Original Message -----(E-mail response to call about op-ed)
Sent: Friday, November 15, 2002 4:57 PM
Subject: Re: Spotlight Coverage of Female Victims

Dear Susan

I have read your oped, and supporting source list, and talked to members of the Spotlight team. Here's what I found: The team has for some time had the "female victims'' story on its rather long "to do" list. Some preliminary work has been done on the piece, and if further evidence can be found and confirmed, the team will write the piece.  There is no intention to deny female victims representation, or a voice, in the paper.

I also found that past stories have not infrequently referred to female victims. Perhaps they escaped your notice; I think the Boston.com data base differs from, and is smaller than, the Globe library's official archives, so unless you have checked both some stories might not have popped up.

So why, I hear you asking, has the Spotlight Team not focused on the story earlier? Members give two reasons, and both seem reasonable to me: the first is that while a few female victims have come forward, the number has been relatively few, with less than compelling evidence overall.

Meanwhile, the overwhelming majority of provable victims are men, so the story has --as any good journalistic pursuit would -- followed that path.  Why not to both? That brings us to the second reason: a four-person team can do only so much. They have been out flat, covering the breaking news as well as  trying to advance the story.

Such are my findings. In my view, your oped puts forth an inaccurate representation of Spotlight motive. Given that, I can not advocate on its behalf. I realize this is not what you wanted to hear, but it represents my honest view.

Sincerely,
Chris Chinlund, Globe Ombud