Sunday, March 18, 2007

March Madness, I

March Madness is in full force—everywhere, that is, except on the Duke campus, where NCAA bracket pools are forbidden under the anti-gambling provisions of the school’s draconian new student behavior code. This blog’s version of March “madness” seeks to determine the worst of the case, in four categories:

  • op-eds/editorials;
  • “news” articles;
  • publications by Duke arts and sciences faculty;
  • soundbites.

Today, the ten worst op-eds or editorials of the case. A caveat: I’ve excluded the work of transparent race-baiters such as Barry Saunders of the N&O or Shadee Malaklou of the Chronicle, who seem chiefly interested in provoking controversy through arguments they themselves don't seem to take seriously. I’ve also excluded the Allan Gurganus New York Times op-ed, whose chief motivation seemed to be winning favors for a future job application to the Duke English Department.

Here’s the list, with the worst of the worst ranked #1. Reader nominations are welcome in the comment thread. Worst of the hard-news articles tomorrow.

10.) Steve Ford, “No Gong for Mike Nifong—Yet,” N&O, Nov. 12, 2006. In this column, Ford explained why the N&O editorial board made no endorsement in the DA’s race, even though its news division had exposed Nifong’s unethical activities. His thesis? Even if voters have an unethical or incompetent DA, the ballot box isn’t the appropriate venue to act. Instead, the public and media should sit back and allow the DA to wreak havoc, hoping that the State Bar eventually acts.

9.) Eugene Robinson, “Tough Questions in Durham,” Washington Post, April 25, 2006. Robinson presented the “context” argument: he found it “impossible to avoid thinking of all the black women who were violated by drunken white men in the American South over the centuries. The master-slave relationship, the tradition of droit du seigneur, the use of sexual possession as an instrument of domination—all this ugliness floods the mind, unbidden, and refuses to leave.” And since it was “quite possible we’ll never have a truly satisfactory answer” as to what actually occurred at the party, Robinson didn’t have to worry about inconvenient facts undermining his argument.

8.) “Outrage at Duke Lacrosse Players,” Herald-Sun, March 28, 2006. The first of more than 20 slanted H-S editorials, and in some ways the worst of the lot. The editorial praised the potbangers, hoping that “the banging drums served as a wake-up call that the students’ obnoxious fun and games have taken a very serious turn.” The editorial inaccurately informed potential jurors, “When police officers arrived at the house with a search warrant on March 16, none of the players would cooperate with the investigation.” Moreover, added the editorial board, it was “outrageous that not a single person who was in the house felt compelled to step forward and tell the truth about what happened.” Of course, they had done so. They just hadn’t told the “truth” the H-S so desperately wanted to hear.

7.) Marc Fisher, “Wolves in Blazers and Khakis,” Washington Post, July 13, 2006. This piece was the worst of a subsection of case op-eds—those that used the most widely publicized bar squabble in modern American history to engage in character assassination against Collin Finnerty. Fisher regaled in mocking Finnerty’s friends, whose “stories matched up so prettily as they trooped up onto the witness stand to defend their boy, Collin Finnerty.” Naturally, Fisher has ceased commenting on Duke matters as the lacrosse case upon which he based his assumptions collapsed.

6.) Selena Roberts, “When Peer Pressure, Not a Conscience, Is Your Guide,” New York Times, March 31, 2006. The Roberts piece exposed to the world that a New York Times columnist believed that a search warrant was actually a “court document” that purported to contain a finding of fact. (The Times ran a brief correction six days later.) “Something happened,” proclaimed Roberts, while none of the players “have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.” (The Times didn’t run a correction on this error of fact.) Roberts joined the H-S in hailing the potbangers for their “heartening” actions, and detected on the lacrosse team “a desire for teammates to exploit the vulnerable without heeding a conscience.” For good measure, Times’ public editor Byron Calame a few weeks later suggested that even if the case collapsed, “The Times should be prepared to continue covering what is done about the racial-insult allegations.” So, the paper needed to focus on not the issue of prosecutorial misconduct but instead the actions of the (one) lacrosse player who used a racial slur in response to Kim Roberts’ racial taunts. Talk about misplaced priorities.

5.) Josh Perlin, “Seligmann Not Worth Hassle,” Cornell Daily Sun, March 1, 2007. In a column that was an embarrassment to college journalism, Perlin asserted that because he was “tired” of the case, Brown and other Ivy League institutions shouldn’t consider transfer applications from Reade Seligmann.

4.) Hal Crowther, “Sympathy for the Devils?,” Indy, June 28, 2006. An astute observer of the case suggested that this column deserved a higher ranking, and he might be correct. The column oozed hatred for the lacrosse players, whom Crowther termed “subhuman,” and suggested that those who criticized Mike Nifong’s misconduct needed to “catch a glimpse of your inner racist in the mirror.” This article also featured the outrageous photo of Peter Wood in front of the lacrosse field; the History professor used his interview to appear to slander one of his former students, Reade Seligmann.

3.) Amanda Marcotte, Airbrushed Duke Post, Pandagon, January 21, 2007. John Edwards’ former campaign blogger provided some of the ugliest rhetoric on the case of any figure who had access to mainstream readers. Then, when she got criticized, she erased the post and negative comments in the thread.

2.) Harvey Araton, “At Duke, Freedom of Speech Seems Selective,” New York Times, May 26, 2006. The Duke women’s lacrosse players wearing armbands expressing solidarity with those targeted by Mike Nifong enraged several columnists. Araton ranted at how the “lacrosse gals, 30 of 31 of whom are white, are apparently free to martyr their male lax mates,” and wondered how “cross-team friendship and university pride [could] negate common sense at a college as difficult to gain admission to as Duke,” with the women’s players “staking their own reputations” on the case’s outcome. If so, their reputations have been wholly vindicated—unlike that of Araton and his colleagues at the Times.

1.) Andrew Cohen, “The Media Rush to Duke’s Defense,”, June 27, 2006. Cohen’s insinuation that prosecutorial misconduct can be forgiven depending on the race, class, or gender of the defendants strikes at the heart of the system’s integrity. Demonstrating his own journalistic credentials, Cohen got Bob Ekstrand’s name wrong no fewer than six times, but he nonetheless took to task the media, complaining that “there is no balanced coverage in the Duke case. There is just one defense-themed story after another.” (Apparently we needed more stories sympathizing with prosecutors who withhold exculpatory DNA evidence or instruct police to violate their own procedures; Cohen later on would become about the only person outside Mike Nifong's office to praise the Duff Wilson August New York Times piece.) The reason for this imbalance, according to Cohen? “Race and money and access to the media have a lot to do with it.”

Cohen concluded, “We haven’t seen all of the evidence, haven’t examined all of the testimony; haven’t had the privilege of seeing the case unfold at trial the way it is supposed to.” In Cohen’s mind, we needed to have the “privilege” of a trial in the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in modern American history. This distorted vision of the justice system makes Cohen’s the worst of any op-ed column published on the case.


