Wednesday, June 13, 2007

The Times Party Line

Even to the end, the Times finds a way to get its preferred narrative into its Duke coverage. From today's Duff Wilson story, this grammatically awkward sentence:
The case was overlaid with charges of racism and class privilege because the stripper was black and poor, inflamed the community and much of the nation.
And Wilson ends the story not with a Nifong vignette but by mentioning the expulsion of "Victoria Peterson, a black activist from Durham." Note that she was identified as a "black activist" and not as the former co-chair of Nifong's citizens' committee.


bill anderson said...

The NY Slimes simply cannot let go of its original "metanarrative." This paper still would be insisting there was a rape, blah, blah, blah, if it could.

But, remember this is the Newspaper of Walter Duranty, Jayson Blair, and Judith Miller. Enough said.

mac said...

The Times should have read:

"Nifong, charging racism
and class privilege, utilizing a
woman of a sordid professional
underclass, succeeded in inflaming
racial tensions locally, causing
a racial divide over the issue
nationally, all in order to get
elected District Attorney."

Joe T. said...

LOL! Peterson "..a black activist.." That might be true, but "..Durham's loudest homophobe nut and Nifong's moll.." would've been more accurate. The NY Times and Duff Wilson bites, as usual.

Anonymous said...

The NYT is betting on the continuing Europification of the good ol' USA. It is up to all of us that the Times loses its bet. Otherwise we are doomed.

The Drill SGT said...

Instead of We're F#@KED

The NYT constructs the testimony as Benjamin W. Himan, the Durham detective who was lead investigator on the case, said in testimony for the ethics prosecutors on Tuesday that Mr. Nifong had acknowledged to him that the case was weak and relied on the word of a woman hired to strip at a lacrosse team party.

redcybra said...

Mr. Nifong had acknowledged to him that the case was weak and relied on the word of a woman hired to strip at a lacrosse team party.

should have been:

Mr. Nifong had acknowledged to him that the case was weak and relied ONLY on the word of a woman hired to strip at a lacrosse team party despite DNA, witness, and other evidence to the contrary.

This is easy...too bad the NYT can't do it.

Anonymous said...

Thanks as usual KC for keeping up with all of the aspects of this case. I was sad to see Duff Wilson back, he hadn't been writing recent articles on the case. I've been reading the NYT for over twenty years, it is a huge disappointment that the paper has been so libelous, incorrect and inflamatory about this story. I have no more respect for the papers position on anything. I hope Duff Wilson gets screwed someday for his bias, harmful coverage of this case.
I truely wish the families had the funds and time to sue, but they need to move on with their lives too. Your coverage has been like a class in journalism.

Anonymous said...

Same thing sort of happened on O'Reily last night - one of his panelist started off the discussion on Liefong with "..of course they weren't choir boys." Some people just can't let go.

Space Puppy

PS BTW Thanks again KC for your GREAT coverage! I don't see how you keep up!

Anonymous said...

Wow, it made page 14. I guess that is the Lynching section.

Anonymous said...

"gramatically awkward?" The man's illiterate for crissake! Why even bother with NYT?

Anonymous said...

The way this reads, the stripper inflamed the community and much of the nation.


The Drill SGT said...

does WRAL have a live feed to the trial? if so, what is the link?

Anonymous said...

The real story is about a cold blooded frame of 3 innocent young men (in the South no less) by a lazy and venal prosecutor. And the NYT times writes in a passive voice - the "case was overlaid..."?? Something happened here - and we look to real journalists to tell us what happened. And the NYT Times writes some abstract passive piece as if the events were taking place 10,000 miles away and Jayson Blair were reporting. This is the problem with getting a story so wrong and miscalculating so badly - unless the paper admits that it did just that - they can only write a passive piece of junk that appeals to the tired memes effete liberals in Manhattan seem to enjoy. And they wonder why so-called "amateur bloggers" are eating their lunch in the marketplace?

Anonymous said...

The Drill SGT said...

does WRAL have a live feed to the trial? if so, what is the link?

No offense, Sarge, but geeze, use a little imagination.

The link for WRAL is (get ready for a shock!):

And the live feed, once it starts, links from the home page.

Hope this helps.

Shouting Thomas said...

I've listened a wide variety of commentaries on the hearings, including on sports talk radio, O'Reilly, NPR. The "something happened" story line is really more precise in its meaning than commenters are suggesting.

Those who are suggesting that the young men should be prosecuted are arguing specifically that one or more of them said "nigger." They are arguing that pronouncing a racial epithet should be prosecutable.

Here, KC, I think you are feeding into this hysteria. It's time to stop telling people that they are going to fall apart and die if they hear that racial epithet. Please stop saying how deplorable it is if the word is ever uttered.

