Wednesday, January 31, 2007

NY Post Article

I have an op-ed in today's New York Post, expanding on the post from a few days ago about the Times and DNA.


Anonymous said...

KC, what a clear and compelling propsecution of The Times. How much longer will the standards of the Times be challenged by facts before they clean house. You have given their readers the facts of this case in a no nonsense manner - the way it should have been written in the first instance. Great piece!

Anonymous said...

That mysterious word in the first sentence of the 9:29 posts should be "prosecution". Sorry

Anonymous said...

Rock on, KC.

You'll get a chuckle out of this piece in the Greensboro paper.

Anonymous said...

Well done KC. As others have noted, I too would like to order several copies of your book.

On another note, it appears Duke has moved into 2nd in the race/gender/class race to the bottom.

"The College of William and Mary's new president, Gene Nichol, has ordered a century-old cross removed from the school's historic Christian chapel and the official reaction from faculty, administrators and even the school's Board of Visitors has essentially been... indifference is too weak a word...

...Mr. Nichol's vague statements that he "learned" or was "told" or otherwise informed of unhappiness in those who allegedly were distressed to discover a Christian cross in the Chapel of a college founded by Christian leaders for the purpose that the "youth may be piously educated."

Another signal of the incompetence of those in the gender/race/class warfare departments. If they were really adept at deconstruction, they'd be working to make the chapel a "meeting place", "area of understanding", or something similar. They can't seem to get anything right...

M. Simon said...


You slipped the knife in and twisted it.


Always helpful when the opposition drops its guard though.

M. Simon said...


Anonymous said...

"Oh the old gray mare, she ain't what she used to be... Many long years ago"

Anonymous said...

Actually, 9:29/9:31, your typo on "propsecution" seems appropriate--as KC gave the Times the "props" they deserved (in this case negative ones, if that's possible) in his "prosecution."

Anonymous said...

Excellent op-Ed. I'm so conflicted:
apart from its coverage of Duke/lacrosse, I'm a devoted reader of the NY times (particularly op-ed,
and I must do the crossword daily).
But in recent years they have made so many inexcusable mistakes!

Anonymous said...

I live in the NYC area. At one time, the NYT was considered the pinnacle of news reporting and editorializing. Unfortunately, today many of their reporters privately admit that they cringe when they read the editorializing that is now all too prevalent in their "news" (or lack thereof). They have also said that the NYT's bias is institutional and systemic.

The NY Post's circulation is increasing while the NYT's is decreasing. The Times is also posting a lot of red ink:

NY Times Posts a Loss

Anonymous said...

M. Simon,

Reminds me of the thinking that led the Taliban to blow up the Buddhas--please no reminders of our religious heritage that may offend anyone, regardless of the historic or articstic importance of the artifact. At least the cross will not be dynamited. Mark William and Mary off the list, too!


Gayle Miller said...

KC - you are a credit to your own intelligence, courage and moral compass - and you write good too! Throughout this shameful saga, your site and your voice have been much appreciated and I think it's safe to say that because of people like you, these three innocent young men may yet get their lives back. Thank you.

Anonymous said...

This article once again shows why the NY Post circulation is growing and NY Times' circulation has plummeted.

One paper is a propaganda mouthpiece and the other is a newspaper.

I just don't understand NY Times. It was once a real newspaper but apparently BDS disease is overwhelming.

Anonymous said...

still waiting for the NY Times article linking Bush to Nifong..

I bet NYT has 100 investigators (sponsored by Soros/MoveOn) reasearching it..

Had Nifong been a republican this would be front-page news on NYT for months if not years.

Anonymous said...

Let's not get carried away here.

The NY Post is not a "newspaper" it's a tabloid. Any objective comparing of the NY Post and the NYTimes would find the Post lacking in every category save colorful headlines. The NY Post is a worse purveyor of facts than Fox News and they have an ongoing grudge against the NYTimes and never leave any option overlooked if it includes Times bashing.

That doesn't change the fact that the NYTimes has a clear problem in reporting racial issues objectively. Race bias/white guilt appears in every story that deals with the black community whether it's crime, hate crime, poverty, welfare reform or the Duke case.

Sadly, I happen to agree with the Times in their political bias and their environmental issues bias, but not their racial bias.

Anonymous said...

Great post KC. T

he NYT should be ashamed of the blatant bias shown in its reporting.

The NYT message is clear... DNA is good for exonerating the innocent, if they fall into an approved PC category. If they are not approved PC, then, as Nifong said infamously, "How does DNA exonerate?

Anonymous said...

Lack of DNA cannot alone exonerate anyone in a rape case.

In THIS case lack of DNA is exculpatory because the complainant specifically stated that no condoms were used and that a no condom ejaculation occured in her mouth, but no evidence of this was found in her rape exam, only a few hours later.

Generalizing about DNA evidence is dangerous.

Anonymous said...