Anonymous said...

This is nothing less than media malpractice. The media elite should be ashamed.

Gary Packwood said...

Very helpful to see all of these folks lined up on the Durham-in-Wonderland ...wall of shame.

Thank You

Where did they get their content? Any common name pop up as the source?

Anonymous said...

JLS says....,

Professor Johnson,

You know whose column deserved to be on this list.

We know you know.

You may think because a paper's news pages eventually got some things right about this case it is ok to ignor that column.

But smearing people in a column is not a prank. We know you know she did that in her column.

You need to come forward and name her.

Anonymous said...

Nice job KC - I might have shuffled the Top 10, but I think you got the major offenders. I once sent a message to Marc Fisher at the Post (on his weekly forum), and he tried to pretend the Finnerty/DC case was a Georgetown incident and he meant no commentary about the rape case.

"Wolves in Blazers and Khakis".

Journalistic coward.

I also doubt blazers were involved, but pile on when you can.

Anonymous said...

We could have a Rogue's Gallery of the TV media coverage to go along with this list. Wendy Murphy gets my vote for worst blind bias ever. Nancy Grace would be an easy second with some terrible offenders at ESPN close behind!

Anonymous said...

A top ten list was probably hard to do as you'd have to keep in mind so many bad actors out there.

It would be nice to have a TV version one of these days. Not as many choices I think.

Then there's the intentionally clueless department for Amanda Marcotte and Prof Rud.

There's also that iFeminest legal piece that was written. And Cash Michael's articles in the aggregate.

Anonymous said...

Wendy, Wendy, Wendy!!!

Where’s my girl. Her pieces in the Wilmington Journal (does that count as a newspaper?) and the USA Today both should have made the list. I love her more than Vitale loves Duke

You should have a reader submitted best blog post contest. Make an autographed copy of your book first prize.

Anonymous said...

Are you kidding me? The "soundbites" tourney is already in the championship game!

Victoria Peterson and Chan Hall are full-court pressing each other for the trophy right now.

p.s. Have you read Marcotte's blog, specifically the comment section? If her readers are "mainstream", I'm going to move to Iran.

Anonymous said...

you are brillant and there is no way to thank you for your tireless efforts

Anonymous said...

KC - Marc Fisher is absolutly the worst. The Post like all newspapers are facing slimmer times due to loss of circulation. Will see what reporters remain in the end. They would not be writing this stuff without support above them.

Anonymous said...

1:03 Absolutly true.

AMac said...

Ruth Sheehan
"Team Silence is sickening."
N&O column, March 26, 2006.
John in Carolina's comments on Sheehan's piece.
Surely worth more than an honorable mention in the Op-Eds/Editorials category.

Anonymous said...

Amanda got hers. Has anyone heard from Hal since he wrote this essai-thanks AG Rud for a new word. Essai is a fun word.

Anonymous said...

Andrew Cohen is an absolute idiot. He wrote several times on his Post blog that courts might reject a federal constitutional amendment against gay marriage for being unconstitutional. Some things, apparently, are so stupid only a lawyer can believe them. Such elementary ignorance from someone purporting to discuss the law should be grounds not only for being fired from writing a legal blog; it should also be grounds for disbarment. That anyone could possibly think the Constitution could be unconstitutional is mind-boggling. That a lawyer could think so is unimaginable. At least, it was.

Anonymous said...

First, full disclosure: I'm a journalism graduate and law school graduate.

As I read through Prof. Johnson's list, I found myself nodding and nodding, as each new entry seemed worse than the last. Until, shockingly, the last one -- Andrew Cohen's. I would not have even put Cohen's on the list at all.

Why not?

Everyone please re-read Cohen's column. He's not attacking the boys. He's attacking the press. And from my experience in both the press and the law, he has a point. Well-represented clients (as we have in this case) are often able to spin the case in the press to their clients' advantage.

Before everyone leaps on me, let me say that take a backseat to noone here in my condemnation of the judicial rape of the lacrosse team or of the cheerleaders on the Duke faculty and in the media. I also would reject Cohen's comparisons of this case with those of Kobe and Jackson. Those latter two cases were CLEARLY disputes of credibility, not of objective evidence. In the lacrosse case, even if the accuser was as credible as Mother Teresa, the objective evidence destroys the case.

Anyway, Prof. Johnson, please re-read Cohen's article: I don't find a condemnation of the lacrosse boys, only a condemnation (and a justified one) of the press.
Other than that, I agree with your ranking of articles 10 through 2.

P.S. This opinion subject to change after bourbon has worn off.

Anonymous said...

Taking the discussion to a macro level, I was shocked that three newspapers -- The Carolina Times, The Carolinian, and the Wilmington Journal -- sponsored/supported the website It seemed to me to put at risk the journalism canons of objectivity and impartiality.

An article about their sponsorship:
Web Site Created In Support Of Duke Rape Victim

Anonymous said...

I don't know the coverage well enough to do a ranking, but Cohen's piece is pretty egregious.

Anyone who can boil down Nifong's mad dash to indict the players as merely having "said a bit too much too early" is not fit to comment on this case anywhere, much less in a supposedly prestigious paper like the Post.

You'd never know it from reading the piece, but the defense lawyers were still far behind in the game at that time. In fact, they're still behind as long as the charges stay on the books, and what they've been doing all along has been too directly connected to doing actual justice in the case to be dismissed as spin.

There's nothing wrong with criticizing the way lawyers play the press. But to do it in this context and in this way, where these kids needed all the lawyering they could get just to slow down the Nifong railroad, comes across as shallow, cheap, and biased.

And if "race, money and access to the media" work against other defendants who are victims of prosecutorial misconduct, why is it so difficult to promote more stories on their behalf and see the importance of this one at the same time?

Dave in CA

lawyer - yes
former journalist - yes
ETOH - trace ;-)

Anonymous said...

JLS says...,

re: whyterain

I believe the reason that Professor Johnson ranked the Cohen article so highly is that he came up with this rubbish even after others in the press had started figuring things out. He was complaining that the press who from the start reported everything the DA as truth had started after a few months as the evidence came out to question whether or not Nifong was being truthful.

BTW, this case and the Bryant case are in fact quite similar. The difference is that sex happened in the Bryant case. But in both cases we have victims who told police they had not had sex recently other than being raped who turned out to be walking sperm banks. And yes if Mother Teresa had accused Bryant of raping her, claimed she had not had sex with anyone else for days and had turned up with semen from one or two others on her, Mother Teresa would not have been believed either.

BTW, the prosecutors in both this and the Bryant case were appointed to open elected positions and successfully exploited these cases to win their first elections. That should scare everyone.

lonetown said...

I don't know how many of you have been fighting this media bias in the past. I've been involved in it for 30 years.

Maybe this case will be for the better if it wakes up the ordinary liberal who up until now believed everything from thr NYT and WaPo and neatly overlooked any inconsistencies.

