The McClatchy Company's Raleigh News & Observer's executive editor for news Melanie Sill tells readers:
Next Sunday's Q section, print and online, will explore people's responses to a couple of questions: "What do you think are the important issues in the Duke lacrosse case? How should the community talk about them?" This isn't a dissection of the evidence in the criminal case; instead, it aims to air thoughts on what people see beyond the charges themselves. We've invited some people to write longer pieces and are looking for additional community discussion and views.Sill invites readers to submit comments (200 words or less )which The N&O will consider publishing.
I responded to Sill, asking her what The N&O's selected writers will cover. Below is my comment I left at her blog. (Hyperlinks, not possible at Sill's blog, are added here. Also, at Sill's blog, a sentence "I hope not" has been corrected here to read "I hope so." Yes, ouch! Sorry. I left a correction at Sill's blog.)
_________________________________________
Melanie,
Re: Those people you've "invited to write longer pieces" concerning "the Duke lacrosse case."
Will any of them discuss The N&O's Duke lacrosse coverage?
I hope not.
Many readers want to know why The N&O published "the vigilante poster."
And why The N&O ran news columnist Ruth Sheehan’s “We know you know” column attacking Duke students and lacrosse players who were only exercising their constitutional rights upon advice of counsel.
Other media quoted extensively legal scholars such as UNC Law School Professor Ken Broun defending the young people’s exercise of their constitutional rights. The N&O didn’t. Will readers learn why not?
The N&O has used as a news source and quoted Duke Professor Houston Baker, author of an open letter attacking the university and the lacrosse players. When Duke Provost Peter Lange responded to Baker’s letter with one of his own, The N&O reported Lange was responding to Baker’s “outspoken” letter.
In fact, at the outset of his letter, Lange called Baker’s letter a “form of prejudice.”
Will readers learn why The N&O decided to report “outspoken” instead “form of prejudice?”
The N&O failed to report that Baker, in a variant of Sheehan’s attack, denounced Duke for “shelter(ing)” the lacrosse players “under the protection of pious sentiments (and) sentimental legalism.”
Will any of the writers tell us what Baker means by “pious sentiments” and “sentimental legalism.” Are they anything like due process and presumption of innocence?
Will any of the writers tell N&O readers Duke has made copies of Baker and Lange’s letter’s available at it news site?
On April 5, a particularly tense day in the Duke lacrosse story, NCCU Chancellor James Ammons released a calm, wise public statement to “the NCCU family.” One area daily reprinted it in full. The N&O ignored it entirely.
I hope one of the “longer pieces” explains why.
Concerning your Sunday Apr 2 front page, above the fold, almost 2000 word lead story, “Incident imperils Duke's image.”
All the Duke students and alums quoted in the story were critical of Duke. Why was that?
The N&O could easily have found students and alums who would have spoken well of a university they know is not perfect but which they respect and are proud to be part of?
There are literally many thousands of such people on Duke’s campuses and in the community.
One of your writers should explain why you didn’t quote even one of them.
I could say more, Melanie, but the hour is late.
I’ll close by repeating something I posted about three weeks ago on another of your blog threads: The N&O’s Duke lacrosse coverage has been biased and inflammatory. It has helped make a terrible situation worse, including more dangerous.
Why the repeat?
Because in the three weeks since, The N&O coverage has remained the same.
That’s disgraceful. I hope and pray it doesn’t also prove to be tragic.
John
www.johnincarolina.com
0 comments:
Post a Comment