gavinmac wrote:scobienz wrote:For a while I thought LTO was a bit bonkers for his oft repeated comments about how the Daily refuses to label locals child sexual offenders as pedofiles, reserving it only for tourists and expat offenders. But he is dead right. It's very noticeable.
Today's online edition features a story about the curious past of the Cambodian monk recently convicted of serially raping young boys over the last decade. The word pedofile wasn't mentioned once.
At the bottom of the page is a link to another story headlined American Pedofile Brian Naswall Jailed for Ten Years
Why does the Daily take this stand?
The Daily has reported it that way for at least ten years. Fopro started a thread making this very point in 2006:
Khmer Pedophiles and the Cambodia Daily
My own explanation appears on page 2 of that thread.
Forpo’s observation still stands true, mostly.
At that point (2006) the Cambodia Daily had, in my observation, NEVER once referred to a Khmer pedophile as a ‘pedophile’ in all of their years of reporting on the sexual abuse of children in Cambodia, even though they regularly (and rightly) referred to every foreigner caught having sex with minors as pedophiles, or at the very least worked the word ‘pedophile’ somewhere into the article. The Daily also had never offered any explanation for their refusal to refer to Khmer pedophiles as pedophiles. At the time, I thought Gavin’s speculation was the by far best, suggesting not that it was some bias against foreigner offenders, but that it revealed a racial prejudice regarding Khmers on the part of the foreign editors of the Daily.
Over the next several years I paid especially close attention to the Daily’s reporting of child sex abuse, and
posted about the issue again in 2010 on my blog. The Daily continued to refer to foreign offenders as ‘pedophiles’ regularly, but still NEVER once referred to Khmer child sex offenders as pedophiles, preferring the term ‘rapist’ for Khmers, even when the Khmer offender was engaging in classic pedophile behavior (prepubescent victims, grooming activities, multiple victims over a long period, etc). For example:
A Khmer who buys sex from 10 different girls under the age of 15 is not a pedophile but a foreigner who buys sex from one girl under the age of 15 is an accused pedophile according to the Daily:
A Khmer who has sex with an 8 year old girl is not a pedophile but a foreigner who buys sex from two 16 year old boys is a pedophile according to the Daily (on the same page):
Yet, the Daily continued to remain silent about the reasons for this practice.
A year or two ago a friend of mine brought this up to a Daily editor/journo and was given the following explanation: that the Daily would refer to a child sex abuse offender as a ‘pedophile’ only if the offender had a previous child sex abuse conviction, and that no Khmer child sex offenders to date met that criterion, (which is unsurprising as the Cambodian judiciary has had, until very recently, almost no history of arresting Cambodians for sex crimes against children.)
I continued to press the issue on Twitter over the last couple of years when the Daily would run articles about Khmer child sex offenders. A couple of months ago, the Daily's executive editor finally (and graciously) made a public comment to me on Twitter, essentially confirming what I had heard from the friend earlier, that the Daily’s current editorial policy was that they would refer to a child sex abuse offender as a ‘pedophile’ only if the offender had an
“established history of child abuse” as identified by
“a past criminal conviction, in Cambodia or abroad.” I responded that, among other things, this new policy did not explain the Daily’s failure to refer to Khmers as pedophiles for the previous decade and a half. He responded that
he could not speak for his predecessors but that this was the policy now. I left it at that on Twitter. I must add that I am very appreciative of that editor for responding to my observation at all, and for doing it in a respectful, informative and public way.
At that point I almost (but didn’t) made a post about it here, to bring the whole controversy up-to-date and to give my opinion on this editorial policy. In short, I did not and do not fully buy it. Not that I think that they are lying. I do believe that this is the Daily’s current policy, but that at bottom this is not really why they do not refer to Khmers as pedophiles and never have.
The policy strikes me as ad hoc, as if it was designed to produce the effect of not labeling Khmer sex offenders as pedophiles. First, it seems just too convenient to cite some new policy as if it is the reason for the practice when, in effect, it produces exactly the same results as has been the case in Daily reporting for the last two decades when it presumably was not the policy. Second, it seems arbitrary. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless if he been caught more than once, let alone been convicted more than once. There is no relationship between being a pedophile and getting caught, or necessarily in having a history of such behavior. If the Daily is trying to act like they are adhering to some strict definition of pedophilia by requiring some sort of history, they should also limit the label exclusively to those who commit sexual acts against prepubescent children, which they clearly do not do. This all strikes me as an excuse to continue the same old practice of not refer to Khmers as pedophiles (where there is conveniently little history of arresting locals for sex crimes against children.)
Which brings us up to last week when the Daily ran an article on a Khmer child sex offender and referred to the Khmer offender as a pedophile:
‘Alleged Pedophile on the Run Strikes Again.' He has a previous arrest warrant on a child sex charge, and is currently on the run for another child sex offense. This is the first time (to my knowledge) the Daily has ever referred to a Khmer as a ‘pedophile.’ And they did it in very clear accordance with their current editorial policy regarding referring to people as pedophiles only if they have some established history of a child sex offenses. So, as I tweeted at the time, “I can never say never again.” The Daily has now in fact referred a Khmer as a pedophile ONCE in their 23 year history*.
