everyone is a groupuscule

Endasher reacts to criticism of a NYT article that publishes inadequate reactions to gang rape without explicitly condemning them.

endasher:

Am I an abnormally enlightened or especially perceptive reader to come away from the Times article horrified about the town, and newly vigilant about blame-the-victimism in general (not least in my own thinking), even though the reporter never writes what these people are saying is wrong? Of course not; after all, isn’t your outrage based on being confronted with the exact same quotes—that is, the most outrageous and surprising and conversation-starting things any town of people could say when one of their 11-year-old girls is gang-raped?

That seems like good journalism to me, however nice it feels (and easy it is) to fight amorphous evil by signing petitions against the words that describe it.   

Basically agree with Endasher, but I actually think there is a specific sentence early in the article that creates the problem:

The case has rocked this East Texas community to its core and left many residents in the working-class neighborhood where the attack took place with unanswered questions. Among them is, if the allegations are proved, how could their young men have been drawn into such an act?

“It’s just destroyed our community,” said Sheila Harrison, 48, a hospital worker who says she knows several of the defendants. “These boys have to live with this the rest of their lives.”

Well, this is a platitude that, if Endasher’s interpretation is correct, doesn’t seem to be true: the scandal has actually failed to rock the community to its core. Unfortunately, it also echoes Harrison’s words in advance, making it seem like her viewpoint is intended as evidence for the author’s claim that “the community has been rocked.” This is leading at least some readers to believe that the author believes that community rocked <=> boys have to live with this. 

Granted, some bloggers have been successfully outraged, so maybe the article serves its purpose like a (very subtle) benevolent troll. But who knows whether (& how) beliefs about the beliefs of a NYT reporter affect various—potentially more important to affect—non-blogger parties?