10:50 AM
"I'm so conflicted"

How could you possibly be 'conflicted' about this?

This selective reporting, hiding of information, and misstatement of facts is business as usual to fit the Time's political and social agendas.

This is the Mainstream Agenda Driven Media at it's worst.

Anonymous said...

Good Post article, KC

Anonymous said...

The NY Post is a worse purveyor of facts than Fox News and they

Are you on drugs?
Today, "conservative" media (NY Post, Fox News) offers the most reliable and honest reporting. You really can't compare CBS "News" or NYT to real news organisation. Al-AP and al-Reuters are also just propaganda units (remember the imaginary Jamil Hussein reporting for AP 65 times.."burned" mosques turned out be just fine..) Al-Reuters fabricating stories and doctoring photos from Libanon..
They all suffer BDS. Check also recent abortion lies article in NYT. Even NYT public editor admitted it was a fabrication (yet editors refused to correct it).

I guess left-leaning organisations have been in a bubble so long with like minded people that they might actually believe that it is their "responsibility" to educate people and lie and mislead.

Anonymous said...

The New York Post is a piece of propaganda trash, just like Fox.

The fact that you seem to have failed to note that Jamil Hussein turned out to be a real, live person that the Iraqi government arrested for talking on the record to AP and your use of Al AP shows you are beyond the need for objective facts.

Is the NY TImes a liberal paper whose bias creeps into it's reporting. Absolutely.

But The NY Post barely qualifies as journalism, its news stories are repleat with rumors, errors and bad facts.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

K.C., I second the posts of 9:29 am, 9:33 am, 9:40 am, 9:48 am, Gayle Miller, 12:20 am - oh, hell, I'll be here all day! K.C., your piece in the NY Post was awesome!

As for your book, I will stand in line for it like I did for Harry Potter. Speaking of which, K.C., the sorting hat can put you in Gryffindor (courage), Hufflepuff (loyalty) or Ravenclaw (intelligence). It'll never put you in Slytherin (which doesn't matter because it's already full with Nifong and other forked tongues).

Anonymous said...

Jamil Hussein turned out to be a real, live person that the Iraqi government arrested for talking on

The mosques that were "burned" (and people burned alive) according to AP turned out to be just fine. Jamil may or may not have existed but AP never admitted the fabrication. Michelle Malkin has photos of the "burned mosques". It was blatant propaganda and fabrication, just like the "news" from Lebanon during the war. Remember when AP and Reuters defended their stingers who were found to be well-known Hezbollah members. In Iraq, at least one AP stinger was caught with explosives with other Al-Qaida members.

Left-wing newsorganisations (AP, Reuters, NYT, CBS News) have daily scandals and distortions ranging from forged documents and doctored photos to outright lies and crimes.
When was the last time Fox News or NYP were implicated in such as fabrication?
Of course, if you a commie and you don't like to hear about "Jamil Hussein's" lies then it is another story.

What about NYT public editor admitting that the abortion article (funded by pro-abortion activist group) was blatant fabrication?

How about that CBS News story before the election which intervied "worried mom" (local campaign manager for Kerry) who had heard about the Bush plan to reinstate the draft (proposed by that left-wing wacko Rangel). How about UN oil-for-food story?
There are thousands of examples like that.

NYT was once a great newspaper. Nowadays it is just a BDS-propaganda machice touting left-wing agenda. Duke Hoax case was a perfect fabrication story for NYT.
still waiting for the Bush connection to Nifong story..
Maybe tomorrow.

Anonymous said...


You would be a lot more credible if what I assume was your previous post hadn't called Mr. Hussein 'imaginary'...we know he isn't imaginary because the Iraqi government finally told us he existed and then arrested him. As far as the burned mosques I don't think AP ever said they were burned to the ground so the fact they still stand is largely irrelevant. AP also verified the deaths from multiple eye witnesses so because some Iraqi's living in a war zone didn't produce themselves for Michelle Malkin is irrelevant.

Nobody even bothers to correct the New York Post's mistakes, it would be like trying to keep The Globe or the National Enquirer honest. If you believe FOx is an unbiased source of information, I mean, great more power to you.

What this shows is that for all high profile cases there are MANY agendas on all sides.

Woman haters who believe false rape complaints are an epidemic.
Man haters who believe all rape complaints are true.
Cop haters who always support defendants.
Racists on both sides.
New York Times haters.
Fox News haters.

I don't think anyone would argue the NY Times doesn't have a liberal bias, just like a sane person would not argue that Fox does not have a conservative bias.

Yes, the NYTimes used to be a great paper and now it's just a good paper. It is still head and shoulders above every other newspaper in America in its reporting, its investigations and it's record for accuracy.

Anonymous said...

speaking of leftwing news organisations:

here is a fresh excerpt from BBC
The al-Qaeda network is accused of links to radical groups in various parts of the world.

Kind of bold statement, eh? Al-Qaida is accused of links to radical groups? New York Times would be proud of that.

