Duke lacrosse notes – Jun. 15, 2006

(Readers’ Note: This is intended to be the first in a series of blog notes.

I'll continue publishing posts on the DL case but the notes series will give me a chance to quickly share information and opinions on more aspects of the DL case.

I hope you use the series posts the same way on the comment threads. JinC readers have been a great source of DL info and commentary.

I’m going to be more brief here than in standard JinC posts. Still, there’s always the chance some fine person just back from the Antarctic or in the Antarctic will drop in for the first time.

So they’ll be some material that will be redundant to you but may help our new Antarctic friend.)

Now here goes.

To ME, joan, and others who’ve spoken up on my behalf re: N&O exec news editor Melanie Sill’s threats to ban me from McClatchy’s Editor’s Blog: Thank you all very, very much. I deeply appreciate your support and the issues you’ve raised.

I’m hopeful that soon all will come right.

I hope you all visit the Editor’s Blog to read Sill’s post, “Duke lacrosse comments.”

Right now there are 42 comments on the thread, some from Sill. A post I put up today, “Duke lacrosse: MeClatchy’s N&O is unbelievable” shines a light on some of what Sill is telling readers.

I plan to post soon on what Sill told readers today about the N&O publishing a photo of the infamous “vigilante poster.” Most of the post will deal with what Sill didn’t tell readers.

In the meantime, do you think Melanie or any of the others on McClatchy’s N&O news team will tell readers why the N&O refused to publish any of the Danish cartoons or the Daily Tar Heel’s Mohammed cartoon but went ahead and published the “vigilante poster?”

About 40 comments down on the thread there’s a post from ME concerning attorney and Durham County Commissioner Louis Cheek’s possible write in campaign for Durahm DA in November.

I’ve copied ME's comment and later tonight I’ll put it up here as a post.

Look for it tomorrow. It contains information about how individuals can help Cheek.

On 3/27 , just 3 days after the N&O broke the DL story, one of its news columnists, Ruth Sheehan, wrote a vicious column attacking the students who played on the lacrosse team for doing no more that following advice of counsel regarding the exercise of their constitutional rights.

One thing that made Sheehan’s column so repugnant to many readers is her frequent pleading in her columns for the rights and treatment of her family and friends, including her own children.

Another is that her husband is an attorney and former statewide officer holder who often argues on behalf of his clients for the same rights the Duke students were exercising.

But none of that stopped Sheehan from savaging the students.

Now, joan, at about the 40th comment, delivers a fitting satire on the column. You don’t want to miss it.

You may want to read Sheehan’s column first so you can really appreciate joan's highlighting what Sheehan did. Here’s a link to Sheehan’s column,"Team's silence is sickening."

BTW – I made a face copy of joan’s comment because some comments at the Editor’s Blog are removed and others just disappear. You might want to make a face copy as well.

The N&O is getting some praise today for pointing out some of DA Nifong’s – what should we call them? – irregularities.

I think the N&O is late, maybe last, to that part of the DL story. The N&O also underplayed it by putting the story in the “B” section. This from a paper that put a story about college kids drinking underage and peeing on lawns (not acceptable behavior and deserving of punishment) smack on its Sunday front page above the fold and across every column.

I’ve also been underwhelmed by the N&O’s response to Professor Coleman’s letter and comments.

More about that tomorrow.

See you then.

John