Monday, March 17, 2008

Selena Roberts: Still Misleading

In the pre-internet world, tracking down a New York Times article from two years ago would have taken some time and effort. An interested reader would have to go to his or her library and scroll through reels of microfilm. Now, however, finding a March 31, 2006 article is as easy as clicking here.

It appears as if ex-Times sports columnist Selena Roberts hasn’t quite adjusted to the internet era. It’s hard to come up with another explanation for her offering wildly misleading remarks about her work in a recent interview with The Big Lead. She described her March 31, 2006 column in the following way: “Basically, I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night . . . Obviously, some segments of the Duke lacrosse crowd did not enjoy the scrutiny of their world.”

Really? Here are some excerpts from that column:

“The season is over, but the paradox lives on in Duke’s lacrosse team, a group of privileged players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings.”

“Whatever the root, there is a common thread: a desire for teammates to exploit the vulnerable without heeding a conscience.”

“Does President Brodhead dare to confront the culture behind the lacrosse team’s code of silence or would he fear being ridiculed as a snitch?”

“Something happened March 13, when a woman, hired to dance at a private party, alleged that three lacrosse players sexually assaulted her in a bathroom for 30 minutes.” (This statement, as the Attorney General’s investigation subsequently discovered, was false—unless, of course, Roberts is now claiming that when she wrote “something happened,” she meant the filing of a false police report.)

“According to reported court documents, she was raped, robbed, strangled and was the victim of a hate crime. She was also reportedly treated at a hospital for vaginal and anal injuries consistent with sexual assault and rape.” (This statement drew a rebuke from even the Times’ milquetoast then-public editor, Byron Calame, who noted that journalists do not consider search warrants to be “court documents.” The Times ran a brief correction a week after Roberts’ column appeared.)

“Players have been forced to give up their DNA, but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.” (This statement was false, as Roberts would have known had she read either the captains’ March 28, 2006 statement or examined the defense attorneys’ subsequent press conference. Both events, which described the captains’ cooperation with police, occurred before she penned her column. The Times never ran a correction.)

After asking, “Why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?” Roberts produced an answer from an assistant professor at John Jay College: “The bottom line is, your self-esteem is more valuable to you than someone else’s life.”

Can Roberts seriously claim that an average Times reader would take away from the quotes above a conviction that her column’s argument was based on a premise that “a crime didn’t have to occur”?

In her interview with The Big Lead, Roberts complained that she received criticism from “Duke-player supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was me or another columnist, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement.”

In fact, the criticism of Roberts’ work extended to the leadership of her former paper. In a summer 2007 interview with American Journalism Review, Times executive editor Bill Keller admitted, “I did think, and I told the columnists, that there was a tendency in a couple of places to moralize before the evidence was all in, and not to give adequate weight to the presumption of innocence... As a generalization, I’m not dismissive of the people who think that what appeared in the sports columns kind of contributed to a sense that the Times declared these guys guilty.”

More recently, Roberts’ direct supervisor at the Times, sports editor Tom Jolly, stated, “I very much regret my failure to recognize that we were dealing with a rogue prosecutor and that the university had compounded his bravado by overreacting to the initial reports about the case . . . The bottom line is that I’d do some things differently, and that knowledge gained by hindsight has informed our approach to other stories since then.”


Duke is now attempting to have sanctions imposed on the attorneys representing the unindicted players, alleging that lead attorney Charles Cooper violated the pre-trial publicity guidelines of Rule 3.6. Cooper’s response is here; given that Duke’s filing failed to cite even one case in its favor, I’d say the chances of Duke prevailing at this stage are pretty slim.

But beyond the weaknesses of Duke’s motion overall, Rule 3.6 has a safe harbor provision regarding pre-trial publicity: it states that “a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.”

Most people would consider a former Times and current Sports Illustrated columnist accusing the lacrosse players of “misogyny and race baiting” as creating an “undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client.” This safe harbor would apply even when the prejudicial remarks come from a figure who, for anyone who followed the lacrosse case closely, sacrificed her journalistic credibility in an attempt to advance a preconceived ideological agenda.


Anonymous said...

Ms.Roberts is yet another nail in the coffin of the NY Times. When political correctness is more important than journalistic ethics, a newspaper is destined to fail. My only concern is what will I put in the bottom of the parrots cage.

Gary Packwood said...

Selena Roberts said...

