A Dirty Ring Around the White House Bathtub
December 28, 2010

Rub a Dub Dub, Big Bill Taft's Bath Could Hold Four Men In a Tub

I Don't Know if Big Bill is Right because I don't think being Secretary of War counts as part of the legislative branch. Either Way, the Tub story is more fun

On This Date in History:   According to H.L. Mencken, the first bathtub was installed in the White House in 1851 by President Millard Fillmore. Mencken wrote in a New York newspaper that the first bathtub in the United States was an “elegant mahogany contraption” installed in the home of a Cincinnati businessman in 1842. He said after that point, that the practice of bathing became popular with the wealthy. He said when word reached the masses a public outcry against the “epicurean and obnoxious toy from England” was “designed to corrupt the democratic simplicity of the republic.” Mencken added that it was Fillmore was responsible for the public’s acceptance for the habit of regular bathing. On this day in 1917, Mencken was basking in the glow created by his article in the New York Evening Mail titled” A Neglected Anniversary.”

He was probably still chuckling the day after his work was published because it was an elaborate hoax. December 1917 was a time of great sadness around the world due to World War I. He decided that a spoof on bathtub history would be a good way to raise the spirits fo his readers.  And who better to include in the hoax but the historically hapless Millard Fillmore.   Mencken’s joy turned to shock when he learned that his words were taken as Gospel. In 1926, he was so uneasy with the fact that his fiction was considered to be real history that he wrote a public confession of his hoax. But, no one listened and the result of his little tale have continued to this day with some sources claiming that Fillmore did indeed install the first bathtub in the White House. The real truth is that copper bathtubs and a shower were installed in the Executive Mansion on the first floor in 1833 or 1834. A permanent bathtub was put in the second floor of the White House in 1853. Mencken would have been better off publishing a true story about the White House bathtub. President William Howard Taft was 6’2″ and weighed a rotund 300 pounds. He had once become stuck in the normal presidential tub. So, he installed a tub that was 41 inches across and 7 feet long. It is said that it could hold four regular size men. The truth was stranger than fiction and this little story may be a good example of how if a lie is told enough times by enough people, then the lie becomes the truth. It also may be a good example of how we should not necessarily believe everything that we read.  And then again, perhaps it is telling that William Howard Taft is best known for being the fattest president, having a huge bathtub, standing up in the middle of the 7th inning to begin the “7th inning stretch” tradition and splitting the ticket with Teddy Roosevelt’s Bull Moose campaign and vaulting Woodrow Wilson to the presidency.  The fact that he was the only person to serve as President and Supreme Court Chief Justice gets lost.   He was also Secretary of War.  Maybe if he’d done something more interesting while holding the important jobs then he wouldn’t be remembered as he is.  But, it could be worse, he could be remembered like Millard Fillmore who is but a footnote.  Besides, its more fun this way.

Should Admitted False Accuser of Gang Rape Allegation Be Identified Publically?
September 18, 2009

Quiet Campus Now Unsettled

Quiet Campus Now Unsettled

A few days ago, a woman who is a student at Hofstra University accused 5 men of gang rape.  She said that they took her cell phone and lured her into a men’s room in a dormatory collective assaulted her.  A Fox affiliate tv station in New York reported the story and in the text began by saying that “Five Men Gang Raped an 18 year-old Hofstra University student on campus…”  At the end of the sentence, they added “according to police.”  Now, technically it is correct and gives attribution but, when the opening statement to the story makes such a declaratory statement that sounds like a fact, unless the entire sentence is read carefully, can be problematic.  Let’s face it, people read headlines and often miss details. 

Nassau Co. DA and Hofstra VP of University Relations Talk about dropping the charges

Nassau Co. DA and Hofstra VP of University Relations Talk about dropping the charges

As it turns out, the police investigation found that one of the 5 men had recorded the incident on a cell phone.  The video supported the men’s story that the entire event was consensual.  The “victim” recanted her story to say the incident was not a case of rape.  Now, the Miami Herald revealed the news that the charges were dropped and did so with a full photo of one of the accused, who had the charges dropped against him.  The others who were jailed also had their names and photos released throughout the media.  Yet, they will forever be linked to the accusation which was fabricated. Apparently, police officials are considering filing charges against the woman for filing a false report.    Newsday raises five good questions surrounding the entire event and the reprecussions.

International Business Times and other outlets identified false accuser in Duke Lacrosse Team case

International Business Times and other outlets identified false accuser in Duke Lacrosse Team case

However, in my mind, Newsday did not ask a huge question.  That is, should the woman’s name be released?  The media has always taken the position of not reporting the name of rape victims or those who make accusations of rape.  But, routinely the accused get their  names released and pictures put in the media prior to any convictions.  In this case, there was no rape victim.  She is now a suspect in a crime.  Should she not have her name released?  The woman shown at the right was identified in the Duke LaCrosse Team case when it was found that she made a false report.  The men did not commit a crime, yet got their mugs put up everywhere and their names are not connected with a rather ugly charge.  Newsday is reporting on how they are coping, but not a word about the suspect in the crime against them.  Now, the woman admits that she was not a victim of anything.    Should the press continue to protect her identity?  Is the press avoiding asking that question of itself and hoping that the public doesn’t ask the same question.  Probably a good question for a journalistic ethics or media law class.  What do you think?

Follow

Get every new post delivered to your Inbox.

Join 31 other followers