Anonymous said...

On the subject of media hypocrisy...

I have a question regarding double standards for which I haven't found a concrete answer. I asked this on the LS board (though I'm new to it) because I couln't find the subject addressed anywhere. Perhaps it's such a hot-button question that no-one in the blogosphere has been both willing and able to answer it "on the record"? Or perhaps the answer is out there and I haven't found it. If that's the case, I apologize for the use of your time and I thank you for "clueing me in."

When precisely will the respective news media begin to refer to "Precious" by her legal name (as opposed to the euphamism "the Duke accuser")? I'm not being snarky. I'm asking legitimately: what are the hurdles (presumably individual as defined by each news org) which must be met? Because obviously the fact that the prosecuting D.A. has been discredited is not enough. When (and if, I know - but I'm optimistically pragmatic) the charges are dropped, will that be enough?

This is a serious question.

WHAT EXACTLY WILL IT TAKE for "Precious's" LEGAL NAME TO BE REVEALED on: regular broadcast news (ABC, CBS, FOX, NBC), national print media (Newsweek, NYT, USAToday, Time, WashPo), relevant cable stations (CNN, CourtTV, MSNBC), and online mainstream news (Salon, Slate), etc.?

You see, I think her name needs to be said aloud, written in ink, and saved to the Google cache. I believe the world needs to hear that "Precious" = Tawana Brawley II: the Electric Duke-a-loo. If anyone knows what it would take to bring this to reality, I'd be interested to hear.

Anonymous said...

I suspect the answer is a charge that she made a false complaint is what it would take to have her name widely publicized.

AMac said...

The New York Times should also be ashamed for running Alan Gurganis' despicable Op-Ed in early April (now behind the TimesSelect wall). Its closing thought: "When the children of privilege feel vividly alive only while victimizing, even torturing, we must all ask why."

On September 27th, I wrote to Gail Collins, the Times' Op-Ed Page editor, about the piece, copying Gurganis and NYT Public Editor Brian Calame. The letter (slightly abridged) follows.

----begin letter----

Dear Ms. Collins,

On April 9, 2006, Mr. Alan Gurganis contributed an Op-Ed piece, giving a North Carolinian's reaction to the then-breaking Duke Lacrosse Rape scandal. Reading it at five months’ remove, I was troubled by the inaccurate characterizations that he offered to the Times' readers. I wrote to him about explicit misstatements of fact, and highlighted an unjust and inflammatory remark that he used to close his piece. [snip]

On Oct. 5, 2005, you set forth the Times’ policy on corrections to Op-Ed pieces, stating

“We correct all errors, …because we believe that The Times should take its reputation for accuracy seriously... We want to cultivate the reflex that automatically fixes any inaccuracy, without whining. But mistakes of significance are much more urgent than minor ones. They need to be corrected quickly, and in a way that guarantees the fix is seen by as many people who read the original piece as possible.”

I would be grateful for a response that addresses how this policy applies to "Blue Devils Made Them Do It." [snip]

The April 9th Op-Ed makes a major factual error in stating that the Duke Lacrosse players embraced a "code of silence." Has the Times attempted to correct this misstatement?

The record of how the lacrosse players responded to initial police inquiries is clear. In their flawed account of August 25th, Times reporters Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater concede,

“[On March 16th], the police served a search warrant on the North Buchanan house. Mr. Evans and the two other team captains who shared the house were there. Police reports say they cooperated fully. Not only had there been no rape, they said, there had been no sex at all. They talked for hours without lawyers, gave DNA samples and offered to take polygraph tests. The officers declined the polygraph offer because, they said, DNA evidence would solve the case.”

An earlier account in the Raleigh News and Observer predated Mr. Gurganis’ Op-Ed by over a week. Their March 30th article "Lacrosse players' lawyers object" stated,

“[Police served a search warrant] at the house [on] March 16. The residents volunteered to come to a substation for interviews. They then agreed to provide DNA. Police investigators later spoke with the players' coach and asked him to set up a meeting with the players and investigators March 22, at which the players were to voluntarily answer questions and possibly submit to identification procedures, the release said. A few hours before the meeting was to take place, a lawyer called investigators and told them that the players would not attend and that legal counsel would be representing them.”

Mr. Gurganis appeared to believe that when the team co-captains cooperated fully, talked to police for hours without lawyers, gave DNA samples, and offered to take polygraph tests, they were spearheading a code of silence. Do you find these facts consistent with this charge?

Mr. Gurganis appeared to believe that when the police widened their net to include forty-three other students in their probe, that these individuals’ decision to retain lawyers constitutes a code of silence. Is heeding counsel’s advice fairly characterized as embracing a code of silence?

Thank you for any light that you can shed on this matter.

----end letter----

The next week, Calame telegraphed back that he was satisfied with the Times' performance.

I never heard from Collins or Gurganis.

Anonymous said...

A couple things.