From my political persepctive, that would include most people in Duke and any college.

This is not new, its just a good example of the same old stuff!

Anonymous said...

I was appalled by the articles on the Duke lacrosse case by Andrew Cohen, “The Media Rush to Judgment”; Marc Fisher, “Wolves in Blazers and Khakis”; and Eugene Robinson, “Tough Questions in Durham.” And there were other pieces in the Washington Post on the Duke lacrosse case that contained perversions of facts and rushes to judgment.

I have wondered whether intemperate pieces such as these were partly motivated by attempts to sustain falling circulation at the Post. In any event, since I have not seen apologies for these articles when the facts became more widely known, I am about to end my subscription of 15 years to the Washington Post.

And no, I shall not get the NY Times as a replacement. I used to regard both the Post and the Times as the "papers of record". I now think that after the defendants, the “mainstream media” have been the biggest casualties of the Duke lacrosse case. Note that I used the term casualties: I regard only the defendants in the case as victims.

In fact, my disillusion with the “mainstream media” may extend to not replacing the Post with another newspaper. And a suitable penance for previously supporting the “papers of record” may be to channel the money that would have gone into subscriptions into the costs of the defense for the Duke 3.


Anonymous said...

It's no wonder Americans think Journalists and the Media inhabit the same shallow end of the Professional Gene Pool as Politicians and "Studies Academicians"...
Completely irresponsible Folk telling all what they want to tell, what they think they want to hear but never stopping to evaluate a complete story and presenting the whole story and what really people need to hear and know... (most notable exception, the Late Great Ed Bradley of CBS !!)

Anonymous said...

Lonetown: Amen, brother! This style of agenda-driven reporting from MSM is not the least bit new. People (sheep, really) seem to wear their WP and NYT subscriptions as badges of honor not realizing their heads are being packed with leftist garbage. As I've pointed out to friends and colleagues over the years: somewhere between WP/NYT/CBS and Washington Times/FoxNews lies truth. If you rely on any single news source, you're going to be victimized.

Anonymous said...

actually wolves in blazers and khakis was a great article and pulled no punches on the behavior pattern of Colin Finnerty in the DC assault case and contrasted that to his alleged behvavior in the duke case and it was very consistent. you guys are just md because not everyone has drunk the blue koolaid and believe the defense spin.

Anonymous said...

The most disturbing thing in the comments today is the revelation than a web site has just been created for the duke "victim". The support for the victim by the NC NAACCP, Black Durham community and Black media ignoring the facts of case is alarming. The Attorney General's office faces a firestorm of outrage if they drop the charges. Their position will not help race relations in North Carolina. KC might discuss why the black community can't change their mind even after all the facts point strongly to innocence. I live in North Carolina. It is disturbing that the black leadership behaves much like the Mullahs in the arab world spewing so much hate to their people

Anonymous said...

Great post KC. I'm looking forward to the other categories. I have three nominees:

I think you can give the award for worst "news" article to the New York Times' Duff Wilson right now for that August piece that obviously was meant to to salvage Nifong's crumbling case in the court of public opinion, because the story had turned into something that is at odds with the Times' world view (eg.whites as victims).

Then there was another Times writer who wrote a piece saying that past history of white men's abuse of black women gave credibility to the charges. I don't know if it was a op-ed or "news" but it should be on one of the lists.

Also, as I have said earlier, Dean Chafe's weaving his sick sick sick take about white men thinking black women are more desirable sex objects into this case has to be at the top of one of your lists. It looked like a case of Chafe viewing the case through the context of his own fetishes.

Anonymous said...

The website for the "alleged survivor" (that's what she was called in the article) has not been "just created." It's been around for a long time.

kcjohnson9 said...

Quick response to a couple of questions.

Two people--Ruth Sheehan and Susan Estrich--produced initial columns on the case that certainly would have seemed worthy of making this list. But both, thereafter, remained open to the facts, and completely changed their minds. None of the ten in this list did so, and it seemed to me Sheehan's and Estrich's open-mindedness on the case was more than enough to remove their initial columns from this list.

gak said...

I did not understand your 1:15 am post. Did you not like JinC's post about Sheehan's article? Just seeking enlightenment.


Howard said...

That's why God invented law suits. I hope the parents and lawyers absolutely slaughter these people, all of whom are educated enough to know better---excepting those at Duke, who are among the worst offenders.

Anonymous said...

Eugene Robinson, “Tough Questions in Durham,” Washington Post, April 25, 2006. Robinson presented the “context” argument: he found it “impossible to avoid thinking of all the black women who were violated by drunken white men in the American South over the centuries.
This is an important point. We heard this "context" argument a lot; from Robinson, Bob Ashley, Chafe, and some schmuck at the NYT, among others.

Making assumptions based on generalazations and the actions of others of similar ethnicity.

Another name for it is "racial profiling."

Funny how we never heard that term used, but that's exactly what it was.

Anonymous said...

These people are not reporters in any sense of the word. They are participating in their own world view. If this persists in the media, the country is going to be blind to reality. This will eventually produce a country which will not work. These people are fascists. They make Jayson Blair look like . . . what?

Anonymous said...

Off topic, I know, but why has no one so far advocated the abolition of election to the office of District Attorney? This case makes it obvious that electing a prosecuting attorney risks politicising a judicial post, which increases the chances of a miscarriage of justice. It gives the prosecutor a political motive to promote some prosecutions that, on legal grounds, are not credible. It is an invitation to abuse and should be abolished.

Anonymous said...

I agree with your placement of Cohen's editorial as # 1 because it was written by someone who is reputed to have legal "credentials." Cohen proves conclusively that possession of a JD degree does not guarantee that one will opine on legal matters intelligently

Just a few of the egregious comments made by Cohen (and there were many, many more):

"Of course he [Ekstrand] is going to say that all of the players came forward. Of course he is going to say he "was struck" by their portrayed innocence."

Of course, Ekstrand could also simply be telling the truth, which was exactly the case. We know the entire LAX team came forward to provide DNA samples and the players were cooperative with police interrogations. And all of them are innocent of the charges brought by Nifong -- rape, sexual assault, and kidnapping. So what if they "lawyered up." With idiots like Cohen writing this trash, one would be naive not to.

"I have often wondered how media coverage might be different -- how the cynical, skeptical skew would turn -- if the alleged victim in the case were white and the alleged defendants black."

Well, wonder no longer, Cohen. Your media brothers and sisters had a chance to cover a story that is exactly as you propose ... and it dealt with college students in Durham, NC to boot. The media reaction? Other than a few basic stories of the "who, what, and when" right after the fact, it was zilch, zero, nada. No commentary bemoaning the evils of underage drinking (and there were even - gasp - drugs found at the second party) or uprisings in the community that demanded a Sunday morning confession or a castration. See, the second situation was a dog bites man story so, as usual, the media wasn't the slightest bit interested. Or did you write about it, Cohen, and I just missed your story?

