Exposed

I went through my stack of papers yesterday and saw the face of the woman I'll call The Accuser staring out from the New York Post and the Washington Times. The Raleigh News & Observer has also named her.

It made me uncomfortable, but I don't think I can mount a strong argument against it.

This woman, shielded by the MSM's policy of not identifying rape victims -- with which I wholeheartedly agree -- practically destroyed the lives of the three Duke lacrosse players and brought shame on the institution, all based on what we now know was a lie. What responsibility do the media have to keep protecting her identity?

Isn't it time The Accuser was held accountable?

If a woman charges rape and there's a trial and a jury concludes there's not enough evidence to convict, that doesn't mean the media should suddenly carry her name and face. That, undoubtedly, would have a chilling effect on the willingness of women to report this most personal of crimes.

But that's not what happened in the Duke case. The North Carolina attorney general has concluded that the whole thing was a tissue of lies from the start and that the indictments should never have been brought.

My main hesitation about naming The Accuser hired to strip at that late-night party is that the AG hinted that she has mental problems. Roy Cooper could have charged her with making false accusations, but told reporters that the woman believes her account (which kept changing, by the way). Whatever her mental state, she has been shielded by the press until now.

New York Post columnist John Podhoretz makes the case:

"It is the policy of the news media not to publish the names of rape accusers on the grounds that they should not have to fear public shame for coming forward with word of a horrifying personal violation.

"That is a noble policy. But it needs a codicil. The codicil is that if a rape accuser is revealed as a liar, her name should be spoken loudly and often -- as loudly and often as the names of those whom she falsely accused have been over the past year . . .

"She must be denied anonymity because she makes a mockery of the very policy of granting anonymity to rape accusers. We do not publish their names so that they will not fear public exposure. But people who are tempted to do the monstrous thing [the Accuser] did should fear public exposure.

"They should be terrified of it.