(*Also, it has been brought to my attention that several years ago the Daily ran an article about Khmer sex offenders in which an expert was quoted, who used the word ‘pedophile’ in talking about Khmer child sex offenders. The article did not refer to any Khmer as a pedophile or talk about Khmer pedophiles, but it was said in the same breath, so in some sense an expert did once refer to Khmers and pedophiles in a Daily article. I can’t find the article right now so I am unable to give the precise wording.)
And yet, there is the article a couple of days ago
(‘Convicted Child Rapist Nabbed’) in which we have a Khmer serial child sex offender targeting prepubescent children, and the Daily has again failed to refer to him as a pedophile. So even the little editorial concession that the Daily claims to have made is not being applied consistently (or even more than once at this point,) thus continuing to protect Khmer child sex offenders from the ‘pedophile’ label.
As to what I think is probably the real reason for the Cambodia Daily’s refusal to call Khmers ‘pedophiles’ all these years... I have it on fairly good authority that several years back when the Daily began to focus on the “child rape crisis” among Khmers in Cambodia that the Khmer staff protested loudly and strongly that they did not want Khmers portrayed in this light. They wanted to quash the story, or at least that particular framing (i.e. that there is a child rape crisis among Khmers.) Reportedly they even threatened a walkout, but in the end editorial won and the child rape crisis was reported. (And an excellent series of articles it has been over the years.) In light of this I tend to think that this is also the reason that the Daily refuses to refer to Khmers as pedophiles, i.e. because the Khmer staff objects so strongly to Khmers being labeled in this way. While I find Gavin’s explanation compelling, I do hate to think that their foreign editorial staff would be so bigoted and/or self unaware as to exempt Khmers because they believe Khmers to be savages unworthy of being judged by 'western standards' of decency.
[quote="gavinmac"][quote="scobienz"]For a while I thought LTO was a bit bonkers for his oft repeated comments about how the Daily refuses to label locals child sexual offenders as pedofiles, reserving it only for tourists and expat offenders. But he is dead right. It's very noticeable.
Today's online edition features a story about the curious past of the Cambodian monk recently convicted of serially raping young boys over the last decade. The word pedofile wasn't mentioned once.
At the bottom of the page is a link to another story headlined American Pedofile Brian Naswall Jailed for Ten Years
Why does the Daily take this stand?[/quote]
The Daily has reported it that way for at least ten years. Fopro started a thread making this very point in 2006:
[url=http://www.khmer440.com/chat_forum/viewtopic.php?f=1&t=4544]Khmer Pedophiles and the Cambodia Daily[/url]
My own explanation appears on page 2 of that thread.[/quote]
Forpo’s observation still stands true, mostly.
At that point (2006) the Cambodia Daily had, in my observation, NEVER once referred to a Khmer pedophile as a ‘pedophile’ in all of their years of reporting on the sexual abuse of children in Cambodia, even though they regularly (and rightly) referred to every foreigner caught having sex with minors as pedophiles, or at the very least worked the word ‘pedophile’ somewhere into the article. The Daily also had never offered any explanation for their refusal to refer to Khmer pedophiles as pedophiles. At the time, I thought Gavin’s speculation was the by far best, suggesting not that it was some bias against foreigner offenders, but that it revealed a racial prejudice regarding Khmers on the part of the foreign editors of the Daily.
Over the next several years I paid especially close attention to the Daily’s reporting of child sex abuse, and [url=http://ltocambodia.blogspot.com/2010/09/khmer-pedophiles-and-cambodia-daily.html]posted about the issue again in 2010 on my blog[/url]. The Daily continued to refer to foreign offenders as ‘pedophiles’ regularly, but still NEVER once referred to Khmer child sex offenders as pedophiles, preferring the term ‘rapist’ for Khmers, even when the Khmer offender was engaging in classic pedophile behavior (prepubescent victims, grooming activities, multiple victims over a long period, etc). For example:
A Khmer who buys sex from 10 different girls under the age of 15 is not a pedophile but a foreigner who buys sex from one girl under the age of 15 is an accused pedophile according to the Daily:
[img]http://4.bp.blogspot.com/_w1VjnqyNIyo/TMQRWpiZ7pI/AAAAAAAAALc/qh1QnjxPIrs/s1600/cdagain.gif[/img]
A Khmer who has sex with an 8 year old girl is not a pedophile but a foreigner who buys sex from two 16 year old boys is a pedophile according to the Daily (on the same page):
[img]http://2.bp.blogspot.com/_w1VjnqyNIyo/TJhjmCC_IcI/AAAAAAAAAGc/f_EmZpj83RY/s1600/CD21-9.gif[/img]
Yet, the Daily continued to remain silent about the reasons for this practice.