“Does President Brodhead dare to confront the culture behind the lacrosse team’s code of silence or would he fear being ridiculed as a snitch?”
Which group on the campus of Duke fed Selena Roberts this nonsense about culture?

I remember wondering at the time if the Baldwin Scholars were going to use Judy Woodruff of CNN fame to feed information to Selena Roberts.

Anonymous said...

Once again, we see the mentality of these supposed "elite" writers. They cannot even tell a good lie.

However, because Selena Roberts is a privileged character, she can continue to lie and stretch the truth and get away with it. Of course, Lester Munson was employed by Sports Illustrated when he was writing his garbage on the lacrosse case.

What does this mean? It means that the MSM is incapable of even getting simple facts correct -- and too damned arrogant to care. I think they prefer the lie, anyway, as it better fits their worldview.

Anonymous said...

The basic dishonesty of Roberts is clear.

The breathtaking narcissism is equally sad. Roberts whines about taking heat (for her own incompetent 'reporting'), with no apparent sympathy for the three young athletes, vilified in the media, and facing 30 years in prison based on false allegations, a currupt investigation, and a PC rush to judgment.


Anonymous said...

Salena Roberts is a fraud. These so-called dancers exploited the lacrosse team from jump-street. In fact, the whole affair was from beginning to end based on the evil racist assumptions of people like Roberts and her ilk. Of course, women don't lie about such things. The recent recanting of rape by a Duke woman or the infamous Susan Smith of Union, South Carolina, but then, that wasn't rape or the nothing story of the young Duke woman who was raped at a local party, but then she was just "experiencing" life in the wrong place at the wrong time. The reality of a UNC coed lying on a public street . . . dead. It's all good . . . to people like Salena . . . not to worry, create your own reality . . . lie . . . assume something is real and tell it like it isn't or you wished it to be . . . nothing new . . . yellow journalism. What a . . . a . . . a hoax . . . a fraud . . . the whole article can be turned on Roberts as has been so effectively and efficiently done.

Anonymous said...

Re: Really, there was pre-trial publicity? Flashback

The AJR did a fair job of taking some of the so-called journalists to task for their “LAX” coverage.

There are some interesting statements in this article. Bill Keller places some blame on the defense! “..he adds that reporters' jobs were complicated initially because the defense wasn't talking…”

And, the last statement is depressing,
“So does another rush to judgment await some hapless citizen thrust into the media's glare? Almost certainly.”
American Journalism Review (Excerpts)

From AJR, August/September 2007
Justice Delayed

Many in the media jettisoned caution--and the presumption of innocence--in their coverage of an alleged rape by Duke lacrosse players, and were too slow to correct the record as the case unraveled…..

…. some in the media seized on Nifong's statements as gospel….

…..some journalists irresponsibly ran with off-the-record leaks from law enforcement sources…..

….New York Times columnist Selena Roberts railed against the "code of silence"….

In the News & Observer, metro columnist Ruth Sheehan also produced an early conspiracy-of-silence rant……..Sheehan's …demanding the firing of lacrosse coach Mike Pressler.

The one-sided, sympathetic portrayal, which several times referred to the accuser as "the victim," allowed her to make blind accusations.

"It seemed to me there was some imbalance in publishing misdemeanor offenses of the students, but taking longer to publish the accuser's more serious offenses,"

W. R. Chambers said...

The safe harbor provision is 3.6 (c) which provides:

(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity.

The safe harbor provision link in KC's post is to the first page of North Carolina's Rules of Professional Conduct. To get to Rule 3.6 just click on next page until you get to Rule 3.6.

I subscribe to Sports Illustrated and read what catches my eye (as distinguished from doing a thorough read). I don't remember seeing any articles by Roberts. When I come across one, I"ll read it with a certain skepticism, which is a useful approach to just about any reporting.

Anonymous said...

-In her interview with The Big Lead, Roberts complained that she received criticism from “Duke-player supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was me or another columnist, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement.”-

Awww poor "reporter" doesn't like being criticized. However, unlike the absolute untruths she felt free to write about the Lax players, the criticism aimed at her seems spot on and well deserved.

Anonymous said...


Won't they ever learn?