"...haven't had the privilege of seeing the case unfold at trial the way it is supposed to."

Yep, every accusation should result in a trial even when we know that a lying accuser, a crooked DA, and a Durham Police Dept. that didn't follow its own procedures in arranging a line-up and some members of which were complicit in the actions of the crooked DA were the impetus to get the charges filed. As a sideline, Cohen must be a lobbyist for a Lawyers Full Employment Act.

The people who employ Cohen should be ashamed to have him represent them.

Comments on the other rankings:

1. I would move Hal Crowther's screed at least to # 3. Marcotte's comments were repulsive, but most thinking people who have read her blog understand she is a fool. Crowther can at least write a full piece without resorting to 4 letter words in every paragraph, so his piece could be taken more seriously (and create more damage)by people who don't know the facts.
2. Given that he also had some legal training and should know better about rushing to judgment, I believe Munson's work for could have appeared somewhere on the list.

Anonymous said...

Top ten things that will be shown at trial, should it come to this (or, why those who keep clamoring for a trial should be careful what they wish for):

10. CGM is a prostitute. No surprise here, or this would have rated higher. In fact, I’d be very surprised if the defense doesn’t have video of CGM turning tricks. Even though no one is arrested for prostitution in Durham, there would seem to be no shortage of those who could testify that they exchanged money for sex w/ our precious victim.

9. CGM has a history of substance abuse and mental problems. This is the person whose humanity we all lost sight of. Well, here it is. Rather than being some sort of idealized single mother simultaneously earning a degree and raising a family, all while supporting said family, CGM is someone who has made a train wreck of her own life, long before she inflicted herself on the actual victims in all of this. Society supports her, but everyone seems to lose sight of this, possibly because this is willfully overlooked.

8. The damage done here has been immense. Through statements made in the strongest terms, the team was condemned before due process ever had a chance, in front of the world. Look at what this has cost in any accounting: assassinated reputations, incomprehensible pain, the anguish of the families, lost time, lost trust in our institutions, damage to Duke, damage to Durham, damage to race relations, injury to actual rape victims, and on and on and on. This one could have ranked higher, but there was so much competition!

7. “Nothing happened.” CGM has a history of showing up late, being too impaired to perform as a dancer, and of passing out. Not only is there no evidence of anything remotely approaching a crime, there is really no way to slot one in, between the time she showed up and the time she left, that isn’t contradicted by some unimpeachable evidence. Oh, and as it turns out, she has no credibility, having told a vastly different story at every opportunity. Kim Roberts’ initial assessment was right: a crock. Again, this item ranks low on the list because it is old news at this point.

6. The MSM is part of the problem. This may come up only indirectly at trial, perhaps as part of showing the damages. However, it could not be more clear that cases that are publicized are selected to fit a preconceived worldview and to further an agenda by manipulating public opinion and, in turn, votes. Even having picked a case that turns out to be a fabrication, it cannot be let go and it will happen again, just as it has happened before. In my view, the MSM has become a paid political advertisement and we are all so much worse off for this. The level of political discourse in our society is appalling – and this is the worse since we are a democracy. If the press can manipulate enough votes, what does this makes us? I submit that it is not democracy.

5. The G88 is also symptomatic of the problem. Academics are supposed to think critically, to lead us to wisdom that will help us to see and solve problems, and to engage in civil debate. They are supposed to create an environment where lots of ideas are generated and those that lack all merit are killed off, carving away at falsehood in the search for truth. What has been shown is so far from this that it staggers. This problem runs very deep and has the critical mass to not only self-perpetuate but to grow, very much like brain cancer. We have brain cancer.

4. Gottlieb. This guy strikes me as a sadistic and dangerous actor. Getting his very own item on my list is quite an achievement. It must be pointed out that he was perhaps just the worst of a significantly larger population, but this guy used his job to persecute students while not going after serious crime. He is supposed to serve and protect. This is a guy who started a fight and into trouble in Raleigh. For a cop be involved in something of this nature says something. Where is the reporting of what he did, by the way – the guy he allegedly beat up and racially taunted was… well, just guess. And, this guy has a gun and still works on the Duke campus – Christmas Mass in Duke Chapel and traffic after games at least to start.

3. The LAX players are far from hooligans and certainly do not qualify as criminals. I don’t think the defense will have any trouble producing character witnesses. By the time they are done, the Duke three are going to look like absolute saints by comparison to everyone else involved. In no way are they the bad guys – not even close. Sorry, sometimes the truth is hard to admit.

2. Mike Nifong knew items 10, 9, 7, 6, and probably 4 from the outset. He was looking for a case to play for votes and couldn’t be bothered with the facts – in a pinch, he just made up his own version. This part of his plan basically worked. Think about this for a moment – it provides insight into much of what is wrong in our society. Contrast all of this with item 3 – again, see how society is not acting for the collective good?

1. Nifong also knew that in Durham, there were lots of people who would provide him aid, comfort, and suckle. He actively conspired to commit criminal acts in order to frame those he had every reason to believe were innocent. He might have gotten away with all of it, except that he is monumentally inept; even though this has made it virtually impossible to form any objective opinion at all aligned with his acts, there were and are a great many who, like Nofing, chose to believe something other than the clear, hard facts simply because it suited them – they wanted this so badly that it utterly disgusts.

This is the clear pick for number one because it was the DA who orchestrated everything and who should have been the last person to do any such thing. There is a good chance testimony will be heard that he coerced CGM into making a false ID and changing her testimony as it suited him, that he demanded the false DNA report, that he hand picked the bad apples in the DPD to handle the case, that he intimidated witnesses (Kim Roberts and the cabbie), that he gave specific instructions to the low-life investigator, and who knows what else?

I hardly ever watch TV, but I plan to buy a DVR so I can record any trial that does come to pass. I’m betting on civil suits, but a criminal trial of the conspiracy, once
Nofing has been disbarred would be the real treat. Who knows, if enough comes out at a civil proceeding, it could become very clear that there is no escaping a criminal trial. I’d really like to see all of the many things that have been at play in the whole affair exposed to the light of day. I happen to think we glimpsed some very pervasive and critically serious problems here. A top-10 list is fun, but there is so much that is deadly serious. This is an opportunity for us all to learn, to strip away some illusion, and to do better. I fervently hope that we are able to use this travesty to excise and heal some potentially fatal flaws in our society -- this is why I want everything to out. It is time.

Anonymous said...

to 11:03: Several years ago a ballot issue in Colorado addressed that very idea- make DAs appointed and not subject to elections. It was close but it failed. In the end the public wanted the accountability. They wanted to be able to throw the guy (girl) out if it was warranted.
It might not have helped in this situation anyway as Nifong was appointed by the Governor. He would not have needed to grand stand for the primary but in my opinion, he might have done so anyway because he hates Duke and loved all the publicity. Apparently there is something intoxicating about having cameras follow your every move.

Anonymous said...

