactin against this kind of self seeking, irresponsible and disgusting so-called 'journalism'. It is very clear that Ms. McClelland's writing was close to pornographic in her detailing of her own sexual mores and appe***ies.
This is a prime example of how Canadians and Americans go to Haiti to get something for themselves--giving little in return or causing far more damage.

This is the first time, since this ugly situation became quite the object for comment--that I have learned about the woman who was the victim. My opinion is that all Haitians are victimized as the flood of people continues to go into Haiti with the intention of enriching themselves. As long as the Haitian government allows this--the people of Haiti are indeed raped and robbed of their labor, resources, stories...anything that can be sold in the West.
Thanks to Edwidge Danticat for finally presenting the real story.

This is an extremely important, rational demonstration of facts that has been missing from the media coverage. Thank you.