W. R. Chambers said...

I didn't fully appreciate KC's point about Roberts until I clicked on the link to her March 31, 2006 article. I feel embarrassed for her. I think she's a better reporter than that. In fact, for the March 31 article, she wasn't acting like a reporter. She was more like Nancy Grace. If you read her Big Lead interview, you'll get some sense of how hard it must have been for her to become a sports reporter in what was and still is primarily a man's world. Her reporting on the Duke lacrosse case was surely far from her best work.

Anonymous said...

Spot on.

Thanks for this!

Tim G said...

"-In her interview with The Big Lead, Roberts complained that she received criticism from “Duke-player supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was me or another columnist, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement.”-"

Don't you mean "Journalism supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was KC or different blogger, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement.”-"

Anonymous said...

It's curious that Roberts would now claim that, "I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night."

Since Roberts reported that Crystal Gayle Mangum was allegedly 1) sexually assaulted, 2) raped, 3) robbed, and 4) strangled, does that mean that does not consider these offenses to be crimes?

And what why were the Cameron Crazies featured so prominently in an article about sexual assault? What does one thing have to do with another?

Roberts' current excuses make even less sense than the article, unless you accept the notion that "your self-esteem is more valuable to you than someone else's life."

I wonder what Katie Gentile (the director of the Women's Center at John Jay College quoted by Roberts) now thinks about the article. Would she criticize Roberts’ work, or is "The idea of breaking ranks [. . .] identified as weak"?

mac said...


You mentioned that Selena Roberts "sacrificed her journalistic credibility." I was wondering: did she ever have any? I haven't looked into her past work, so I can't fairly say, but...she seems like the kind of flame that would burn the same old wood.

becket03 said...

Roberts is one of the true villains of the Duke case, an agent through whom damaging falsehoods entered the public arena. I'm not surprised she lacks the class to admit her errors.


Debrah said...

Good to know that Roberts is consistent.

Still as dishonest and nonsensical as she's always been.

I've had a busy few days and have not fully addressed the Obama issue which has so captured current headlines.

I've noticed a few have asked why I have had little to say.

This issue is one of the most complex with which our society has to deal. Right now, I am struggling with how I can abide his minister and be an enthusiastic supporter.

I intend to comment at some subsequent time inside The Diva World.

Anonymous said...

One of more pathetic parts of this whole saga is the inability of some supposedly intelligent people to learn from their mistakes. If SR had said that she made a mistake and would make an effort to learn from her past then many of us would have as the expression goes have moved on. However by refusing to admit and learn from the past it means that she is just as likely to make a similar mistake in the future.

Anonymous said...

So Duke's 'lead counsel" is A Washington D. C. firm? And Jamie Gorelick of Clinton Administration fame; the 9-11 comissioner who never submitted her own testimony of her role in prohibiting information sharing between government agencies that was faulted for "lead" counsel for Duke? Just classic.

Anonymous said...

Selena R TRIED to play the race card - for her own misguided perception/reasons. She is a shill, as her further articles and editors 'corrections' prove.

Selena, what happens when you or any of your family are falsely accused of ANYTHING ? When will you ever learn????
Mistake? Probable Cause? Grand Jury Indictment?

LEARN from your past mistakes.

UVALaw 04

Anonymous said...

Serena Robers will never be considered a
'mental giant",

Nuff said.

Anonymous said...

It's amazing that when the MSM makes a mistake in judgement (or in this case gets caught red handed in a lie) they are unable to own up to it and correct it. Seems like journalists and editors are more content in engaging in damage control and revisionist history than correcting the historical record. I bet Roberts and her bosses sat around for hours coming up with ways to spin their way out of her inept, sloppy, racist, and deceitful reporting. We know the truth, but I worry about future generations who may refer to the MSM's body of work to learn the "truth" about this case.

Anonymous said...

KC and Diva not withstanding, I don't know how you can tolerate the race-baiting and social guilt crap coming from Obama and his "pastor". Obama's articulate and does quick foot-work but just show me one single thing he has accomplished in his time in Senate.

I told my husband several months ago when I googled Obama's church and read their "Black Manifesto" that it would be the undoing of Obama when people found out what he has subscribed to and assented to for 20 years. At least Oprah had enough sense to get out two years ago, despite the fact she was excoriated by her former "Pastor". (One of the trademarks of a cult is the way they attack people who leave their "cause")

What that church has going has absolutely nothing in common with the true message of Christianity or Jesus. Jesus NEVER came to promote a social revolution, but rather a spiritual one.

