Editor rejects criticism for “Shame on Duke” story

The Raleigh News & Observer continues to receive criticism for what many see as its sensationalist and prosecutorial reporting of the Duke lacrosse rape allegation. The N&O disputes its critics, who include its own public editor.

Let’s look at an interesting example of how The N&O is responding to its critics.

Yesterday at exec editor for news Melanie Sill’s blog, a reader said no one has yet been charged with any crime but that hasn’t stopped The N&O:

“from fanning the flames of racism and economic envy. And it doesn't stop you from refusing to answer legitimate questions with legitimate on point answers. Not ‘Shame on Duke!’ Shame on you!”

“Shame on Duke” is a reference to a subhead in a front page, above the fold Apr 2 N&O story, “Incident imperils Dukes’ image.” (Paid subscription required)

The reader's comment echoes the criticism of many that the lengthy story was an agenda driven hit piece targeting Duke.

The critics note, for example, the story described alumni as "hurt and angry about what they say has, so far, been a disgraceful episode for the university," while failing to mention that many, if not most, alumni support all or most of what the university has done. The story quoted only alumni critical of Duke, including one it had used a few days before for another critical quote.

The reader's comment drew a swift response from Sill, who feels the story was very well done:

”I don't think our news coverage in any instance has said shame on anyone.”

I decided to respond to that with a comment at Sill's blog:

Melanie,

You say: “I don't think our news coverage in any instance has said shame on anyone."

In your Apr 2 front page story people are referring to we find this:

"Shame on Duke!' (You put it in bold between paragraphs 18 and 19. You put plenty of white space around it; all the better to help readers understand what The N&O wants them to think and feel)

You immediately followed that with:

With protests aimed at Duke and the lacrosse team almost daily last week, the tension in Durham has been palpable. Residents created their own electronic bulletin board called "DurhamResponds," reacting to each twist and turn of the story and dissecting the comments of Duke leaders.

On a poster taped to a tree outside Brodhead's office, an "ex-Dukie" wrote: "To many for whom Durham is really home, Duke's silence following what the men's lacrosse team did is just the latest sad chapter in Duke-Durham relations. Shame on Duke!"

Aja Thompson, a Duke senior from Atlanta, felt compelled to protest on campus. "I am ashamed and I am embarrassed to be a Duke student," she said, "especially as a black woman."

Melanie, a friend who's visiting and reads The N&O just looked at your comment and mine and said, 'Who's surprised?

John

Less than an hour after I left the comment, Sill responded with this:

John,

"Shame on Duke!" is a quote from the poster, as you note, not a statement from The N&O. This is a pretty common technique in newspapers, magazines and other publications, using quotes from stories as headlines or subheadlines to draw people into the stories. I'm not surprised by your barrage of criticism, which is a staple of this blog, but again ask you to try not to write such long posts.

Folks, I'll bet we all know newspapers use headlines and subheads to convey what they think are the most important parts of their news stories.

How does Sill’s statement, ”I don't think our news coverage in any instance has said shame on anyone,” square with The N&O’s use of the “Shame on Duke!” subhead?

Then there’s the matter of the paragraphs that followed. Sill didn’t mention them in her response to me.

After reading and thinking about Sill's response, I decided to send her a comment which follows. If you’re a JinC regular, you know the reference to Barry Saunders relates to a news column he’d written on Apr 1. Sill tells readers N&O news columnists are held to the same standards of factualness as its news reporters. I’ve asked Sill for days to comment on Saunders' reporting. But so far I’ve encountered only a "wall of silence."

Melanie,

If people look at my comment above, they'll see it's mostly verbatim paragraphs taken from The N&O's news columns.

And, yes, those paragraphs are a barrage of criticism: produced by The N&O and fired at Duke University.

You still haven't responded to this:

"Melanie, you've told us in the past that N&O news columnists must meet the same standard for factualness as N&O news reporters.

News columnist Barry Saunders recently wrote:

"If Duke could pack up and move, it would, eager to escape Durham's reputation as a cesspool of civic incompetence.

Likewise, if Durham could bid Duke 'adieu,'it would."

Can we agree, Melanie, that Saunders meets The N&O’s reporting standards?

How about answering the question?

BTW – I agree this blog needs a preview option.

Thanks.

John

There are people at The N&O who are critical of its reporting including, as I mentioned above, its public editor. But they don't seem able to do anything to stop what Melanie Sill calls The N&O's "fair and accurate" reporting.

Sill, by the way, devoted her most recent column, "Facts a casualty of frenzy," to criticism of national news organizations' reporting of the story. Without citing any examples, she called their reporting "seamy and sensationalist." She said she wished they would get off the story and go somewhere else.

And so it goes at The N&O.