The 'rules' on an op ed are not the same as for a 'news' article. So the Times itself isn't responsible for the opinion or the content, and definitely will not apologize.

Duff Wilson's piece is another matter entirely. How that article ever made it past his editor is an entirely different matter. The article took great pains to equalize the evidence of guilt vs. innocence, but never explicitely told the reader what 'body of evidence' existed that supported Mike Nifong's decision to prosecute. As far as I know the Times had never made any comment about Wilson's reporting on that article thouse it has been universally derided as a pathetic example of bias masquerading as news.

Anonymous said...

11:56 Don't you think the NYT approach and bias to race bleeds over into their approach on other issues? How do you trust the information you receive? The integrity of the data? The "authorities" being cited?

They've earned a deplorable reputation across the board and bias is bias. Worse still is that the times presents opinion as objective fact on most every subject. As such they abrogate any credibilty they have to all others with integrity.

Anonymous said...

2:18, NYT better than The Wall Street Journal...I think not.

Anonymous said...

2:18, NYT better than The Wall Street Journal...I think not.

Anonymous said...


You're correct: bias is bias, and since race--and race differences--obtains in every conceivable aspect of life, you'll see Times's biased coverage tip its ugly hat.

Anonymous said...


The Times doesn't "lie" or fabricate evidence or even cite improper "authorities" and there isn't anything wrong with the 'integrety' of their data.

What they do is much more subtle. If you read Duff Wilson's article there isn't anything false that he writes, but his conclusions are species and he glosses over the details of evidence, all weighted toward factual innocence.

The bias is in the way the story is written, the order of information, the sources they choose, e.g. sources aren't liars but are pre chosen to say what the Times wants to hear and the hidden conclusions that appear in their news stories.

The Times bias is evident in almost all of their coverage. I see it in issues where I agree with them..Bush, Iraq, the environment, civil liberties, abortion and where I disagree with them..race, poverty, welfare state, crime and the death penalty.

Anonymous said...

AP claimed this

Sunnis claim mosques and houses burned by Shiite militia, police watch
Associated Press Writer

BAGHDAD, Iraq (AP) - Sunni residents in a volatile northwest Baghdad neighborhood claimed Friday that revenge-seeking Shiite militiamen had destroyed four Sunni mosques, burned homes and killed many people, while the Shiite-dominated police force stood by and did nothing.

Since that report, all news organisarions, US army, Iraqi govt and various bloggers tried to confirm this. Reality: It was blatant propaganda. It didn't happen (it fitted to AP agenda so well..). The story was totally made up. AP thought nobody bothered to check the facts. AP has quietly edited the reports, but never admitted the fabrication..Just like Dan Rather.

Anyway, the Duke hoax story proves once again what kind of garbage comes out of NYT and other left-wing propaganda machine. Nice to see that there are still believers. Like George Costanza: "If you believe it, it's not a lie." (NYT motto)

Anonymous said...

Bias also doesn't obviate other pluses. Another example is the Boston Globe. It's a great paper, excellent writers, great stories, deep coverage, good sources, good investigative pieces and so on. There also isn't a single solitary case of white on black crime/hate crime that goes unreported in The Globe. In fact, the Boston Globe has probably fanned the fames of racism in Boston more than any other entity. It fits their white guilt liberal bias and they run with it every single time.

That doesn't negate the other great things about the paper, just like the Times liberal bias doens't negate the paper's overall credibility and track record.

Anonymous said...

2:54: Yes they do lie and fabricate stories (not just J.Blair). Latest example was the abortion article. Even their own public editor admitted it was total fabrication. Well, the NYT public editor story confirming this was printed on NYT so it may very well be fabrication itself. Do two lies cancel themselves out?

Omitting direct evidence (like in Duke hoax case) is everyday routine..

Anonymous said...

In response to the question about mainstream media organizations printing the name of the accuser...this is actually a topic of much debate in newsrooms. You can read several opinions from reporters/editors here:

In this case, I would guess that the major news organizations will not name her unless she is charged with a crime or becomes a defendant in a civil suit.

I speak as a former sportswriter with limited experience in hard news. Although many media organizations seem to consider rape a sport (covering it in the sports section) I never covered any sort of rape case.

Anonymous said...


Respectfully, you are full of it. There isn't any evidence that the AP stories were false. AP rechecked the initial story and came up with the same facts. Maybe you think that every death or explosion can be "confirmed" or you believe the Iraq government that first said Mr. Hussein didn't existed or you believe our government that said Iraq was chock full of WMD, but if I had to choose between AP, the Pentangon and the Iraq government, my money is on AP.

Anonymous said...

3:04 We'll that's the difference between you and I. If someone witholds data/information with clear bias, presents it as objective fact, doesn't balance it with opposing points of views, then I consider it very much an integrity issue. What's said, and left unsaid, what's done and what's left undone define integrity/character.