A year or two ago a friend of mine brought this up to a Daily editor/journo and was given the following explanation: that the Daily would refer to a child sex abuse offender as a ‘pedophile’ only if the offender had a previous child sex abuse conviction, and that no Khmer child sex offenders to date met that criterion, (which is unsurprising as the Cambodian judiciary has had, until very recently, almost no history of arresting Cambodians for sex crimes against children.)
I continued to press the issue on Twitter over the last couple of years when the Daily would run articles about Khmer child sex offenders. A couple of months ago, the Daily's executive editor finally (and graciously) made a public comment to me on Twitter, essentially confirming what I had heard from the friend earlier, that the Daily’s current editorial policy was that they would refer to a child sex abuse offender as a ‘pedophile’ only if the offender had an [url=https://twitter.com/phnomben/status/692973975400505345]“established history of child abuse”[/url] as identified by [url=https://twitter.com/phnomben/status/692974724394172416]“a past criminal conviction, in Cambodia or abroad.”[/url] I responded that, among other things, this new policy did not explain the Daily’s failure to refer to Khmers as pedophiles for the previous decade and a half. He responded that [url=https://twitter.com/phnomben/status/692980817526722560]he could not speak for his predecessors[/url] but that this was the policy now. I left it at that on Twitter. I must add that I am very appreciative of that editor for responding to my observation at all, and for doing it in a respectful, informative and public way.
At that point I almost (but didn’t) made a post about it here, to bring the whole controversy up-to-date and to give my opinion on this editorial policy. In short, I did not and do not fully buy it. Not that I think that they are lying. I do believe that this is the Daily’s current policy, but that at bottom this is not really why they do not refer to Khmers as pedophiles and never have.
The policy strikes me as ad hoc, as if it was designed to produce the effect of not labeling Khmer sex offenders as pedophiles. First, it seems just too convenient to cite some new policy as if it is the reason for the practice when, in effect, it produces exactly the same results as has been the case in Daily reporting for the last two decades when it presumably was not the policy. Second, it seems arbitrary. A pedophile is a pedophile regardless if he been caught more than once, let alone been convicted more than once. There is no relationship between being a pedophile and getting caught, or necessarily in having a history of such behavior. If the Daily is trying to act like they are adhering to some strict definition of pedophilia by requiring some sort of history, they should also limit the label exclusively to those who commit sexual acts against prepubescent children, which they clearly do not do. This all strikes me as an excuse to continue the same old practice of not refer to Khmers as pedophiles (where there is conveniently little history of arresting locals for sex crimes against children.)
Which brings us up to last week when the Daily ran an article on a Khmer child sex offender and referred to the Khmer offender as a pedophile: [url=https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/alleged-pedophile-on-the-run-strikes-again-113513/]‘Alleged Pedophile on the Run Strikes Again.'[/url] He has a previous arrest warrant on a child sex charge, and is currently on the run for another child sex offense. This is the first time (to my knowledge) the Daily has ever referred to a Khmer as a ‘pedophile.’ And they did it in very clear accordance with their current editorial policy regarding referring to people as pedophiles only if they have some established history of a child sex offenses. So, as I tweeted at the time, “I can never say never again.” The Daily has now in fact referred a Khmer as a pedophile ONCE in their 23 year history*.
(*Also, it has been brought to my attention that several years ago the Daily ran an article about Khmer sex offenders in which an expert was quoted, who used the word ‘pedophile’ in talking about Khmer child sex offenders. The article did not refer to any Khmer as a pedophile or talk about Khmer pedophiles, but it was said in the same breath, so in some sense an expert did once refer to Khmers and pedophiles in a Daily article. I can’t find the article right now so I am unable to give the precise wording.)
And yet, there is the article a couple of days ago [url=https://www.cambodiadaily.com/news/convicted-child-rapist-nabbed-after-another-rape-114007/](‘Convicted Child Rapist Nabbed’)[/url] in which we have a Khmer serial child sex offender targeting prepubescent children, and the Daily has again failed to refer to him as a pedophile. So even the little editorial concession that the Daily claims to have made is not being applied consistently (or even more than once at this point,) thus continuing to protect Khmer child sex offenders from the ‘pedophile’ label.
As to what I think is probably the real reason for the Cambodia Daily’s refusal to call Khmers ‘pedophiles’ all these years... I have it on fairly good authority that several years back when the Daily began to focus on the “child rape crisis” among Khmers in Cambodia that the Khmer staff protested loudly and strongly that they did not want Khmers portrayed in this light. They wanted to quash the story, or at least that particular framing (i.e. that there is a child rape crisis among Khmers.) Reportedly they even threatened a walkout, but in the end editorial won and the child rape crisis was reported. (And an excellent series of articles it has been over the years.) In light of this I tend to think that this is also the reason that the Daily refuses to refer to Khmers as pedophiles, i.e. because the Khmer staff objects so strongly to Khmers being labeled in this way. While I find Gavin’s explanation compelling, I do hate to think that their foreign editorial staff would be so bigoted and/or self unaware as to exempt Khmers because they believe Khmers to be savages unworthy of being judged by 'western standards' of decency.