Obama and his reverend can espouse their opinions all they like from a social standpoint. If they want to beat the same old drums of black victimization, they will have their followers. But doing that in a church, and inciting that kind of divisiveness and hatred has its consequences among true thinkers.

What astonishes me is that a brilliant thinker like KC can openly endorse Obama. KC's dogged pursuit of truth made him a key player in the Lacrosse expose. I would think he might take that same approach to this campaign and Obama's hypocrisy.

Anonymous said...

I wonder if Selena Roberts enjoys having a real Historian looking over her shoulder while she attempts to re-write history?

I also wonder if someone so worried about the "culture of ... entitlement" has EVER done anything as difficult as to survive a single Division 1 pre-season athletic practice?

It is refreshing to know that my just completed internet search of the name "Selena Roberts" brought up as the fifth result -- this site!

As for the Duke motion in the civil case, I bet the Plaintiffs' attorneys have a wonderful catalog full of hate-filled screeds that they can hand to the Judge for that safe harbor protection. Even post-innocence articles, no less!

I expect that the Federal Judge won't need it, though, and that his response will be: "So, if I understand you correctly, Duke University, you want me to re-write North Carolina administrative law to include a forward-looking component that is both unnecessary and unconstitutional."

For old time's sake:

K.C. Johnson didn't hang the moon, 'twas Duke University what lynched it! MOO! Gregory

Anonymous said...

Everyone makes mistakes, but if you are a purported professional and make a major mistake, you should be held accountable. Selena committed a major journalistic mistake. Doctors who make mistakes get sued and can lose their license to practice. Lawyers who make mistakes can get disbarred (ask Mike Nifong). Politicians who make mistakes are forced to resign (ask Mr. Spitzer). Who in the journalism profession holds Selena accountable? Perhaps the journalism profession needs some sort of oversight board to monitor and regulate those in their so called profession...otherwise it is really not a profession.

Selena's outrageous comments were similar to those aired recently by the Reverend Wright from Chicago. They are not based on fact, but rather a preconceived view and agenda, and they are intended to be incendiary and play to the audience. The truth be damned. When this is permitted, it hurts people of all color.

mac said...

Salmonella Roberts writes:

"The season is over, but the paradox lives on in Duke's Lacrosse team, a group of players of fine pedigree entangled in a night that threatens to belie their social standing as human beings."

So now, just being accused of a crime means that the accused may not be human beings? If she had written it: "belie their social standings," it wouldn't mean the same thing. What she wrote says that they might not be able to be counted among humans.

I wonder if she'd write the same thing about another accused man, Lawrence Alvin Lovette. Somehow, I doubt it.

Hmmm. Dehumanization is one of the first things people do before they open up the concentration camps and gulags. Then they fill them with the dehumanized.

Anonymous said...

Sweetmick says KC is correct that Roberts has a preconceived ideological agenda. She has made no mistakes in her commentary, being true to her agenda, and thus there is nothing she will "learn" from this. However, it is time for KC to turn his laser light on Roberts' brethern ideologues at the N&O, namely Sheehan, Sill, Williams, et al. But for these persons(as in proximate cause)and their false, misleading, inflammatory reports early on, when there was opportunity and ample evidence to cast serious doubt on Mangum's and the DA's claims, the N&O instead laid the foundation for Roberts to express her prejudices. KC, it's time for you to do your "who knew what, when, where, why..." thing on the real culprits, the N&O. It was telling to read the N&O Editor's Blog and Sheehan's Blog. Their arrogant and false responses to those who posted comments and questions about the case was chilling. My conclusion was that Sills, Sheehan and Williams desperately wanted the boys to be guilty because they were white, intelligent and from affluent families. Exactly how Roberts feels.

Anonymous said...

Another false rape charge, this time against a college professor. Quote from article, (“I don't know how it could be worse,”)

I think a frame-up featuring a college, a prosecutor, and a police department could make this sorry situation a whole lot worse.
Woman pleads guilty to false rape report
Seattle Times, by Peyton Whitely

A 22-year-old former Woodinville woman pleaded guilty Tuesday to making a false rape accusation against a local college professor last June. King County District Court Judge Peter Nault called the case one of the "saddest" he'd ever seen in court and one that is likely to have long-term impact on future investigations.

"That we hurry to castigate a person who turns out to be entirely innocent ... [I don't know how it could be worse,"] said Nault, saying the incident will make it harder for real sexual victims to bring their cases forward

E-town said...