No big deal if you're presenting yourself as opinionated (Op-ed, Oprah, Rush L, O'Reill, Franken, etc.)But they are much worse since they represent themselves as unbiased and some sort of standard bearer.

Of course people see the nonsense, with them and other media outlets are are leaving with their wallets in droves.

Thing haven't been the same since "Nancy" was retired from the comic

Anonymous said...

Okay, looks like the web site address I posted got cut off, so I'll try to break it onto several lines.

If that doesn't work, go to, click on Ethics in the column on the left, then click on the "Duke Lacrosse Case: Should We Name the Accuser" story.

Anonymous said...

In terms of the internet my searches of blogs on Google lead me to believe that in the past two weeks the two most quoted people on the Duke case are KC Johnson and ...... Wendy Murphy!

What dark forces conspired to raise an anonmous professor to this stage? Who finances you KC? Why do you work so hard to discredit the victims of rape?

Be prepared to answer those questions when the book comes out.

Did you ever call Rachel Sullivan?

Anonymous said...

3:10 it does negate the other great things... that is one point. Someone lies to you in a relationship or business you begin to doubt everything that is presented the prism you receive the information changes, until finally, if repeated enough, you no longer engage the person. Same with the Globe, the Times, et al.

Anonymous said...


You are right to a degree, thats why I was personally stunned to read Duff Wilson's 're-evaluation' In light of the Jason Blair, Judith Miller fiascos and the ongoing assault of all things NYTimes from the right, you would have figured that any major 'insight' type of piece on such an emotionally charged case would have been SCRUPULOUSLY reviewed to ensure it was absolutely fair and accurate. But, that isn't what happened and the Times was rightly ridiculed and derrided for a transparant attempt to prop up a failed case.

Maybe the lesson is that ideology is always bad and that the New York Times is no more able to admit its mistakes and bias than, say, Dick Cheney.

Anonymous said...

3:24 Dick Cheney isn't a journalist and he's dealing with problems every day that I don't.

Anonymous said...


re Times's bias

1. Stories the editors choose to report on. Have you ever seen an article in NYT education section about the relationship between low IQ and educational outcomes? Or the racism, sexism, and anyi-Semitism in Angry Studies departments? Ever read a Times story that addressed the relationship between black racism and interracial crime?

2. Cultural coverage. It's taboo at the Times to criticize any black artist, even ones that typically espouse anti-Semitism and antiwhite racism like Spike Lee.

New York Pravda.

Anonymous said...

So does that mean you have lower standards for honesty and bias for the vice president than you do for a New York Times reporter?

Anonymous said...


I must not be expressing myself well.

I am not disagreeing that the NYTimes is biased, especially in its coverage of anything related to race and african americans.

I do take issue with the idea that 'bias' is only a problem for the NYTimes, the 'liberal' media as opposed to conservative media or that their liberal bias wipes away everything that is good and great about the newspaper.

Anonymous said...

3:36 I respect the notion that being VP and all it requires is not in the least like being a journalist.

For instance there is information that should be classified for national security. The NYT has shown a complete disregard and contempt for that notion.

Anonymous said...

This discussion about the media/NYT begs the question that their agenda/bias contributed to the unjust actions taken in this case. They became abetters to Nifong and worse, are inconsistent with the compass that purportly guides them. As such they have no compass and the moral relvancy they weld like an ax is dangerous, especially to me and some of mine as we fail the gender/race/class welfare tests.

Anonymous said...

Yeah, damm them for publishing The Pentagon Papers, those traitors. Damm them for making public illegal surveillance on Americans by the government. Horrible, horrible.

I'm sure if Dick Cheney thought he could get away with classifying his high school grade point average or what he had for lunchy yesterday under National Security he would do so.

Anonymous said...


Agreed, Times is still a pretty good newspaper. Do you read The Independent out of Britain?

You're also correct that other media display biased reporting with respect to blacks. Let's face it, there's a very strong taboo in US wrt reporting negatively about blacks' pathologies.

And you're also correct in pointing out the fact that a lot of these same biases obtain in so-called conservative media.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

2:32 PM - You are correct to protest the unfairness of rape shield laws. But if you think a lying prostitute from Durham is bad, you should see England.

In Northamptonshire a man spent 3 years and 4 months in jail after a woman lied about him having raped her. She would never have been able to get away with it had her identity been published. That would have revealed she'd lied to police about 'at least' 5 other rape and assault charges.

You know, in the 70's I applauded rape shield laws. Now I want to give them a good swift kick!

Anonymous said...


I like the hated BBC, it's a good counterpoint to all US media for foreign policy stories.

Don't you think the same taboo though also holds true in the UK these days as far as reporting about crime in the black communities?

Anonymous said...

3:47 The black helicopters are outside and the cleaning van across the street probably has infra-red gear checking on you as we speak. You seem to be nice enough, maybe Arthur Sulzberger will pull you out of the ditch...but only if you pass the race/gender/class welfare/terrorist tests.

Anonymous said...