Hi KC,

I have to agree with Scott (11:15:00 AM). Nobody would be influenced by Marcotte, so she should be lower ranked (like off the list, IMHO). She's no more important than the raving lunatic with the sandwich board down at the bus station.

Sheehan, though, did have influence early on, even if she has tried to undo the damage.

Anonymous said...

Does anybody believe that the hatred/racism/incompetence/bias shown by these newspapers is limited to Nifong hoax only?

Of course not. These articles are typical examples of how Drive-By Media work in this country. They are pure propaganda outlets. Outright lies and forged documents are way to go every day.

Thank god we have blogs and talk radio (at least until Hillary with her universal speech codes or McCain with his censorship laws are in White House).

I think without blogs like DIW Lacrosse 3 would have been convicted already by Durham jury.

Anonymous said...

KC, you might want to add that Andrew Cohen is the Chief Legal Analyst for CBS News.

Recently, he compared the Bush administration to the Nazis via a classic movie.

Then, when he had apparently waded in so deep that his own dwindling objectivity gave him a twang, he laid down a disclaimer saying he didn't actually mean what he was saying:

"Please let me be absolutely clear. I am not in any way comparing the legal positions our government has taken in the war against terrorism with the tyranny of Nazi rule. I am trying only to make the larger point (or the smaller point, depending upon your point of view)."

In other words, American justice is just like Nazi justice, but I don't really mean that.

Anonymous said...

"Nobody would be influenced by Marcotte"

She is a high-profile blogger and was then a chief-blogger for a major presidential candidate. But I agree in general, no sane person should be influenced by New York Times either.

Anonymous said...

If it were my list I’d be tempted to put them is date order. It is one thing not to understand the facts in March 2006 quite another to not understand the facts by March 2007.

The people who say we haven’t seen all the facts yet always amaze me. This is a sexual assault case with no collaborating witness, no DNA, no injuries, a faulty line-up, and an accuser who has changed her story to fit the alibi of the accused. What facts could there be that would help her case at this point?

Anonymous said...

ok. New congress is on the march.
Activist blogs will be shut down, one way or other. New York Times will no doubt cheer on this.

WASHINGTON (February 28, 2007)—Under pressure from liberal special-interest groups with names like “Democracy 21,” “OMB Watch,” and “Public Citizen,” U.S. House Democratic leaders may soon push for enactment of legislation that could seriously impede the ability of issue-oriented groups—such as NRLC and NRLC-affiliated organizations—to communicate effectively with both the general public and with government officials.
“These restrictive proposals are being advanced under cover of innocuous-sounding labels such as ‘ethics reform’ and ‘lobbying reform,’ but they are really aimed at making policymakers less accountable to ordinary citizens and grassroots-based citizen groups,” said NRLC Legislative

Currently, House Democratic leaders are considering pushing for two different types of new restrictions:
* The so-called “Executive Branch Reform Act” (H.R. 984), authored by Congressmen Henry Waxman (D-Ca.) and Tom Davis (R-Va.), that would require thousands of Executive Branch officials to file quarterly reports listing every letter, e-mail, fax, and verbal communication that they receive from any “private party” in which the communicator “seeks to influence official action by any officer or employee of the executive branch of the United States.” The bill defines “private party” as any person other than another government official or staff person.

So KJ with his blog would be "communicator" seeking to influence action (bar charges against Nifong, dropping charges). It seems that we don't have to wait Hillary or McCain.

Anonymous said...

Those who demand a trial for the "accuser" will decry any civil trials for the accused.

Haywood Patterson

Anonymous said...

The agenda behind some of these stories is not very complicated. It's not even complex enough to call a meta-narrative: just pushing buttons.

For example, notice how that ABC news story late last week covered the story, then tacked on the CGM-underdog theme at the end. It was as though the writer found sticking to the facts boring, and knew ABC readers would, too. Such writers simply lazily seek the underdog, the one expected to lose a contest or struggle, the one who is clearly at a disadvantage. The LAX players never seem that way.

Even though they were railroaded by a DA, attacked by their own teachers, potbanged by castration-callers, threatened by Black Panthers, pilloried in the MSM, even so the LAX 3 just don't make very good underdogs.

C'mon...white male offspring of the ruling class? How does a writer make a nice, no-brainer emotional appeal on their behalf? So, if you write about the miscarriage, who's going to be the underdog? The Justice System? Way too abstract.

No, gotta have a real victim or victims. How about a couple of poor black women driven by poverty to stripping, surrounded in a house by a ravening pack of big, strong white athletes? Or a DA defending the stripper and through her a disadvantaged community, maybe going too far as he tries desperately to fend off the smooth misrepresentations of pricey lawyers? Or black and feminist professors, outnumbered, marginalized on their own campus, maybe overstating things a little as they cry out against the larger injustice?

Now you've got you some underdogs. Readers can identify them without even thinking, and that's what you need.

Anonymous said...

One of the interesting things that will happen when K.C. and Stuart's book comes out is that a number of mainstream journalists are going to be forced to read their own words. Granted, I have yet to meet a mainstream journalist who actually owns up to what he or she writes, but it still will be most interesting to watch the reaction.

Anonymous said...

to 8:33am

There is NO pattern between the DC event and the Duke gang rape of Colin Finnerty because their was no Duke gang rape. Wake UP!!!! This is a hoax. Colin Finnerty has no pattern because he wasn't involved. NOTHING happened. All he is guilty of is being on the lacrosse team and having his picture on the team poster. That is what got him in trouble. Mr. Nifong having him picked and coming up with the biggest legal scam in America's judicial system.

Anonymous said...

Great article from David Horowitz about angry studies. I hope that general public (taxpayers, and especially parents who send kids to these indoctrination camps) learn about this.
The bizarre angry studies statements below are just like Gang88 comments.


Yet, here is a typical statement from the official course description for Feminist Political Theory 433, as taught at the University of Arizona by a full professor of political science and recipient of a coveted MacArthur Foundation fellowship: "Because gender is socially constructed, it is instructive to study how gender ideologies -- which profoundly shape today's intellectual inquiries and political realities -- have been articulated in the form of political theory." Obviously the premise of this course must be accepted by students or there is no course. Yet this statement asserts a claim that is not scientifically founded, and in fact is scientifically contradicted. In other words, students are required to believe a religious myth in order to get their academic grade.
Here is a parallel statement from the Kansas State University catalogue: "To qualify for a Bachelor of Arts or a Bachelor of Science in Women's Studies at Kansas State University, students will have demonstrated their familiarity with key Women's Studies concepts such as the social construction of gender, oppression of and violence against women, heterosexism, racism, classism, and global inequality."
In other words, a student cannot graduate from the Kansas State Women's Studies program unless that student believes in the ideology that makes up its core, and demonstrate that belief. Yet the ideological premise is scientifically challenged -- a fact the program does not acknowledge. In the catalogue descriptions of more than 100 Women's Studies courses I have personally examined, these are common themes.
Indoctrination in dogmatic creeds such as gender feminism was once alien to the very idea of a modern research university. Now it has become an orthodoxy. Problematic dogmas have become the basis of entire programs funded by taxpayers. This is made possible by university authorities who have abdicated their responsibility to enforce university standards, while professional scholars who observe those standards are intimidated by academic radicals who will denounce as sexists, racists and homophobes anyone who gets in their way.