At least Nancy Grace had the sense to keep quiet after she was proven malicious and incompetent. Apparently, Selena Roberts lacks even that modicum of good judgement.

Debrah said...

Mark your calendars everyone.

Thug Neal is back on the case.

In light of all the horrific crime that takes place daily in the black community, can't someone come up with something on which to place emphasis than this useless dialogue?


On March 26, "Hip-Hop Culture: A Convenient Scapegoat or a Contributor to Inequality?" will bring three scholars together to lead a discussion on the inter- and intra-racial implications of the hip-hop genre. Mark Anthony Neal, Duke professor of African and African American studies, has written extensively about black and hip-hop music and culture in works that include "That's the Joint!: The Hip-Hop Studies Reader."

Professor Imani Perry of Rutgers Law School, the author of "Prophets of the Hood: Politics and Poetics in Hip-Hop," focuses her scholarship on race in law and culture.

Professor Mario L. Barnes of the University of Miami School of Law is a specialist in the areas of criminal and constitutional law as well as race and the law.

Debrah said...

Lots of very disgruntled and frustrated people in and around Durham.

Not good for them as they go up against the civil suits from the lacrosse players.

That whole place needs to be cleaned out from top to bottom and if there are any decent people who can do a decent job of running the city, elect them.

H-S letters:

Thugs from Durham

Did anyone else predict that the suspects in the Eve Carson murder would be from Durham? Was anyone surprised to see one of them smiling at the cameras as he was brought into court?

Here's a suggestion for single moms. If you cannot raise your child right, assist him in his education, keep him off the streets, and love him like a true parent, then quit having babies. Don't tell me he was a good boy hanging with the wrong crowd. He is the wrong crowd.

Both suspects are typical thugs from Durham without morals. One of the problems was being too lazy and uneducated to get a real job. But the real problem is being inspired by BET and gansta rap.

As long as women can have children for the sole purpose of collecting social service checks, good people will continue to be terrorized.

March 20, 2008

Who will remember?

Bold letters to the editor about President Bush, gobal warming, poor people, gun control. Big issues. Brave comments from the citizens -- educated, knowledgeable.

Our executed students of Duke and Carolina apparently did not have a mean bone in their bodies. They were murdered in cold-blooded acts of domestic terrorism. And yet, few letters of outrage.

Mayor Bell should resign. Every elected leader should resign. The courts have failed. There are killings every day, or almost.

In one year, no one will remember Eve Carson but her family. Keep sending and printing those letters. So smart, educated and informed. So stupid. Such cowards.

March 20, 2008

Leadership lacking

I can't help but wonder if Durham has reached a level of gang violence that no longer can be contained by our police force. Once only thought to exist in large inner cities, it is now reaching out everywhere to claim the lives of innocent students and dreamers whose only fault was to be at the wrong place at the wrong time.

The stark reality seems to be that our community has no chance of snuffing out these gangs, no matter how much money is raised and how many people get involved. There will always be reasons for people to join a gang, and there will always be reasons to stop them. The commitment has to come from the top. Unfortunately for the city of Durham, almost always, it does not.

Chapel Hill
March 19, 2008

Anonymous said...

To any of the readers of this blog who still support Obama after the Jeremiah Wright fiasco:

The ideology of Jeremiah Wright, an ideology that Obama has voluntarily steeped himself in for 20 years, is the same ideology that is behind so many of the outrages that have been reported here. A single sentence from James Cone of New York's Union Theological Seminary, who appears to be Wright's spiritual mentor:

"Black theology will accept only the love of God which participates in the destruction of the white enemy."

(I can provide more.)

How this ideology was expressed in the lacrosse case:

NCCU junior Chan Hall said that the Duke students should be prosecuted "whether it happened or not. It would be justice for things that happened in the past." (Quoted from

Rev. Curtis Gatewood, president of the Durham NAACP from 1994 until 2002, described the State Bar’s ethics charges as part of a "conspiracy to disrupt justice in this Durham case." (Again, quoted from

The stance of the Herald-Sun and its editor, well documented on this blog.

The activities of the Gang of 88, and its refusal to apologize.

The utter disregard of scholarly standards by "Transforming Anthropology" in publishing Piot's article. See

Generally, the smear campaign conducted against KC Johnson by the Gang of 88 and its supporters, both at Duke and elsewhere.

