At the Editor’s Blog, the “ghosts” keep appearing

For months now, readers at the McClatchy Company’s Editor’s Blog have complained and asked sharp questions about the N&O’s biased and inflammatory Duke lacrosse coverage. They’re outraged by it.

But the N&O’s exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, tells readers she’s very proud of it.

No doubt there are lots of readers just as enthusiastic about the N&O’s DL coverage as Sill – New Black Panthers, most Duke administrators and faculty, and the pot bangers supporting DA Mike Nifong – people like that.

Oh, I forgot to mention feminists, “victims’ rights advocates” and “civil rights leaders.”

But those folks aren’t showing up at the Editors Blog, so Sill’s been left to her own devices.

And what are they?

Mostly Sill’s ignored readers questions or given partial or out-right misleading answers. She’s said the readers are making a “hobby” of Duke lacrosse and told them to go find some other blog for themselves.

But like the ghosts in Dickens’ Christmas Carol, the readers keep appearing and forcing Sill to look at things she doesn’t want to see.

Here’s a small sample of what the “ghosts” have said just within the last day:
_________________________________________________________

Why did your Newspaper totally and purposefully avoid and edit the Durham Police Supervisor, involved in the Duke investigation, and detective's race from the Article printed on Sunday, 7/23 ?

Why did the article omit the race of the victim?

Why did the article omit the reported racial slurs and racial intimidation reported?
_______________________________________________________

Mel,

Thank you for starting a new Duke Lax Rape Hoax blog. ( The reader’s right. It is a hoax. But in the interest of full disclosure, I must tell you that neither Sill nor the N&O use the term “hoax” in connection with the Duke lacrosse hoax. They follow the practice of DA Nifong and Sgt. Gottlieb who prefer the term “case.” --- JinC )

I’ll start with a simple question…

Why did The N&O publish the infamous wanted poster?
_______________________________________________________

Melanie,

Here's my question. How come you were (admittedly) conservative in your reporting/editing of this Durham Police story as compared to the Duke lax story? In this story, you refer to an 'alleged incident', you removed reference to racial slurs since there was no corroboration, and there is no condemnation of individuals or the police department as a whole.

That is significantly different from your reporting of the Duke lax story where you initially consistently referred to a 'victim' (not alleged), you reported details without any corroboration (many of which have turned out to be false), and you rushed to judgement on the entire incident, condemned the entire team, and proclaimed members already guilty. So why such a different approach to the two stories?

Over the past few months, it has become obvious that the prosecution of this case was in actuality a persecution. It is equally obvious the Duke players, while not innocent of stupidity, were never guilty of rape.
__________________________________________________________

At the Editor’s Blog there’s a lot more of what you’ve just read

Hats off to the “ghosts” who are refusing to accept liberal/leftist agenda journalism that targets the innocent, covers up for the favored, misleads the community, and robs us of what a newspaper is supposed to give us: The facts without fear or favor, so that as citizens in a democracy, we can make up our minds based on the facts.