Anonymous said...

To: Prof. Johnson
From: Duke Prof.

I'm not sure in which thread this suggestion belongs but the following article in the Washington Post strikes me as quite relevant to your blog's discussion of culture, race and the 88. It's a fresh perspective that, I think, casts the events at Duke in a very different light. Perhaps, it is relevant to this thread that deals with biased and poorly informed MSM commentary.

Anonymous said...

Thanks you KC for memorializing the media's decision to forgo the notion of due process and proceed directly to the lynching. Only the bloggers such as yourself fact check them and they can't stand it. Since the media loves a feeding frenzy, lets see how they enjoy having the real sharks circle them - the families civil lawyers.

Anonymous said...

I have been saying for some time on this blog and at other forums that Duke is not the only institution where this nonsense is masquerading as academics. It is just the one whose cockroaches have been exposed by a bright light. I can't help but remember Stephen Baldwin who denounced the Group of 88's rush to judgment. He was pilloried and harassed by his colleagues. Why is it that those who profess so loudly to be "open minded" are the self appointed censors of everyone else's speech?
And- by the way- just what kind of job does one apply for with a degree in Women's Studies?

Anonymous said...

In Cohen’s mind, we needed to have the “privilege” of a trial in the highest-profile case of prosecutorial misconduct in American history.

Perhaps Cohen meant that we deserve the privilege of seeing Nifong on trial for prosecutorial misconduct.

Anonymous said...

KC Have to disagree with you on Ruthie-Her apology and "conversion" is meaningless. She would still be riding the "Sickening" story if it were convenient to her. Her "no talent" writing abilities were exposed to a larger audience than NC. Is she related to Cindy Sheehan in Texas who exploits her son's death? Amanda is no big time blogger. Never heard of her until she wrote the outragous "Duke" piece. She is a no class hack. Josh is forgettable and has no impact except to embarras himself at his school. The WP and NYT writes are beyond words. i agree that this case has done a lot to reduce newspapers circulation as their bias has been exposed. What use to pass as reporting is now viewed as agedna driven commentary. It worked for years. I am sure every "newsman" who have been questioned still don't know what has hit them.

Anonymous said...

2:25 I think it advances you to the head of the line and on the preffered list at Mcdonalds.

Anonymous said...

Come on Bill A... If Pressler can write a "book" with a ghost writer, you can share your thoughts with us in a high caliber book. Obviously, I am a fan of your writing abilities. There is room for many books and prespective in the fiasco.

Anonymous said...

Carolyn says:

2:25 question: "just what kind of job does one apply for with a degree in Women's Studies?

Answer: Teaching Women's Studies.

Gary Packwood said...

Lonetown 6:09 Said...

This (Media Bias) is not new, its just a good example of the same old stuff!

That is a good point.

Same issue as Bird Flu...which is most certainly not new.

The issue is how it gets out into the general population. Where is the source? Who is teaching this Media Bias? Is there a Media Bias for Dummies?

Anonymous said...

The Washington Post is up there with the Herald-Sun when it comes to publishing utter crap on this case. They don't do as many articles as the Herald-Sun but when they do - get ready for the smarmiest BS imaginable.

"Wolves in Blazers and Khakis" was a total hit piece and Cohen's bull came out long after everyone who was paying attention knew the case was a hoax. Fisher and Cohen are probably two of the smuggest, most self-righteous jerks around and they should both fall off the planet.

Anonymous said...

this list is pretty much "who's who" in the world of political propaganda. Only CBS "News" was missing.

Anonymous said...

I Have a Degree in Women's Studies, So Why Can't I Pay the Rent?

Anonymous said...

"majored in women's studies" yielded only 210 Google hits.

gak said...

Could somebody answer a question for me? Did Kim Roberts leave the state? I thought I'd read that here in a comment to one of KC's articles

Anonymous said...

Gay-Straight Alliance Network


Kiely received her BA from the University of California at Santa Barbara where she majored in Women's Studies with a minor in Lesbian, Gay, Bisexual, and Transgender Studies. Don't be fooled by the blank look she gives you at times, because Kiely is actually really smart.


Anonymous said...

3:47: CBS News wasn't missing. Cohen is Chief Legal Analyst for CBS.

Gary Packwood said...

Anonymous 5:05 and 5:09

Jobs for Women's Study Major?

You combine the Women's Study degree with a Masters Degree in Public Health (Community Organizations Major or Policy Major), go to work for state and local government while developing your Ecofeminist competencies and spend the rest of your life trying to provoke a crisis and thus a settlement with the petroleum industry so that you can build new health clinics for Moms and their poor communities.

Remember the tobacco settlement? Perhaps they are still working on the lead based paint settlement in your communities.

After that, you go to work on Social Security to enable new Moms to be eligible for social security credit the moment they give birth to their baby ... because men are going to abandon their women before retirement anyway.

And...all of that financed by the US Federal Government.

How big is the School of Public Health in your community?

Chapel Hill =
UT-Houston =
John Hopkins = (Bloomberg School of Public Health)

For fun ...Google...Ecofeminist

Jobs? No Problem.

Anonymous said...

@ 11:27

I am sorry, but I cannot believe that there can be "lots of people," even in Durham, willing to "suckle" Mike Nifong. I have a fairly bleak view of humanity, but not that bleak.


Anonymous said...

For the first commenter, "media malpractice", if you didn't get that from somewhere else, is a great buzz term. I have no doubt that you'll be seeing that phrase everywhere very soon.

Anonymous said...

This list of media dogs is pretty good.

I would list Hal Crowther near the top as well. This guy has been around a long time and should know better.

One summer, I took one of his writing seminars at Duke just for fun. What a waste of time and a sizable amount of money!

Crowther just sat around doing almost nothing.

I didn't sign up for that gig to do the work. I came to check out his "experience" in the profession and hopefully partake of some pearls of wisdom.

We were forced to write articles. And I am not a happy camper when being forced to do something.....especially when I'm the one paying the tariff. I'm more the creative type, and that seminar was one of the worst experiences I have ever gotten myself into.

Basically, Crowther imagines himself as some kind of "celebrity". ROTFLM-T's-O !!!

Don't know why. He's not exactly handsome. He can be a good writer, however, when not libeling lacrosse players and sucking up to his Dukie prof amigo, Peter Wood.

(I think that kissing some posterior on the Duke Gang of 88 roster might get Crowther some brownie points for his summertime "writing courses". Some extra stash and cash so that he and his G/d-awful "country-fied" wife, Lee Smith, can enjoy their little vacation spot on Figure Eight.)

