After almost 4 weeks of refusing to take questions about the Raleigh News & Observer’s much criticized Duke lacrosse coverage, the N&O’s exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, has agreed to take some questions at McClatchy's Editor's Blog.
That said, for a while at least, I won’t be commenting or questioning at the Editor’s Blog. That’s because Sill’s repeatedly threatened to ban me from the Editor’s Blog but has never given me specific examples of why, even though I ask for them.
I need to resolve that matter before I again comment or question.
Meanwhile, if I were asking Duke lacrosse questions at the Editor’s Blog, I’d start with questions about the very first story that any newspaper wrote on the Duke lacrosse story.
That would be the N&O’s Mar. 24 story linked in this post: “Duke lacrosse: Look at the first newspaper report”
Sill often boasts “we broke” the Duke lacrosse story; and she’s right.
But what she doesn’t talk about is why the N&O kept referring in its Mar. 24 story to the accuser as “the victim.”
The N&O hasn’t told readers how it decided the Duke lacrosse accuser was the victim. Or how it so quickly decided to its own satisfaction that the Duke lacrosse players were the victimizers and should be framed as such?
In that first Duke lacrosse story the N&O referred to the accuser as “the victim” or used the possessive “the victim’s” a total of 7 times.
What made the N&O so sure the accuser was “the victim?” What made the N&O's reporters and editors so determined to frame the players as victimizers?
Where was the evidence for all of that?
Then there’s the whole matter of the N&O’s publication on Apr. 2 of the infamous “vigilante poster” photo.
The N&O want ahead and published the photo after it had been told that doing so would only make it more likely the players pictured on the poster would be targeted by hate groups, something that came to pass.
I hope Sill tells readers how the N&O got a copy of the “vigilante poster?” Who produced it? Why did the N&O publish the photo after refusing to publish the Danish cartoons or the Tar Heel's Mohammad cartoon characterization or anything else it thought might bring angry Muslims into its newsroom?
We can all understand the N&O looking out for the safety of its own people. But if the N&O does that, why didn't it also look out for the safety of college students who were part of the Duke lacrosse team?
Why set them up as hate group targets, a threat that will follow them for years?
I’m sure, folks, you can think of many more questions.
I hope you ask them of Sill and N&O's public editor, Ted Vaden.
In a few days I’ll be back talking about questions to the N&O.
Meanwhile, I’ll be visiting over there and reading what you say here.
_____________________________________
Post URL: http://www.newsobserver.com/742/v-print/story/421494.html
Monday, June 12, 2006
Duke lacrosse: Questions for McClatchy’s Editor
Posted by JWM at 11:42 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comments:
John, Your analysis and comment is badly needed back at the Editor's blog. See what I said today, including my own comments about Melanie's "deletion." Your postings inspired me to begin to post there. Do not allow their "disapproval" to silence you. It is natural that they do not want to hear what many of us are saying. But as you said about my comments to Ruth Shheehan, in a way we do them a service as well. In my life, my critics have contributed more to my successes than any flattering friend. As long as Nifong's persecution continues, we need to choose the "hard right over the easier wrong." and show up over there. Your input is too valuable to be silenced. We are not running for Prom King and Queen. We need to keep Reade, Colin, and Dave on our minds.
Should the N&O ban us or delete us, that will be an even further indication to their reading public of their bias in this story.So let it be. I think Melanie is a good person and even a good editor. But this story began with a presumption of guilt, with a "victim" and three rapists. They are having a hard time finding their way back.
Half truths,... your radar is right on, but after months of inflaming local rancor against the team, with only allegation and no evidence, it's deny, deny, deny.
Sadly most people today are "Headline readers". They scan the headlines (or captions) for a quick impression of what's going on. Journalists know this. Headlines are a great insight into the viewpoint (even agenda) of the journalists who write them. After all, the headline or caption is the journalist's personal summary of the "facts" to follow.
Ted Vaden must be suffering from the same Righteous Townie Revenge Virus that effects so many these days at the N&O. Of course, any fairminded person could understand that "being an object of subpoenas" gives the impression that this young man has the Hand of the Law bearing down on him. The "object of subpoenas" sounds so much like "the target of investigation.", doesn't it? Running a photo of him intensifies the subtle smear. People unfamiliar with legal-ese might assume..especially in the context of the "swagger piece" and the "vigilante poster", that these lacrosse players were Durham's equilalent of the Bloods or Crips. To some on this paper, I think they are.
One might have written "Subpoenas filed to stop Nifong". But that would give a different impression, wouldn't it, Ted? All over the internet, on blogs and discussion boards , people are parsing the headlines, the content , the placement and choice of the articles the N&O is running on the Duke case. It would be a fascinating course to teach in Journalism school.Right along with Dan Rather's National Guard story.
After embracing an allegation, with no evidence...a journalistic "ownership" takes over. After commiting to the swagger story, the vigilante poster, the pink-puff piece on the accuser (soft voiced college coed who got an "A" in a hard course.) and one on "Dean's list Kim...they need these boys to be guilty.for their own credibility and conscience. They are invested. The pro-defense stories they print are not coupled with opinion pieces, human interst stories, Ruth's fire, or compelling editorials. After all the fire in the first pro-prosecution reporting , readers can sense the reporting now is flat
In fairness (don't faint Melanie) I have admired this newspaper and you. Till now. Till this story of rape seemed so real and relevant and your cause so righteous, that you came out with your journalistic guns blazing...with only an allegation, and no evidence. Even if Nifong now reveals the Pope was behind the shower curtain and will testify for the Prosecution.....you went too far , too soon. And now, editorial silence.
Lest you chastise me for posting too much or too long, I get up an hour early each day to post somewhere...for Colin, Reade and Dave. You may chastise or delete me. I can copy and post my comments to this paper elsewhere. But I will stay the course till this travesty ends. I don't know these boys, don't care about Lacrosse and have no allegiance to Duke. But silence in face of injustice makes you a consenting co-conspirator. Not me
P.S. Melanie, is the Night Editor who approved this caption and photo ...the same editor who approved the Vigilante poster?
Post a Comment