Anita Hill Vs. Christine Ford.
Lawyer and now appointed Associate Justice of the Supreme Court of the United States, Brett Kavanaugh was accused of sexual assault by Dr. Christine Ford, causing an uproar throughout all forms of media. This sexual assault accusation against the Supreme Court nominee Kavanaugh, has proven to be exceedingly similar to that of a previous political sexual assault case that occurred in 1991 involving, the Supreme Court Nominee Clarence Thomas and his clerk Anita Hill.
Throughout the development of the 2018 Ford-Kavanaugh case, new media such as Twitter and Facebook, allowed for the thorough documentation of the people’s sentiments, opinions and thoughts regarding the accusation and its handling; data that was not easily collected back in 1991 during the Hill-Thomas case.
Today, new media allows both transparency and visibility of public opinion, while traditional media’s interests lie in protecting the reputations of the political elite regarding sexual assault allegations against Supreme Court nominees.
Get Jessica Sloan’s stories in your inbox
Join Medium for free to get updates from this writer.
Although both Ford and Hill both received a ton of backlash from the government, government officials and a few members of the public sphere — both victims also garnered support from an overwhelming number of women and men. The difference between the two scenarios lies in the vast deviation between new media and traditional media and the fact that new media allows for open-ended discussions and transparency in public opinion. Though both women counterblast in response to them speaking out, because of social media, Christine Ford was able to experience real-time support for her cause, while Hill was forced to face the heat, seemingly alone and only realised that she had garnered the support of many members of the public sphere when she returned to her office after the case had concluded and was greeted with thousands of letter from thousands of women, thanking her for her bravery.
After analyzing our data, we noted in our findings that there was very little difference in the style in which the articles were written. Both sets of articles were written objectively and reported only the facts. The facts being that in 1991, it was clear, that the Senate was doing everything in its power to scapegoat Anita Hill and protect the interests of Clarence Thomas. Because there was so little form of public communication — especially platforms which the government does not own — the New York Times only had the “facts” and opinions of the Senate during 1991. However, when it came to the Kavanaugh vs Ford case, although it was obvious that the Senate’s and the federal government’s only interest was ensuring that Brett Kavanaugh was appointed to the Supreme Court, because of social media — it was impossible for the opinions of just the Senate to make it into the New York Time’s news articles. The public’s opinion had to be reported on because it was just as factual as the Senate’s opinion. And that made all the difference. The objectivity of the paper source did not change, but the information they had available to them did.
Though both women received public support, Hill’s came in the form of private letters and even though that is a form of public support — it is a privately appreciated assemblage of such. New media allowed for public support to be publicly viewed thus allowing for public discourse. Women from all over the world were able to be share their stories, to bare their secrets and to help other victims heal through the hashtag #WhyIDidntReport. And it is for this reason that this matter. It matters that women are being taken advantage of by men in position of power. It matters that these men can continue to prosper while these women are told to shut up, that they are misremembering their assault or even that they’re full on lying. Political sex scandals are not new. They have been occurring for decades, and the result is always the same. The men prevail. And this is inherently wrong. Women should be able to safely share their stories and expect for justice to be served but for whatever reason, this is not a realistic expectation, and it is for this reason that women don’t speak up because they feel forced to ask themselves “What is the point?”
Though women cannot always count on justice in the courts, new media has allowed for justice to be served through social media channels. People are held accountable, condemned and exposed for their crimes and there is no amount of money or power that can shield the guilty from their well-deserved denunciation and for that, we can be a little grateful.
To recap the key moments from the Kavanaugh vs. Ford and the Hill vs. Thomas cases, follow the links below:
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UHyaOluHqEk (Kavanaugh vs. Ford)
https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=1lEEDD2vxaE (Hill vs. Thomas)