This is where Obama is coming from, and what he has now, for the first time in 20 years, repudiated. It has been reported that Obama once expressed concern about what happened to the players, and certainly others who should know better have shown great moral cowardice. (Example: the Bush adminstration.) Obama, however, has done nothing, even though, as a Senator, he actually could have done something.

Obama's recent speech is 20 years too late. It is just words, and he needs much more. Let him, in speeches throughout the land, call for the firing of Steel, Brodhead, Moneta, Bryan, and the Gang of 88. Let him, in speeches throughout the land, call for the closure of the Duke academic programs which endorsed the Gang of 88 ad. (Yes, they endorsed it: not one made any public complaint about its name being listed.) Let Obama, in speeches throughout the land, call for the closure of the clones of these programs at universities across the country, to be replaced by actual scholarship rather than political activism. Let him, in his capacity as Senator, force public hearings on the violations of the civil rights of the lacrosse players. Then I might possibly believe he is actually in favor of racial harmony.

Anonymous said...

Prof. J,
thanks for continuing with periodic DIW updates.

I wonder if Ms. Roberts was pressured in any way to leave the NYT because of her biased "journalism"?

W. R. Chambers said...

Recommended reading:

I Was Wrong: The Meaning of Apologies
by Nick Smith

Smith discusses the moral significance of apologies and distinguishes real apologies from pseudo apologies. One doesn't read or hear very many real apologies these days, which is a shame. Real apologies can play a vital role in any community. On the other hand, one can understand if a person in the public dock being pelted by rotten apples and tomatoes is unlikely to try to apologize. Among other things, the persons to whom apologies are owed are not necessarily those throwing the rotten fruit.

Interesting and well written.

Anonymous said...

Dear KC,

Apparently, you are not allowing comments on the Obama post, so I'll post one here.

"The Fox story didn’t mention Obama’s stance on the lacrosse case (perhaps because it undercut the story’s premise). Obama was, of course, the only presidential candidate of either party to support a DOJ investigation of Mike Nifong."

Apples and oranges. Now, if he had called for the firing of, for example, Baker and Holloway, then that would be apples and apples.

I also find it odd that in an attempt to rescue Obama from the charges of racism, you conveniently ignore the virulent racism of his pastor of twenty years.

Duke Prof

Anonymous said...

W.R. Chambers said ...

I subscribe to Sports Illustrated and read what catches my eye (as distinguished from doing a thorough read). I don't remember seeing any articles by Roberts.

You won't see any "articles" by Roberts in SI. She was hired as the replacement for Rick Reilly as the columnist whose work appears on the last page of each issue.

Roberts' is not a reporter. She is well-paid to spew her rant without the requirement that she be required to back it up with any facts.

I subscribed to SI for many years, but canceled several years ago when I woke up one day and realized their slant was so consistently politically correct (on sports, yet!). I'm not surprised that Munson was hired to write for nor that someone like Roberts was hired as Reilly's replacement. She fits their agenda perfectly.

Every so often I get subscription renewal offers from SI saying "we want you back." Honestly, I wouldn't have the rag come into my home if they gave it to me for free. And that was before they hired Roberts, who demonstrates on a weekly basis that she knows as much about sports as Pinch Sulzberger knows about running a newspaper.

Michael said...

re: Traveler - it was nice that the paper didn't print the accused professor's name and I'm amazed at how calm he is despite his ordeal. I hope that everyone gives him the benefit of the doubt back at his school.

I know professors that talk about how careful you have to be around students and this is a pretty good example of it. Even with the best of care, though, a false accusation, for whatever reason, can be devastating. And he can't undo the record now either.

The false accuser got a slap on the wrist. Not that different from Mike Nifong's punishment.

Debrah said...

To anonymous @ 2:37 PM and to Duke Prof--

I believe this from Salon will illuminate more about Obama's rise on the political ladder.

All successful politicians have questionable characters in their past.

All of them.

How else do they receive support from various factions?

And it is true that many of his supporters and friends seem to mirror the Gang of 88. Many in the academy share elements of Duke's Gang as we all know.

Degree is the key word here.

Obama could not have risen to any level in Chicago politics without the support of people like the loony Rev. Wright and those who follow him.

He could not have risen to any level without the support of the well-heeled academics in Hyde Park...among others.

However, I don't see the same rigid partisanship and rabid leftist mentality in Obama.