Black people who shrivel up and die at the utterance of this word are weaklings. Racial epithets will continue to be the order of the day at any competitive event, fight, etc. If you can't take it, you should hide out in your house.

So, I'm calling on you, KC, to stop this nonsense of all the predictable apologies. Black people use racial epithets freely, particularly in athletic events.

Uttering the racial epithet is no big deal.

Shouting Thomas said...

I should add the blacks are well aware of the absurdity of the taboo against whites uttering that racial epithet.

The word blares all over the streets when I am in the city, courtesy of cars playing rap at top volume. Black comedians and actors seem to be in a competition to see who can utter the epithet most frequently. And at athletic events, you hear almost nothing but the epithet.

Time for a change folks. I'm tired of being taunted by blacks who assert that taunting them in return is a crime. KC, do you hear me? Stop playing into this farce.

The Drill SGT said...

Anon, Thanks

I'm not a complete idiot. However, the link you described, which I have found, is not advertised nor visible when the hearing was not in session. so it was a bit hard to know an hour ago, where a link that wasn't there was.

Anonymous said...

None of the three who were accused used any racial epithets, the 'charge them' for that argument falls flat.

The racial epithet is the only string the supporters have to hang on to, but even in that they fail the truth test since ROBERTS has admitted she started it and she hurled the first racial slur.

For Duff Wilson, this must have been a hard story to write since he wasn't able to interject is 'america is a racist country' narrative until the last paragraph.

Anonymous said...

Note to NY Times and Duff Wilson:

"You're F**ked." You keep repeating the same old lie. Everyone knows it is a lie.

You keep saying, "Something Happened." Yes, it did. A lying weasel of a DA exploited a lying whore's fabricated tale of rape to win an election. Along the way, he exacerbated racial tensions, cheerfully assisted by 20 percent of the faculty at the university that the three innocent victims were attending. Now THERE was a story. Too bad your political agenda got in the way.

Nifong's correct. You're f**ked." Do the world a favor and suspend operations. I canceled my subscription years ago, and have not missed it.

Anonymous said...

Wilson has absolutely no credibility at this point. His big front page article said he had looked at the 1800 pages of evidence and it was worthy of going to a jury.

I think it's pretty clear at this point that was completely untrue.

rod allison, detroit said...

O'Reilly had two analysts on to discuss the Nifong ethics trial.

The first, Megan something, said she thought Nifong was in trouble. She was smart and informed.

When O'Reilly asked the second analyst, Summer something, she disagreed because "these guys weren't choirboys. They hired strippers!"

It was unbelievable.

First of all, their hiring strippers is irrelevant to the question of Nifong's ethics.

She just repeated the same canned response (with feigned shock) that we've heard 100 times.

I think she was going to say the "no choirboys" line no matter what the question was. It was just going to be her "analysis" and catch all position on the case.

She shouldn't have been more shallow if she tried.

Anonymous said...

It has been my personal experience at age 45 that most egomaniacal, physically threatening, or aggressive bullies coming out of high school, if they are even smart enough to graduate, end up becoming cops. Being a cop allows them to have their own little power trip even as they know that they have neither the intellect nor the inclination to do any other sort of job. They get to harass at will, ogle the women who arent so impressed by their uniform, give tickets and make arrests often for random reasons which they usually need not explain to anyone. Who else would be foolish enough to put their lives on the line everyday by making themselves targets for the real criminals in the population, all for $50K a year? For them, its a willing trade off. 20 years and a pension, along with the chance to harass minorities, rich people, teenagers, or whoever they feel like at their own discretion, what could be better than that? Plus you get to carry a gun, the ultimate penis symbol for emasculated, frustrated sociopaths. And of course, who can forget the graft and opportunities for extortion and starting your own little protection racket? Ironically, Nifong fits this mold, but he must have had enough brains to get through college and law school and somehow passed the bar. Clearly, he was not smart enough and far too vindictive to be successful in private practice vs the likes of Cheshire, et al. So he chose the path that brought him closest to those he could emulate, the Durham police, whose mistreatment of the general population for their own benefit and amusement fell right in line with his own evil tendencies. They are all made for each other. Read up on what police have been doing lately in Chicago, Los Angeles, New York, Newark, Detroit, Durham, etc... I have never heard a bigger line of bullshit than the words "To Protect and Serve". Yeah right. Self-service is more like it.

Anonymous said...

It is an example of the NYTimes arrogance and unwillingness to admit mistakes that even keeps Duff Wilson on this story.

With his obvious bias having been shown time and time again, making the New York Times yet again a subject of ridicule on the blogs and in the media, he should have been pulled from the story after his August 06 'review' piece.

Instead, they stubbornly keep the guy on the story when he has zero credibility with anyone but the Times true believers.

