Was She Right to Go Public?

By Richard Zoglin

Her face was obscured at first by a small gray dot, then by a big blue one. Most stations bleeped out her name when it was mentioned during the trial. And news editors across the country wrestled with a tough question: whether to override a basic principle of journalism -- to give the public all the available facts -- in order to protect her wish for privacy and a chance to live a normal life after the case was closed. So when the woman who accused William Kennedy Smith of rape shed her anonymity on ABC's PrimeTime Live last week, the nation's press corps could have been excused a muted groan. What was the point of all that self-censoring if she was going to reveal herself on a TV talk show scarcely a week later?

( Patricia Bowman -- the name virtually every news organization now felt free to use -- told ABC's Diane Sawyer that she came forward so that other rape victims would not be scared off by her experiences. "I'm not a blue blob. I'm a person," she said. "I have nothing to be ashamed of." According to her lawyer, David Roth, Bowman turned down offers of up to $500,000 to tell her story, choosing Sawyer because of her "impeccable reputation for integrity." PrimeTime paid her nothing, but she told Sawyer she would not rule out taking money for future interviews.

Editors and broadcast executives were justified in feeling disconcerted. "I think we did the right thing ((to hide her identity))," said Tom Johnson, president of CNN. "But I do feel awkward about it now." Johnson and other news executives said her about-face will not change their attitude toward identifying rape victims. Explained an ABC News spokesperson: "Our policy is not to reveal the names of rape victims unless they choose. If at any time during the process they choose to go public, then we would name them." One news organization that may feel vindicated: NBC, the only TV network that consistently broadcast Bowman's name.

For the most part, the press was extraordinarily deferential toward Bowman. One news organization that initially named her, the New York Times, reversed itself after an early article describing Bowman's background drew heavy criticism. Even after the acquittal, most news organizations continued to withhold her name.

Bowman's appearance raised other fairness questions: Should she be allowed, after the prosecution failed to prove her charges in court, to reargue the case on the TV talk-show circuit, where there are no rules of evidence? That, at least, is a double-edged sword. Under Sawyer's questioning, Bowman reiterated her version of events on the night she claims she was raped. But she also had to face questions about issues that were kept out of the trial, like her alleged drug use, abortions, and her experiences as an abused child. No one, of course, can be denied a chance to tell his or her side of a controversial story, and appearing on TV talk shows has become almost a constitutional right in America. But the sight of Bowman going public in prime time will surely linger in the minds of news executives the next time a victim's plea for privacy clashes with the prerogatives of a free press.

With reporting by Sophfronia Scott Gregory/New York