(One of a series of posts in the original web log tradition: notes and "thinking out loud." These posts will be most easily understood by regular visitors and are written with them especially in mind. But others are welcome.)
Item number one: Lots of people in media who’ve been unfair and worse to the Duke lacrosse players are now in full “climb down” mode.
I have nothing but respect for those like the NY Times’ David Brooks who say in effect, “I was wrong. Here’s where I was wrong. I’m sorry. I apologize.”
But many others in media are trying to avoid their responsibilities by saying, “It all Nifong’s fault.”
And people who say they support the players are praising the “Blame it all on Mike” media.
That’s not right. Nifong should only be blamed for his part.
Media involved should be held to account for their parts.
If we don’t hold them to account, we make it more likely they’ll do the same in the future to some other person or group.
You were leaders as commenters in speaking up for fairness and good sense at the start of all of this.
I hope you’ll now help well-intentioned people see that while it’s reasonable, for example, to say to a Ruth Sheehan, “I’m glad you think Nifong should be off the case,” it’s also important to continue to tell Sheehan and those like her they need to look at what she did and stop blaming Nifong for it.
I'm thinking about a major post on this theme: The Duke lacrosse case got the way it got not just because of Nifong but because of the energy, drive and influence of some media and a collection of individuals and groups that include some liberals and leftists, rights organizations, and individuals of the sort who on Duke campus in late March and April were proclaiming “a culture of rape.”
What are you thoughts about that theme?
Moving along.
I’m sorry for all the spam. I’ll keep trying to get at it.
Re: COMMENTS
I’ve put responses to all comments on the threads going back to Jun. 12. If you don’t find a response to something you said, leave a comment at my most recent post, regardless of topic. I’ll respond.
There have been some anonymous commenters who’ve come by from Court TV and other places. For the most part they’ve criticized my post about Judge Stephens.
That’s fine.
What I want to tell those folks is that I couldn’t find their comments today on the threads. That may be because they put their comments on a post from more than a week ago which is as far back as I went today.
Anyway, if you’re one of them or can contact them (I think they come from links provided by Locomotive Breath and NNNN4 or something close to that) please tell them I welcome their comments.
I’ll post tomorrow something like “Judge Stephens and his critics.” I hope the commenters see it and know I’m glad to receive the kind of thoughtful, measured and civil comments they’re making.
On another matter some folks who looked at my Duke lacrosse notes post in which I mentioned cherry picking think I was criticizing the defense attorneys. Not so.
I’ll say more later tonight in a Jun. 20, 2006 Duke lacrosse notes post.
Last item: I plan to follow up with attorney Charns on the CrimeStoppers case in the next few days. I’m sending him a link to my post reporting the interview with DPD’s Maj. Lee Russ.
When I get up with Charns, I’ll ask for his reaction to the interview post and updating on the case. I'll then post on all of that. That may not be until next week depending on my schedule and when I get up with Charns.
One important thing that came out of the interview with Russ was his repeated denial that DPD had anything to do with the “vigilante” poster, which was also distributed in flyer form.
I’ll be posting on that tomorrow, including looking at the N&O’s publication of the poster and N&O editor Sill’s comments at the Editor’s Blog about that. Sill’s comments leave out a lot.
Best,
John
Tuesday, June 20, 2006
Talking with JinC regulars - 6 - 20 - 06
Posted by JWM at 5:51 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
4 comments:
Hi John, here's my latest post at the Editor's blog. I'm hoping Melanie will answer it with the same sincerity with which it was asked.
Melanie, to further mutual understanding, please help me to see the newspaper's point of view on the following issue. This is no rhetorical question.
There was an accusation of gang rape. The accuser was a "stripper.". The accused were members of the Lacrosse team. Early on, you ran two very prominent front page stories.
In the accuser's case (or victim as you called her then), an interview with her seemed to ask the public, not to judge her as part of any "group"...as a "stripper"... but rather as a mother, a soft-voiced woman who was a good student and "new ", so she told you then, to "exotic dancing." Would you disagree that this was a sympathetic portrayal? The negative aspects of the Escort community certainly were not addressed. Nor was she asked to "carry" them. See her as HERSELF, you said. Fair enough.
The second piece was the "Swagger "story. Here the resources of this newspaper were used to unearth every misdeamor charge, every negative aspect of the Lacrosse team. Mostly obnoxious college stuff, probably not what "profiling" the world of escort services might have gleaned....but this was the COUNTERPOINT.
So exactly at the time Reade and Colin and Dave...three individuals, are to be charged with rape...you do an expose on their "peer group." You tell the reader this team is "out of control." Is it much of a stretch then, for the reader to assume Reade and Colin and Dave were out of control as well? I question the timing of this story. I question the fairness.
Only if one assumes a rape took place... can the timing and tenor of these two stories, juxtaposed against each other , be justified.. But you assure us this paper has or had no such position. The woman has been separated out from the world of "escort " services by a sympathetic portrayal. Colin , Reade and Dave, on the other hand, are now carrying a brand of a out of control lacrosse team. Not seen as themselves. Colin, Reade, and Dave.
To run an "expose on a team, while three young men were about to face the fight of their lives...seems like piling on.
Ms. Sill continues to claim that you have not been banned. So go on over and put the lie to her assertion.
She also claims that registration was not a new requirement but, in that at least, she had to back down.
Joan,
I continue to read your posts at the N&O blogs.
Some of your comments are, IMHO, rightly critical of the N&O, Sill, and Sheehan. Other of your comments seem apologetic.
I'll continue to follow.
John
Locomotive Breath,
Did you see my response to you on another thread re: My not commenting right now at the Editor's Blog?
If not, let me know and I'll find it, and we can figure out a way to get it to you.
One thing I said in that comment was that I was very glad to see you commenting at N&O and here.
Thank you both,
John
Well I do remember seeing that but I don't remember precisely why you said you wouldn't comment over there any more. I just figured that since she says you're not banned you'd want to make her prove it.
Post a Comment