Readers' Note: Raleigh News & Observer reporter Joe Neff's story, "Lacrosse files show gaps in DA's case," has been widely praised for it exposure of actions by DA Mike Nifong and certain Durham police investigators that violated proper investigative procedures and very likely violated the law as well, although Neff's does not come right out and say that.
Neff's 3,700 word story contains one small error which you'll read about below.
Based on that error, the N&O today issued a correction which was the right thing to do. But the N&O then used that correction to undercut the major thrust of Neff's story. That wasn't the right thing to do.
The N&O appears to be unable to consistently and fully tell readers the truth about the Duke lacrosse hoax which it helped turn into a witch hunt with a series of grossly inaccurate, biased and inflammatory stories that cast the accuser as the victim and the lacrosse players as her gang-rape victimizers.
A JinC reader has just made this comment:
The top editors inside the N&O are biased against the Duke students. By overreacting to an error in Neff's otherwise excellent story, they have made Neff's error look worse than it actually is and show an ignorance of the facts of the case. Once again, shame on the N&O and its top editors.I think the reader has it right.
I just left the following comment at N&O executive editor for news Melanie Sill's McClatchy Company sponsored Editor's Blog. I hope many of you will go there and make your own comments.
John
____________________________________________
Dear Melanie:
Regarding DPD Inv. Michelle Soucie's memorandum of April 4 which the N&O incorrectly reported as being written on April 17 you say:
"The error means the lead illustration on the story does not have the significance we thought it did. We have removed the illustration from our Web site."
In a front page correction today the N&O says in part: “This error changes the implication of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and persecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”
No it doesn’t change "the implication of the first five ...."
Here’s part of what the distinguished historian and blogger Robert KC Johnson just said in his post, “The Soucie Memo”
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/28991.html
Johnson says: -- The words of the correction were poorly chosen. For, in fact, as Neff’s original article claimed, “the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and prosecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”
Before April 4, Nifong gave dozens of interviews to the state and national media commenting with certainty on the “events” of the “rape.” Here are three typical examples of his remarks:
March 29, MSNBC:“The circumstances of the case are not suggestive of the alternate explanation that has been suggested by some of the members of the situation. There is evidence of trauma in the victim’s vaginal area that was noted when she was examined by a nurse at the hospital.”
March 29, WRAL: “My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place.”
March 30, CBS News: "The victim was examined at Duke University Medical Center by a nurse who was specially trained in sexual assault cases. And the investigation at that time was certainly consistent with a sexual assault having taken place.”
Yet, days after Nifong made these and other similar statements, Soucie recorded the following, according to the memo the N&O uncovered: "Mike Nifong stated that: Also need documentation on escort service and how they do business. Need to nail down what victim did on the day before arriving at 610 N. Buchanan so we can show that she did not receive trauma prior to the incident—with witnesses."
Neff’s original conclusion is correct: Nifong “had said repeatedly on national television that he was certain the dancer had been raped.
Yet the prosecutor was still trying to rule out other explanations for the vaginal swelling a hospital noted in its examination of the accuser. The words and actions of police and prosecutors had outpaced the facts in the file, and not for the first time.”
This memo, in short, is the clearest example to date of misconduct by Nifong in his public remarks.
Not only was he violating the state bar’s prohibition against statements “that have a substantial likelihood of heightening public condemnation of the accused,” he was, to put it bluntly, dissembling.
KC Johnson says a lot more in the post, all of it consistent with what Neff said and, if anything, even more damaging to what shreds are left of the "case" and Nifong's reputation.
Melanie, There’s a lot more to the post. I hope you and other N&O editors read it.
The N&O needs to issue an immediate front page correction of today’s erroneous correction.
I’ll be asking public editor Ted Vaden to read KC’s post after which I hope he also requests a correction of today’s erroneous post.
While we’re on the subject of KC, why haven’t you interviewed him for a major story?
Not only is KC one of America’s most distinguished historians, he’s published extensively on the Duke lacrosse hoax, including the many procedural errors and false statements made by DA Nifong and some Durham police investigators.
You’ve published many statements and op-eds by members of the now discredited, widely ridiculed Duke faculty Group of 88 and other academics of similar liberal/leftist ideological bent.
I think your sensible readers would welcome an interview story featuring someone like KC Johnson. And a little change might be good for the N&O.
Thank you for providing a means for me to comment.
John
www.johnincarolina.com
6 comments:
I'm confused about why the detective was asking such a basic question so far into the process.
Isn't that a problem too?
-AC
Good question from AC. One other question: Besides the incompetence and lack of curiosity of top N&O editors, is the newspaper's main problem a lack of ideological diversity
The paper's main problem is a lack of honesty.
I look for John to be chided by Ms. Sill for not playing well with others.:)
KC rules!
John,
I enjoyed reading your comments and those of Robert KC Johnson regarding the Joe Neff article correction.