Yes, the same taboo holds true in all Western societies with respect to publicly commenting on black pathologies.

Crystal Mangum's predatory behavior, of course, is not couched as a violent black-on-white crime. This Mangum character is getting a free ride. Do you think MSM will publish any photos of this bathing beauty?

Anonymous said...

No never. Even in the unlikely event that she is charged with making a false report, which will also never happen, I'd be very surprised if any photos of the poor, downtrodden, abused by the system, sex worker were made public via any MSM.

Anonymous said...

New York Times Reports 4Q Loss of $648M

just reward!

Anonymous said...


The Times' 4th Q loss may have nothing to do with paper's viability. Times may have made purchases, etc

Anonymous said...

The Times has been losing money for some time, also they bought for some nutty reason.

They have an interesting dilemma as do all newspapers...people increasingly don't buy newspapers or even read them. The New York Times, despite what the conservative bloggers say, has a hugely strong brand, but they can't figure out how to transition from a newspaper business into a communications business or, alternately make money out of a business that continues to shrink overall.

I love the Times, despite its bias, but I read it online, don't subscribe.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

4:54 - Times didn't purchase anything. That 4th quarter loss is because the public didn't.

Anonymous said...

Jack Welch, retired CEO of GE, recently attempted to purchase the Boston Globe from the Times. The Times told him they wouldn't sell because it's part of their core business. So, he's biding his time until the Times becomes more and more vulnerable and may have to divest some assets...

It will be interesting to see if he ultimately succeeds, and if so, what sort of imprimatur he'd have on the Globe's op/ed. One could fantasize about direction Neutron Jack's could take them.

Anonymous said...

11:56 AM
"Sadly, I happen to agree with the Times in their political bias and their environmental issues bias, but not their racial bias."

Yes it is sad that you pick and choose 'facts' based on your personal ideology.

Now wonder you agree with their approach to news and truthful reporting.


M. Simon said...


You haven't updated your facts lately. You are probably reading the "wrong" news sources.

The AP admits there is no J. Hussein in the Iraqi police force.

Funny the AP did not trumpet this news.

M. Simon said...

C4 1:40PM,

Our tort law is based in part on Talmudic Law.

You can look up the debadtes on Ox goring in the Talmud.

Leading to the famous American legal and political dictum: "It depends on whose ox is gored."

Back in the old days when a knowledge of Hebrew, Latin, and Greek were required to be considered educated, scholars who could read the originals were common. Especially among Christian ministers.

Anonymous said...


Much of the Bible was written in Aramaic.

M. Simon said...

Editor and Publisher (hardly a right wing source) says the mysterious J. Hussein was "Lost", "Found", and "Lost again".

Subsequent to this report on Dec. 17th there have been no further sightings.

In fact it appears that there have been way more sightings of Elvis than of J. Hussein.

Anonymous said...


"The NY Post is not a "newspaper" it's a tabloid. Any objective comparing of the NY Post and the NYTimes would find the Post lacking..."

Uh, that's a worthy consideration for a sixth-grader who attaches more value to the messenger than to the message. In this case, the Post has real news and clear analysis, and the NYT is drooling the party line. You're not doing 'objective' comparing at all, you're looking at brand names after listening to commercials all day.

M. Simon said...


The reason we didn't find Saddam's nuke program in Iraq is simple. He had outsourced it to Libya. An operation broken up by the war.

Search -

A. Q. Kahn Iraq Libya

if you need your memory refreshed.

Funny thing is this is one of the brilliant successes of the war and now it is down the memory hole.

I wonder why?

M. Simon said...


Well actually the Times has subsequently come out and said the surveilance was not illegal.

You must have canceled yor subscription prior to the correction.

Anonymous said...

Wow, KC...what an OUTSTANDING editorial. The Times editors should be ashamed, but of course, they have no shame...

M. Simon said...


Uh, wich Bible are you speaking of?

The one Jesus read was in Hebrew. Mostly.

Time to get back to the old time religion. If it was good enough for Jesus it is good enough for me.


BTW an understanding of Hebrew would be quite valuable in the study of Aramaic. They have common roots.

In fact an understanding of spoken Hebrew will stand you in good stead in understanding spoken Arabic. The big differences in the two language is in the written form.

Hebrew and Arabic have a common tradition of omitting vowels in the printed word.

Letters and vowels in Hebrew

From KC's Op-ed to the NYT to the Hebrew alphabet.

BTW the way I no loner read our local paper except for the week-end edition.

I learn way more on the 'net by discussing stuff with the like minded and the not so like minded. Something newspapers can't do. Which is why the 'net is eating their lunch.

I do believe we are getting smarter and more educated in so many practical and impractical ways.

We are in Gordon R. Dickson's "The Final Encyclopedia" territory. Except that every one has access not just privledged researchers.

And footnoting is so easy. Both for the footnoter and those following the argument.

HTML is a required skill for this new mode of discourse.