His black father abandoned him. His mother's white family gave him a loving life. In order to connect to the black community and help fulfill some part of his identity, I feel that he had to experience people like Wright in order to fill a void.

Positive or negative.

It can be said that his wife and his friends do the gutter work for him so that he is able to stay above the fray.

I must say that I don't care for his wife very much. On so many levels she doesn't seem credible. Most candidates' wives try to give the impression that they are interested in representing ALL Americans.

Just Barack Obama alone, I can support him fully as he goes about the next several months making good on his words of sincerely wanting to bring all Americans together for positive goals.

He will have to demonstrate this in all that he does to make his words meaningful.

Still, I do wonder how both he and Michelle could have had their daughters baptized by such a man as Wright.

So much of what Charles Krauthammer wrote in his latest column about this issue is very true.

Still, Obama is far superior to Hillary Clinton.

Anonymous said...

You mentioned that Selena Roberts "sacrificed her journalistic credibility." I was wondering: did she ever have any? I haven't looked into her past work, so I can't fairly say, but...she seems like the kind of flame that would burn the same old wood.

Anonymous said...

Ironically, various hedge fund managers have recently taken positions in the stock of the New York Times Co. and are demanding that changes be made by the heirs of the Sulzberger family who both have voting control and are managing the company. It is not surprising that the Times continues to lose readership with its annoying emphasis on political correctness as the fundamental principle which should drive American society.........


Anonymous said...

I cannot separate Obama from his pastor the way Debrah (3/24/08 11:19) does.

Obama stayed with this church for 20 years.

He took his children there, exposing them to Wright's ravings.

He contributed a very large amount of money to this church. ($22,500 in 2006 alone, although this seems to be much bigger than in some other years.)

The problem is that Obama, with his moving speeches, has been a kind of empty vessel into which many of us have projected our own hopes and dreams. Now many of us are finding out that the real Obama is rather different from those hopes and dreams.

Debrah said...

TO 9:36 PM--

Being a lifelong obsessive-compulsive who prefers things with a "neat" and "unused" look, I've just recently come to terms with the fact that nothing ever really is that way.

Are you really upset to find that Obama isn't perfect?

His ability to appeal to and engage people from all groups in this country is a first step toward the cultural change that is desperately needed.

I don't see that he is some dangerous person who is going to take the country to the far left.

And yes, I think that Obama is much more liberal than he wants the public to know.

However, his unique background affords an honest look and a panoramic view of how race is played out and the negative consequences of using it as an excuse for everything.

Obama has seen the white world---up close and personal.

And he has intimate knowledge and identity with the black world.

He knows just how bogus so many of the "grievances" are which are used as a crutch.

Someone who is willing to try to be honest about this cancerous topic is an asset on the American stage.

But here's the main reason Obama will prevail:


The Tall Tale of Tuzla


By Christopher Hitchens
Posted Monday, March 31, 2008, at 11:26 AM ET

The punishment visited on Sen. Hillary Clinton for her flagrant, hysterical, repetitive, pathological lying about her visit to Bosnia should be much heavier than it has yet been and should be exacted for much more than just the lying itself. There are two kinds of deliberate and premeditated deceit, commonly known as suggestio falsi and suppressio veri. (Neither of them is covered by the additionally lying claim of having "misspoken.") The first involves what seems to be most obvious in the present case: the putting forward of a bogus or misleading account of events. But the second, and often the more serious, means that the liar in question has also attempted to bury or to obscure something that actually is true. Let us examine how Sen. Clinton has managed to commit both of these offenses to veracity and decency and how in doing so she has rivaled, if not indeed surpassed, the disbarred and perjured hack who is her husband and tutor.
I remember disembarking at the Sarajevo airport in the summer of 1992 after an agonizing flight on a U.N. relief plane that had had to "corkscrew" its downward approach in order to avoid Serbian flak and ground fire. As I hunched over to scuttle the distance to the terminal, a mortar shell fell as close to me as I ever want any mortar shell to fall. The vicious noise it made is with me still. And so is the shock I felt at seeing a civilized and multicultural European city bombarded round the clock by an ethno-religious militia under the command of fascistic barbarians. I didn't like the Clinton candidacy even then, but I have to report that many Bosnians were enthused by Bill Clinton's pledge, during that ghastly summer, to abandon the hypocritical and sordid neutrality of the George H.W. Bush/James Baker regime and to come to the defense of the victims of ethnic cleansing.
I am recalling these two things for a reason. First, and even though I admit that I did once later misidentify a building in Sarajevo from a set of photographs, I can tell you for an absolute certainty that it would be quite impossible to imagine that one had undergone that experience at the airport if one actually had not. Yet Sen. Clinton, given repeated chances to modify her absurd claim to have operated under fire while in the company of her then-16-year-old daughter and a USO entertainment troupe, kept up a stone-faced and self-loving insistence that, yes, she had exposed herself to sniper fire in the cause of gaining moral credit and, perhaps to be banked for the future, national-security "experience." This must mean either a) that she lies without conscience or reflection; or b) that she is subject to fantasies of an illusory past; or c) both of the above. Any of the foregoing would constitute a disqualification for the presidency of the United States.

