RE: Afghan woman’s choice: 12 years in jail or marry her rapist and risk death (feat. liars Nick Paton Walsh, Masoud Popalza)

For this picture, deceptive reporters Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza have staged Gulnaz into the middle of the room, for effect. The deceptive reporters likewise asked others in the room to stand away from Gulnaz, making it seem that she is in solitary-confinement with her child; further, the deceptive reporters let their uninformed western audience suppose that to sit without a chair is uncommon in Afghanistan and thus a punishment for Gulnaz. That is a lie by omission.

For this picture, deceptive reporters Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza have staged Gulnaz into the middle of the room, for effect. The deceptive reporters likewise asked others in the room to stand away from Gulnaz, making it seem that she is in solitary-confinement with her child; further, the deceptive reporters let their uninformed western audience suppose that to sit without a chair is uncommon in Afghanistan and thus a punishment for Gulnaz. That is a lie by omission.

Nestled within advertisements for western gadgets, meditation gimmicks, chiropractic services and a financial advice corporation, CNN presents a facade of journalism, entitled, “Afghan woman’s choice: 12 years in jail or marry her rapist and risk death,” wherein Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza lie about the situation of Gulnaz, an Afghan woman imprisoned in Afghanistan for adultery. Gulnaz claims to have been raped.  There is no reason to believe her or the reporters who parrot her statement as fact.

The deceptive article begins as follows: “The ordeal of Gulnaz did not simply begin and end with the physical attack of her rape. The rape began a years-long nightmare of further pain, culminating in an awful choice she must now make.”

From that point on, exactly zero evidence is given to substantiate the woman’s claim of rape, or to justify calling her sex-partner a rapist, besides her own statement.  In fact, the only other substantive quotation is from the sex-partner, a man whom the faux-reporters wrongly describe as guilty: “We found Gulnaz’s convicted rapist in a jail across town … he denied raping her.”

Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza are liars.  They know that the man is not a convicted rapist–they know that he was convicted of the same crime as was Gulnaz: adultery.

The real story: “Man and woman jailed in Afghanistan for premarital sex”

This is the only story that Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza truly had, but they ignored the real story because the false story better entices the liars’ audience–sloppy western chauvinists–into prejudicial woman-pitying and misandry, as well as fear and loathing of Middle Eastern people, and thus garners the two liars, Nick Paton Walsh and Masoud Popalza, more pats on the back from their fem-anesthetized colleagues, more money from their keepers.  Go back to sleep.

This entry was posted in Russ Lindquist and tagged , , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

2 Responses to RE: Afghan woman’s choice: 12 years in jail or marry her rapist and risk death (feat. liars Nick Paton Walsh, Masoud Popalza)

  1. Charlotte says:

    My thoughts:

    After reading the CNN article, it is obvious that the article’s purpose is to shed light on supposed horrors of life in Afghanistan… And perhaps imply that the USA is far more just, especially by having empathy for “innocent victims.” (This article seems to reflect Cold War tactics by dishonoring one’s opponent, Afghanistan).

    Just as it is irresponsible for authors Walsh and Popalza to present a woman’s story (or any testimony-fueled story) as certain truth, I find it equally unfounded to claim with certainty that the testimony is false. Nevertheless, I commend you for emphasizing the importance of questioning sources and not blindly swallowing information as facts.

    • Russ says:

      Thanks for the (solicited) feedback, Charlotte 😀

      “After reading the CNN article, it [obviously reflects] Cold War tactics by dishonoring one’s opponent, Afghanistan.” — Charlotte

      See how that works? I can use only that–and it would characterize you wholly and only as against the article. C’est la Journalism. It has rules, and it has tricks.

      First, to be clear, I did not claim–and certainly not with certainty–that Gulnaz’s testimony is false; I only said, “there is no reason to believe her.” More specifically, we should reject the idea that, “if a woman says that a man is a rapist then the man must be a rapist.”

      In the US, even with a 10% level of false-accusation (and plenty respectable studies put the figure far higher), women lie about rape all the time–sometimes to get pity, sometimes to avoid punishment, sometimes for vengeance.

      The potential for her to lie is there, and I reject the idea that a man should be assumed guilty–just to be safe–if ever a woman accuses him of rape. “But rape is too important to afford the accused Due Process!” No.

      Furthermore, in setting aside the caricature of women generally–and Middle Eastern women specifically–as necessarily victims whenever they claim to be, the fact is that Afghan women are capable of lying–yes, even about rape. Gulnaz’s word should be no more immediately believed than the word of her alleged attacker. But remember: his words are in defense, and the burden of proof should be on the prosecutor, not the defender–even if the defender is a man.

      The main journalistic problem that I have is that, in Afghanistan, there is no way that this man was brought before a court–let alone found guilty of rape–based on one woman’s word against his. However, if, impossibly, that happened then the journalists would mention it, and it would be a very easy and important mention: “[NAME of the guy] was found guilty of Rape by [the court’s name] on [date].”

      Speaking of names, and this is VERY important: if this guy was convicted of rape then the reporters could, should–and certainly would–use his name when reporting that he is a rapist. They would be derelict reporters if they did not mention his name and thereby warn his possible future-victims. However, they did not mention his name. Why not? For his protection? Laughable. Because of some Afghan law against naming rapists? Nope. Reason: it would have been libelous because he was not convicted of rape.

      If he was named in an official document–and a court decision is an official document–then they can give his legal name; otherwise, if they were to name him then that would be libelous, and the reporters’ pants could be respectively and collectively sued off. However, had the man been convicted of rape, the reporters could have–and would have–used his name, and most likely his picture too. Can you even imagine a reason why they wouldn’t? I cannot.

      However, remember this: reporters can refer to whomever they want, however they want, and it is not libelous–as long as the references do not identify the person.

      The real story deserves plenty attention: a guy and gal are in jail for having premarital sex.

      Also, consider the story in the context of customs, in many Middle Eastern countries, that require males to escort a female relative whenever she leaves the house: while not ideal, such are more measures of well-meant protection than many western woman-pitiers would like to believe.