Mandelbrot's Chaos said...

If Duff Wilson is representative of their "reporters", I think it's time for the NY Times to join some other famed newspapers in the trash bin of history.

Anonymous said...

I am a long time NYTimes reader and I am finally just about at the end of my rope, the paper under Arthur Sulzberger Jr. is being run into the ground, financially and editorially.

Like all doomed people and organizations they are unable and unwilling to learn from their mistakes. THey learned nothing from Judy Miller and Jayson Blair scandals...Duff Wilson's ridiculous August story is proof of that!

Anonymous said...

I've been reading the NYT for over twenty years, it is a huge disappointment that the paper has been so libelous, incorrect and inflamatory about this story.

This isn't the only story that the NYT's has done a number on. There are plenty. They are one of the most disingenuous agenda driven papers out there.

I hope your indignation has motivated you to cancel your subscription. The only way to stop garbage journalism is to hit them in their wallets.

The NYT's can't disappear fast enough.

Anonymous said...

I think the Times accidentally left a word out. That sentence should have read, "The case, WHICH was overlaid with charges of racism and class privilege because the stripper was black and poor, inflamed the community and much of the nation."

But, the use of the passive voice hides the truth. The (incorrect) charges of racism and class privilege were actively promoted by a number of players, including the Times itself.


scott said...

I've noticed that NYT readers have commented on this blog from time to time that they are thoroughly disappointed with the Times coverage of the Nifong Scandal Case. They base this on their knowledge of the facts of the case and the reporter (Wilson in this case) being either ignorant of or more likely unwilling to report those facts.

Are these readers, having been shown such shoddy journalism here now willing to admit that the NYT is doing the same thing with virtually every story they print? We can't do the same fisking of all their work because we haven't the knowledge of every story that we have on this one. But I hope these readers don't believe this case is the exception and that otherwise the NYT plays it straight in what they report.

The NYT is a complete rag with as big an agenda in everything they print as they have displayed here. There is no way I would spend my hard-earned money on any newspaper. For those who feel they get something from the NYT, it's your money to piss away on anything you like. Just don't fool yourself into believing that what you are getting in return is of any value.

A Proud Retired Cop said...

As a retired law enforcement officer, I hope others will join me in condemning 10:34's vitriolic, unjustified, and ad hominem attacks on our nation's law enforcement personnel. Try a ride along, offered by most local LE agencies, and learn what it's really about. We take great pride in serving our communities and in our profession, and accept the risks that go with the job. We, like any profession, are disappointed by incidents which blemish our profession, and realize that we will never get balanced coverage in todays "gotcha" media environment, where our failures, relatively few in proportion to our numbers and activities, are magnified, and our innumerable successes, acts of courage and heroism go unreported.

rrhamilton said...

bill anderson said at 8:05 AM ...
The NY Slimes simply cannot let go of its original "metanarrative." This paper still would be insisting there was a rape, blah, blah, blah, if it could.

With all due respect, Professor, this is the MICROnarrative. The metanarrative is the line about how "arrogant white sexual prowess was loose amongst us" for centuries ... until somehow recently it stopped. In other words, it's the lie that promotes a history of white men as feral lustful beasts, ripping bodices from demurring maidens of colour since time immemorial -- right up to about 1965, when white men changed from openly raping every black woman they could get their arrogant hands on to doing it in secret (and terrifying them into silence)!

Anonymous said...

The Times doesn't really care about rape, if you look at every other high profile rape case or rape case that happens in freaking Manhattan they give it scant coverage, when they do cover a rape trial they are invariably DEFENSE FRIENDLY, can anyone forget the William Kennedy Smith coverage where they outed the victim and wrote an article critical of her housekeeping and driving skills?

The NYTimes ONLY cares about this case because of race. The times doens't care about women, only minorities.

If the case had been 3 black guys accused by a black crazy tramp, they either wouldn't have covered it OR they would have been defense friendly from the beginning, digging up the accuser's past on their own.

Anonymous said...

One could write over and over about the Times. The scary thing is, most people still regard it as the paper of record.

I still read it so I can know what these readers have "learned". I no longer even attempt to engage in serious discussion with these readers.

That said, any thinking person knows the paper is a disgrace. If the World Trade Center/911 didnt open their eyes to the world, just what can?

Anonymous said...

Its an old NYT trick to write crappy sentences in this situation.

Another is to find the worst possible picture of people they do not like.

As far Howell Raines and his buddies were concerned, the problem with Jayson Blair was he got caught.

The NYT has little interest in the truth.

Read Bonfires of the Vanities. The end of the book has a great parody of the Times.

Deklan Singh said...

Well, I guess "resident Durham nutjob" hasn't caught on with the broader media.