HTML cheats

If you keep a cheat sheet (text file) up of your most commonly used forms (probably around 10 to 20) it is really easy.

Anonymous said...

KC-- Ah, you have a book coming. Great. You deserve some good things to come to you from this blog as you've done a really remarkable job. Yours is an excellent story of talent meeting technology to create a rising star. Good luck.

M. Simon said...

To show you how easy it is I'm going to turn urls posted so far into clickable links.






Anonymous said...


Is that cheat sheet applicable to links?

Not Wearing Panties

M. Simon said...


Yes. The first example at HTML cheats is how to make clickable links.

M. Simon said...

Not Wearing Panties,

Perhaps lickable links are more appropriate. LOL.

And no, I'm not going to put up the cheat sheet for that one.

Anonymous said...

To Cedarford on Absence of Evidence

Absence of evidence not being evidence of absence is (as far as I know) valid only as an historiographical argument. I know of no lawyer who would seriously argue to a judge that someone should be found legally guilty because of an absence of evidence.

It is, however, a perfectly good historical argument, especially in those frequent cases where evidence is very scanty. An historian's judgment has no risk that someone will be punished for a crime. For an historian to say that it is possible for X to have happened because no evidence against X has been found is perfectly good logic so long as it is remembered that it is not the same as an argument that X probably or certainly happened. (See Hexter on the historian's modes.) What is required of a legal argument is that X probably happened, either beyond a reasonable doubt for a criminal trial or according to the preponderance of the evidence for a civil trial. Mere possibility is supposed to be outside the pale of logical argument.

No historian since von Ranke has believed that history can ever give us apodictic truths: the past "wie es eignetlich gewesen ist." History is about distinguishing among what possibly happened or probably happened or almost certainly happened. In THAT context, the rule that mere absence of evidence does not prove that something did not happen is perfectly acceptable.


Anonymous said...

Mr/Mrs Simon,

I was named Not Wearing Panties at birth by my mother. The name is traditional Laotian.

Not Wearing Panties

M. Simon said...

Not Wearing Panties,

My apologies. Perhaps an English transliteration of the Laotian would be more discreet.

It probably has a different connotation in Laotian than English.

Anonymous said...


I am not sure that it is meaningful to beat up a paper for what the writers on their SPORTSPAGES say about a LEGAL case. This is sort of like hitting a cripple with his crutch, not even close to a fair contest.

Better to pick on people your own intellectual size, of whom in this fiasco there are multitudes, e.g. the group of 88, Cathy Davidson, the president of Duke, Nifong, the NC NAACP, and on and most distressingly on and on.


M. Simon said...

Not Wearing Panties,

You can call me Simon. All my friends do. In fact that is what my First Mate calls me.

My father was called Simon and my kids are called that, too!

Anonymous said...


Must side with KC Johnson on this one. Even if the sportswriters didn't precisely understand what they were reporting on, their editors at the Times do.


Anonymous said...

High five, KC and Stuart! The NY Times should be ashamed. I will buy your book when it is printed and I will be at Barnes and Noble for the book signing. Thank you!

Anonymous said...

Stuart Taylor is a well-established and highly respected legal writer, but I thought calling you "obscure but brilliant" in Slate was a bit of a mainstream-media cheap shot. Since he now obviously acknowledges you as the go-to guy on this case, I hope you negotiated top billing on the book ...

Dave in CA

Anonymous said...

M. Simon---

I find you to be an unusually clear and reasonable person. A treasure trove of information.

And like most above average. :>)



Anonymous said...

Stuart Taylor isn't obscure.

Only insular morons would make such an assertion.


Anonymous said...

7:23 interesting concept, "the final encycopedia". I'm somewhat interested in the theory of enlightenment, which more or less suggest finite learning for man. At some point man will learn everything there is to learn.

My interest is in rejection of that theory because there are some things man cannot learn/sense. A simple example would be a dogs ability to smell or an eagles ability to see, etc...

Anonymous said...

KC PLEASE pick a more upscale vehicle next time. You dont fir comfortably in the Post with its tabloid snarling.

Looks like a hack from the Post has been pretty busy in the commenting above.

Even the Post doesnt take itself that seriously. A large part of it is gossip and another large part is comics. And the demographic? NOT one to die for!

The NY Post has never made an annual profit. Murdoch just keeps it out there to titillate the rubes.

And the Times has never made an annual loss. And it DOES have a demographic to die for.

Anonymous said...

--9:24pm---You don't know very much about much.

Anonymous said...


"I am not sure that it is meaningful to beat up a paper for what the writers on their SPORTSPAGES say about a LEGAL case. This is sort of like hitting a cripple with his crutch, not even close to a fair contest."

Au contraire. Assigning a sportswriter to write up legal issues is a telling sign of the attitude at the executive level of the paper. Sure, they're trying to sell more papers by cashing in on the 'name' of the writer and by treating the case like a football game. But they're lending their supposed high-toned imprimatur to the sportswriter without holding him to account for his legal ignorance (isn't that why papers are 'better' than blogs, because they have editors to oversee their 'news' productions?).