Debrah said...

Mort Zuckerman gives an unvarnished analysis of Obama's balancing act on the racial tightrope.

I can agree with almost everything in this column.

I want to appeal to all white people and other non-black people in this county to give yourselves a break.

The ball is not in your court now as many still try to pretend.

White America came out in record numbers in support of Obama. They saw in him a leader and someone who was honestly representing all Americans and working for a common goal.

We are reminded of his big win in Iowa---virtually all white voters---and the roar of inspired crowds.

Fundamentally, white America is not the bigoted cast of characters whom race hounds invent as the excuse to do nothing with their own lives.

When presented with an intelligent, inspiring, and engaging black candidate, white voters have had no reluctance to support Obama.

What this Jeremiah Wright episode has revealed is that it is black America who must check their racism and their bigotry at the door of human decency.

The foundation of his soaring speeches requires substantive and positive actions from Obama to prove that he understands from where he came.

Debrah said...

Seems Hillary has a long record of fantastic lies.

All the big guns are endorsing Obama and accounts like this one will surely seal her coffin.

Debrah said...

What a great column!

Anonymous said...

Ms. Roberts is, of course, at it again. Actually, guys, this was bad journalism by Sports Illustrated. They had a story by a beat reporter (covering the 'A-Rod beat') who used hear-say to convict a man who may, or may not, have failed a drug test almost six years ago (2003).

The evidence in question is a document sealed by a court order that puts Alex on a list of 104 individuals who tested positive for what are now banned substances. This list was never meant to have seen the light of day. Ms. Roberts printed what four individuals claim, without any ability to back it up. She does not have the list.

Therefore, Alex could have denied any of this. He could have also made no comment until, and if, the documents became unsealed. He did the right thing by coming clean.

The substances he allegedly tested positive for are also hear-say. Again, until those test are unsealed we have no grounds to make any claims of the severity the substances he has taken.

I commend Alex for coming clean. I commend the MLB for taking steps to clean things up.

I am disappointed in Alex for cheating. I am disappointed in SI for printing what is no better than tabloid garbage. I am disappointed in Selena Roberts for using this to publicize her anti-ARod book. There is a lot of shame to go around here.

justin tv said...

thanks for this great article. i've shared it with all my friends...

Anonymous said...

SEarching for her name brings you to the huffington post where there are critical articles on her the most significant of which is that she had a chance to retract the slur on the Lacrosse players but chose not to as she knew she would not be punished for what she did.

Anonymous said...

She is looking for blood like a shark in the water.....­it doesn't matter where the blood comes from - she will pounce on the story and find the "victim" and run with it. When the victim turns out to be chum thrown in the water - she swims away. Her Duke coverage should prove that she does not cover the story - she follows the quickest headline and then walks away from any accountabi­lity.

Ron Franklin is sacked by ESPN. Michael Irvin and Warren Sapp not fired by NFL Network.

Come on Selena Roberts be outraged by this!

Anonymous said...

She attacked Lacrosse players in the media knowing that no one would stand up for them.
Is Lacrosse a minority sport?

Anonymous said...

“Does President Brodhead dare to confront the culture behind the lacrosse team’s code of silence or would he fear being ridiculed as a snitch?”

“Basically, I wrote that a crime didn’t have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night . . . Obviously, some segments of the Duke lacrosse crowd did not enjoy the scrutiny of their world.”

Misogyny? Check
Race Baiting? Check

Selena Roberts has something to write about but does not.

Stop! Seriously, stop it. No!”
In Texas nowadays it seems white girls can’t just say, “No!” especially when they are being sexually assaulted by a black basketball player.