Who knows what makes a grown man who pretends to be a professional journalist write the hideous bovine excrement that Crowther wrote about the lacrosse players?

A deep envy that surfaces perhaps when you remember that you were a bad athlete as a young man.......and now that you are an old coot, dissing these guys of "privilege" releases that inner athletic loser?

Would being married to a woman like Lee Smith whose speaking voice makes Nancy Grace sound like William F. Buckley---and I mean it's BAD---and who writes about the most boring and base country-style stories with characters straight out of "The Waltons".....make Crowther overstep by trying to prove that he is hip or "in" with the AA crowd by writing something so crass and insane as "seeing one's inner racist in the mirror" if you think the lacrosse players did not commit a crime?

Did Crowther feel an inner need so strongly to overcompensate regarding this particular subject matter that he descended into the abyss of Nifong-esque insanity?

And he did all of this before any factual evidence was in.

He seemed to enjoy it.

And while I rarely pick up The Independent these days, I don't think he has written anything since that might show that he has been acquainted with reality.

I would put him at the top of the list, but that might make him think his opinions are much more significant than they actually are.


Michael said...

re: 5:04

That was a very funny read. I'm going to ask the kids to read it and I guess that they'll laugh a lot harder than I did.

Anonymous said...

The top ten list is a great idea. This multi-faceted hoax should, by the time it is over, have a number of top ten lists of the good and the bad, some in the format of vigilante or wanted posters, with photographs as well as statements. There could be lists of top ten comments and lists of top ten actions.

Among the lists could be the most outrageous comments by Duke faculty (maybe a top 20 list would be needed here), by the Duke administration, by students (Duke, NCCU, Cornell), by Durham Police Department employees, by the members of the North Carolina legal system (from Durham D.A. to Cooper). Then a list of the courageous and ethical comments and actions of the above groups and the media (i.e. Ed Bradley). Being ethical has often taken courage in this hoax. And an all- category top ten list that includes people/actions not easily fitting into any one group.

Anonymous said...

I will say this about Steve Ford.

He has a grand opportunity to atone for his former miscalculations. I had a long talk with him late Friday. His guy on the editorial staff did not want to print my column because....."it is over-the-top"...etc.

Well, in light of all the horrific falsehoods printed about the lacrosse players by almost all print media, I was determined to answer David Allen's glowing testimonial in the N&O about Richard Brodhead with a scathing column which is strips naked the Gang and Brodhead.

Ford didn't have a copy of my column because he doesn't handle that aspect of the editorial pages. I immediately forwarded a copy to him.

While I know that they will force me to edit a few things, if this other side isn't printed, then I will know that the N&O isn't even pretending to be fair.

Ford has a chance to step in and do the right thing.


Anonymous said...

5:04 PM --

Hmmm. I thought Women's Studies majors and feminists were negative to the max on jocks ... and the article starts by describing one WS grad as seeking employment as a player in a new Women's Professional Football League. Yeah, now there's something that has a future.

I LOL about the woman who had no problem describing herself as "sneaky" in how she camoflaged her resumé. So in addition to job skills, we can add honesty to the traits that WS majors fail to acquire.

The whole piece was hilarious.
Thanks for linking.

Anonymous said...

Hal Crowther's anecdote about recieving a severe head injury was far more informative about his perspective on this case than his tortured prose.

Gary Packwood's 5:49 comments regarding public health schools are equally misinformed. Just for the record, Gary, Johns Hopkins does not award a Masters in Public Health to anyone who does not already have a Ph.D. This is not a frivolous degree, despite your malevolence toward the study of public health. And some of those graduates actually do things like set up immunization programs that indirectly benefit you and other taxpayers every day.

Tall T

Anonymous said...

5:04 provided a link to an article about degrees in women's studies. Here is the embarassing result of getting a degree in that "discipline":

"In fact, the group has an aversion to hard data. As a report put out by the association (but paid for by the federal government) noted, the organization is "wary of aggregate statistics and generalizations that too often erase significant insights or particular groups of people." Their preferred method of analysis, employed frequently in their literature, is the personal testimonial.

Since the national organization does not collect hard data on how graduates fare in the real world, one would hope that individual women's studies departments--perhaps spurred by the queries of anxious parents--would make more of an effort to figure out what women's studies majors do with their degrees. But again, evidence is scanty.

One study of women's studies graduates--paid for by the U.S. Department of Education--was conducted by Elaine Reuben and Mary Jo Boehm Strauss in 1980. After examining a wide range of programs, they concluded that "career uses, as traditionally understood, were a relatively minor consideration in the original public or self-image of most programs."

LOL - they even try to deconstruct the stats on job prospects for women majoring in women's studies.


Anonymous said...

Debrah = Ms Einstein
I somehow am beginning to think you were a Duke undergrad reject as Nifong was. Am sure you did not have to qualify academically for your summer school experience at Duke.

Gary Packwood said...

Tall T 7:49:00 PM

You are incorrect.

Here is the admission criteria for the MPH at Hopkins.

All students must possess a baccalaureate degree and either two years of post-baccalaureate health-related work experience or a doctoral degree in a field underlying public health.

Anonymous said...



says A Law Unto Himself

Anonymous said...

Truth in reporting does not drive the MSM, $$ does. So, none of this is really that surprising.

What was surprising today, was this report from Buffalo, NY:

"When a 60-year-old man spat on the sidewalk, his DNA became as public as if he had been advertising it across his chest.

Police officers secretly following Leon Chatt last August collected the saliva - loaded with Chatt's unique genetic makeup - to compare with DNA evidence from the scene of an old murder they believed he'd committed.

On Feb. 1, Chatt was charged in one of Buffalo's oldest unsolved cases, the 1974 rape and stabbing of his wife's stepsister, Barbara Lloyd."

What is the purpose of DNA testing? Why did Nifong order DNA testing if he did not intend to value the results?

With the absence of LAX DNA, the alibi's, the ever changing FA's story, the witnesses,the identities not matching descriptions, etc., Nifong should have recognized the investigative importance of the presence of DNA from 5-7 other men. Why didn't he?

Why aren't the group of 88 and the MSM journalists crying out for Nifong to find the real rapists who left their DNA behind? I think it's because each and every one of them (Nifong included)know it's a farce.

E-mail: said...

All of you, please take a look at the last few posts on this site (I haven't had the time today to read all 77 comments).

Notice that commenters, Joe T and Gary Packwood, do NOT spew hatred. They state their views and that's it.

Notice that ANON thrives on sarcasm, which is typical of this person's comments. After I challenged him at that point, he changed his "anon" to "hman".

I feel that I have a lot of intersting things to say on KC's site, but I feel intimidated.

Is this the reaction KC supporters really want to convey to the rest of the world?

Anonymous said...

Gagrrl - as opposed to your vision you have of idyllic antebellum Georgia?

Hnam is his own person. There are dozens of people here who post under the name "anonymous". Bit you are free to be as delusional as you wish to be.

