Powerful yet Disempowered: A Thematic Literature Review Exploring the Challenges of Media Reporting on Sexual Violence
Bibliographic record
Abstract
Since #MeToo (2017), media discourse has brought sexual violence into greater public consciousness. Despite certain gains in how journalists frame stories of sexual violence, issues such as rape myths and victim blaming continue in reporting practices. This thematic literature review identified 41 articles on sexual violence reporting practices from the Global North since 2013. Seven themes emerged, including five related to the content of media reporting and two related to the process: (1) prevalence of rape myths and rape culture, (2) language of blame, (3) problematic media framing, (4) ignored intersectionality, (5) biased use of sources, (6) structural challenges for journalists, and (7) lack of education, training, and practical engagement with ethical guidelines. The literature demonstrates significant gaps post #MeToo in ethical reporting on sexual violence because issues are contextually entrenched in systems of oppression, and much more work must be done to resist prominent stigma and stereotypes.
Fetched live from OpenAlex and de-inverted. Abstracts are not stored in this database: the inverted indexes are 8.6 GB of the frame’s 9.3 GB of text, and the host has 13 GB free.
How this classification was reachedexpand
Full frame machine prediction
Teacher imitationNot calibrated prevalence, not ground truth. Human validation pending. The Gemma side is a direct model label for every work in the frame, read from the title-only record. The Codex side is a classifier learned from the 10,348 direct Codex labels and calibrated to design-weighted sample rates; fields without enough sample support carry no Codex call. Candidate is the union of the two sides; consensus is their intersection. These outputs are machine_predicted_unvalidated and are not human labels.
Distilled classifier scores by category (both heads)
| Category | Codex | Gemma |
|---|---|---|
| Metaresearch | 0.019 | 0.040 |
| Meta-epidemiology (narrow) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Meta-epidemiology (broad) | 0.001 | 0.001 |
| Bibliometrics | 0.019 | 0.020 |
| Science and technology studies | 0.002 | 0.004 |
| Scholarly communication | 0.006 | 0.008 |
| Open science | 0.001 | 0.004 |
| Research integrity | 0.002 | 0.002 |
| Insufficient payload (model declined to judge) | 0.002 | 0.000 |
Machine scores (provisional)
The two teacher heads of the student model, read on this work. A score orders the frame for review; it never asserts a category, and the validation status ships verbatim with every row.
Baseline scores from an immature model (maturity gate not passed, 7 training rounds). Scores rank; they never assert a category.
score_only:v0-immature-baseline · verbatim from the scoring run: score_only means the number may rank works, and no category label ships from itClassification
machine, unvalidatedMachine predicted; a candidate call from one source (direct Gemma or distilled Codex), not a consensus.
How this classification was reached, model by model and score by score, is at the end of the page under "How this classification was reached".