In such a case, it's a twofer to beat them both up - the writer to introduce him to accountability, and the editorial board for the abdication of their profession.

Insufficiently Sensitive

Anonymous said...

"The Times took its stand in a 5,600-word, Page One reassessment of the case on Aug. 25, written by Duff Wilson, a sportswriter responsible for much of the paper's previous one-sided coverage, and Jonathan Glater. The headline was "Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details But No Answers."

"Like the headline, the piece cultivates a meretricious appearance of balance. But its flaws are so glaring that it was shredded by bloggers within hours after it hit my doorstep. They were led by a Durham group called Liestoppers and by KC Johnson, an obscure but brilliant New York City history professor of centrist political views. Johnson alone has produced more insightful (if sometimes one-sided) analysis and commentary on the Duke case—about 60,000 words—than all the nation's newspapers combined."

Stuart Taylor, in Slate online, 8-31-06.

Debrah apparently missed it.

Anonymous said...

To 8:25 and 9:42

Tell you what. If the stories ran on the sports page, I will stand by my comment. I really doubt the editors of the Times pay any attention to the larger implications of what runs on the sports page, way too declasse you know.

If, however, the editors let sports writers cover a national legal story, then I agree KC can go after the Times as an institution. Sort of like letting my basset hound approve a loan: pure idiocy. Even then, I still think he should leave sports writers alone: it is just not a fair fight, sort of like asking my basset hound to take on a Siberian tiger.


Anonymous said...

The "New York Post" is like a seasoned lover.

Many hard-hitting and great columnists are featured inside its pages.

And it's simply eccentric genius to have hard news alongside Page Six and the delicious gossip columns.

It's like being filthy rich and skinny! Very sexy.


Anonymous said...

TO 10:05PM---

You're right. I did "miss it". Didn't read that Slate item. Many thanks for enlightening me.

Sooooo....big Stuart called KC "obscure". Well, at the time that might have been true. Why is that such a big deal?

When I was skimming this thread I misread the post to say that someone called Stuart Taylor obscure.

Listen, it's always best to be underestimated in the beginning. It makes things so much more dramatic when one moves in for the kill at the finale.


Anonymous said...

You're welcome.

I mentioned it because I just think it's cool that the chance to set up a forum like this can so quickly catapult someone like our estemmed blogtender from an "obscure" professor into an indispensable resource for the very person who called him obscure. The top-billing comment was only half-joking. Taylor may have his own legal-reporting pedigree, but KC is the one who has come to personify the effort to shine the light on this case until we get to the truth and to justice.


Anonymous said...

TO 10:30PM---

Very true.

And that would now make KC a hot item. LIS!


Anonymous said...


"If the stories ran on the sports page, I will stand by my comment."

If the stories weren't on the sports pages, the worse for the editors.

But even if they were, what the hell did they have to do with sports? Did Duff Wilson give a play-by-play and final score of the alleged 'rape', minute by minute, based on secret inside information obtained by him from 'anonymous sources'? No, he indulged some ordinary NYT group-think, having nothing to do with sports and everything to do with faux PC outrage. It was a surrogate reinforcement for the op-eds the Times was running against those horrible white males of privelege.

Well worth beating up by exposure to the sunlight of fact-based publicity.

Insufficiently Sensitive

Anonymous said...

One thing I hope KC includes in his analysis of the whole Duke environment:

If Bob Wilson---who used to run the Herald-Sun editorial page before the paper was bought and taken over by myopic and agenda-driven urchins who have used the paper for personal diary entries--- were still running things.......

.....the coverage of the Duke lacrosse case would have been so very different.

The way that local paper covered for and assisted Mike Nifong in his backwater quest most certainly added to the injustices and the magnitude of indignities suffered by Reade, Collin, and Dave.

Bob Wilson would be an invaluable source for KC in illustrating the nuanced and strange pathologies of Durham.

What bad luck for the defense that just over a year prior to this fiasco the Herald-Sun was sold and then taken over by its current staff.


Anonymous said...

What happened to this blog?

There used to be lively discussion and interesting perspectives--now what?

Where is everyone?

Anonymous said...

Can't top the hate from the 88.

Anonymous said...

KC - Loved your article. I retired to Vegas eight years ago. Although, not the cultural capital of the world, most everyone I know loves the Post. The Times has been disgracing itself for years. Duff Wilson on the Duke case. Ann Coulter said " Precious told so many different stories, the Times had to offer her Jayson Blair's olde job." They can not write a story without bias. The Times can't get it right. Xeros the Crossword at the library.

Anonymous said...

Big KC and Stuart Taylor are writing a book together - Kc and Bill A are not obscure any more.

Anonymous said...

1:40 Good piece. Neufeld has disgraced himself with his comments.