The fact that we don't agree is not the point. Staying on point is more important.

KC has done a marvelous job listing the various ways that the MSM has gone wrong. And rightfully cut some slack for those very few who found their way back to the facts of the case.

Debrah has pilloried Hal Crowther, who writes for the Independent, a tree killing paper that should become much greener by ceasing publication.

Cedarford has done his usual brilliant analysis of the case. Thanks for keeping us on task, Cedarford.

I however, have risen to the low bait that you dangled, and for that can only blame myself.

You are now free to ramble - I shall be baited no more. Have as great a life as you can, in a land where you can no longer own other human beings.

Jamie said...

NYT's Duff Wilson nonsense wasn't by any means the worst thing that once-respectable paper printed.

Wasn't it far more damning that the New York Times’ ombudsman (its "public editor") totally ignored the paper's need to correct the calculated BS it had already printed, completely disregarded the need going forward for the NYT to help expose the hoax, and instead declared that even if the LAX case collapsed the NYT should continue covering "...the racial-insult allegations”?

I mean, what the hell?!! I admit I had been fuming about the political agendas of several of the NYT's columnists for years, but even I never believed that when it came to what purported to be news reporting, the NYT would so so shamelessly parade its utter unconcern for basic justice.

Gary Packwood said...

Georgia Girl 10:12

Good comment. You must be an educator.

If I was teaching a graduate class in organizational development, I would use today's and yesterdays comments as near perfect examples of self selection to bring the population of this board to all or near all PLU's.

PLU = People Like Us

Anyone else who comments outside of the PLU culture received the 'Blow of Mercy' or the Coup de gras and they slink away.

When you do team building with adult students with different backgrounds you must actually demonstrate DIVERSITY of thought and ideas...and then get ready for several student to leave at the first break time.

So, if the Duke professors are reading this, you have a wonderful teaching aid for your class...if you need a practical example of apparent lack of diversity.

I would recommend a more structure Blog for commenting but I am not at all sure that PLU is not the actual goal for this Blog.

The absolute horror for a professor is to receive the comment from the adult student who says that he or she is intimidated within the group. I can take due care to be sure that is not a problem with a real group of people or a chat room... but not here.

PLU's just sneak up on you... and they can be very damaging and the ultimate diagnosis of dysfunction would be... 9:27 Said...."I somehow am beginning to think you were a Duke undergrad reject as Nifong was. Am sure you did not have to qualify academically for your summer school experience at Duke"

It all goes to hell after that!

E-mail: said...

There you go again, ANON!

Now you accuse me of living in an idyllic antebellum Georgia?

And you tell me I am delusional?!

Once again, please take note of other commenters who are NOT cynical. I've given you earlier examples.

The most recent example is JAMIE'S post (immediately following yours) .... where an OPINION is stated .... nowhere in his/her opinion does Jamie come across as venemous.

Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
E-mail: said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
Anonymous said...

Wasn't it far more damning that the New York Times’ ombudsman (its "public editor") totally ignored the paper's need to correct the calculated BS it had already printed, completely disregarded the need going forward for the NYT to help expose

This happens all the time with New York Times. Recently, it was caught fabricating abortion story from South America (the story was funded by pro-abortion activist group). The editors refused to correct it, and eventually the public editor had to to issue a correction. NYT is not just misleading anymore, instead, it is making outright fabrications, participating in criminal acts with CIA offifers and forging goverment documents.

The worst paper in America.

E-mail: said...

And, by the way, I have not the slightest motive in telling this wonderful story ... it's just a interesting account of one of my childhood experiences.

If I get "off track" now and then, blame in on "age".

E-mail: said...

to gary packwood:
Thank you, I think. You suggested that I might have been an educator. Not so. I spent a life-time raising 5 chillins and baking cookies (so in a way, that qualifies me as an educator maybe).

Then, not too long ago, I discovered KC's site. I am now an "intellectual" .... haha!~

Anonymous said...

Thank you Gary - I have a Nurse friend who got her Masters from Hopkins in Public Health. i also left a message for fisher, but I am not stalking these people. Whether I agree with them or not, they have a right to their opinions.

Anonymous said...

Good list, except that the Rolling Stone article should not be on it. That article accurately portrayed the goals, choices and activities of about half of the Duke student body, male and female, and the lacrosse team were leaders of this group.

Anonymous said...

"Off topic, I know, but why has no one so far advocated the abolition of election to the office of District Attorney? This case makes it obvious that electing a prosecuting attorney risks politicising a judicial post, which increases the chances of a miscarriage of justice. It gives the prosecutor a political motive to promote some prosecutions that, on legal grounds, are not credible. It is an invitation to abuse and should be abolished.

Mar 18, 2007 11:03:00 AM "

Sounds good until one remembers that DA Nifong was appointed, not elected.

Anonymous said...

Journalistic integrity has been truly damaged by all of those writiers, editors, journalists, talking heads who would prefer to slant a story, make up false informantion, get fifth hand information from unnamed sources, etc. to fit their agenda. They can no longer be considered journalists. They are now tabloid rags, tabloid news shows and agenda driven professors with out the capapbility to stand back, be impartial and just look at the facts and think clearly. They have all lost credibility worse than Crystal because unless they are taking the same cocktail of drugs she is they are supposed to know better. Sad, sad group of losers.

Anonymous said...

To 9:27PM--

"I somehow am beginning to think...."

Wonderful. It's always good to try new things.


Anonymous said...

Nurse Tata probably went into nursing when she could not get a decent job with a womens Studies degree. Very smart move. With the on going nursing shortage, one is only limited by the need to sleep to working hours and well paid.
Dr Manly is the central medical figure in this debate 0 not nurse Tara. No one believes a single thing Gottleib has to say except "the sane nurse said.....", which of course is not true.

Anonymous said...

I liked Gone With The Wind a lot. How come Margaret did not know, the minimal amount of wealthy males were "raping" all those slaves?

Anonymous said...

I had not seen this.

The NC State Bar submitted a brief in responce to Nifong brief to dismiss. It seems devastating!

Anonymous said...

This is some guy named Bob Lipper from a small-potatoes newspaper, but it's so annoying I just had to pass it on. By October 24, 2006, this guy should have understood the case a little bit better. What good is an opinion from someone who doesn't know what he's talking about?
Sorry Duke saga is a story of excess

Anonymous said...

7:42 It is annoying. I suppose there is no hope of seeing these clowns eating crow in a hundred years when this case is finally dismissed. Keep lying to the public nd get those newspapers out of our life. Who would have thought that the NY Posr would be a shinning light in this deal? NYT and WP are no longer my papers of record. Nor Lippers paper.

Anonymous said...

Not that Geraldo Rivera's should ever be taken seriously but his "It is not always the nuns that get raped. Sometimes it's the strippers that get raped." remark along with his unmerciful contention that the boys “looked” guilty shortly after the initial arrests were made, really disgusted me. I should know better than to channel surf late at night.

Bob in DC