At an alert of your readers below at your 11:28 am comments, I became aware of a Ted Vaden, the N&O public editor and “readers’advocate,” posted commentary yesterday at his blog (and related quotes by WTVD) with what seemed to be an effort to undercut the impact of Joe Neff's recent article.
I hope you will understand my burning up your bandwidth but I made the following post at Vaden's Blog (and elsewhere).
Vaden solicited comments and I encourage all that are interested to help bring a moment of enlightenment to Mr. Vaden. I wrote:
Mr. Vaden:
I hope N&O reporter Joseph Neff recovers sufficiently from that stealthy knife-in-the back he experienced yesterday. I refer of course to the quotes attributed to you by WTVD and your August 8 blog post. As one who has followed the Duke Lacrosse case closely and understands many issues related to the case as well as many N&O editors, I am appalled by your overreaction.
With the Neff article, the N&O takes an informed stance with regard to the wide chasm between what District Attorney Mike Nifong promised early on (and continues to promise today) and what the actual evidence in the case reflects to date. And apparently the DA Nifong apologists now make their stand.
There very well may have been a misstated document date in the N&O story. But you know full well that inaccurate date and what Mr. Neff may have intended the date to represent was but one in a long litany of examples of actions by the Durham police and words and actions of the Durham prosecutor outpacing the facts and evidence of the case. Further, you should know full well that the inaccurate date was neither “particularly glaring” nor did it “mar the story” taken as a whole. The error could not in any way be described as “substantial” within the context of the entire story.
It is not possible that the error could “impact a reader’s overall perception of the story” (the story taken as a whole) if that reader has just a modicum of understanding of the underlying facts related to the case. Can there be but a handful of Durhamites or interested readers around the country that lack the necessary modicum of understanding relating to the case to be so severely misled as you suggest?
Mr. Vaden, did WTVD quote you accurately? How could WTVD come to the conclusion that the first five paragraphs of the N&O story reported “other key information wrong?” Perhaps you could tell me and your readers precisely what “other key” information was reported incorrectly in the first five paragraphs of the story.
And let me clear up what appears to be a gross mischaracterization on your part—where you say: “That's important, because the later date was after the lacrosse players were indicted, suggesting that Nifong pursued their indictment before having all the facts in hand. Based on the erroneous information, the story asserted that ‘the words and actions of police and prosecutors had outpaced the facts in the file.’"
With your statement, and the misleading use of the words “the story,” you leave your readers with the implication that what you refer to as the “erroneous information” is the only example of how DA Nifong pursued indictments against the Duke Lacrosse players before having all the facts in hand. Such an implication is extremely misleading, and in fact, nothing could be further from the truth because the misquoted date and the suggestion it may have given is just one of many, many examples of how the DA pursued the indictments before having crucial facts in hand (as even a casual reader of The Editor’s Blog has known for months). And, in fact, Neff gave several additional examples later in his article. Further examples not cited by Neff (and for the benefit of those industrious enough to read further than the first five paragraphs of this commentary) would include: it has been widely reported that DA Nifong refused to meet with defendants and defendants’ council to review exculpatory evidence. Consequently, it was reported that DA Nifong sought to obtain pictures of the events of March 13 and 14 from various reporters; and it appears that DA Nifong now obtains such crucial evidence as defendant’s phone records and defendant’s banking activity photos from defendant’s attorneys’ motions.
Mr. Vaden, I urge you to become much better informed on the Duke Lacrosse case in order to provide more thoughtful commentary on the article correction. Accordingly, let us both turn to others much more informed on this topic and how it relates to the N&O’s corrected story. Frequently quoted historian and blogger Robert KC Johnson just said in his August 8 post, “The Soucie Memo:”
Neff’s latest story provides a devastating account of Nifong’s procedural misconduct and lack of evidence in the lacrosse case, uncovering critical and heretofore unrevealed information about the medical reports, the accuser’s initial descriptions of her alleged assailants, the odd timing of the accuser’s ultimate statement to police, and Nifong’s hands-on involvement with the police investigation. Neff made a rare error, however, in the story, inaccurately describing a memorandum by Durham PD Investigator Michelle Soucie as having been penned on April 17, when actually the memo was written on April 4. The N&O promptly issued a correction.
The error, however, meant only that Neff’s story was excessively kind to Nifong, and affected none of the story’s conclusions. The material in the excerpted portions of the Soucie memo, in combination with other facts and documents already publicly available, reinforces the pattern of this case: the more material released, the more indefensible Nifong’s behavior appears.
The previously unreleased Soucie memorandum brought four items to light. In its correction statement, the N&O writes that the corrected date for the memorandum (from April 17 to April 4) “changes the implication of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and prosecutors outpacing the facts in the file.” The words of the correction were poorly chosen. For, in fact, as Neff’s original article claimed, “the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and prosecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”
Mr. Johnson says much more in his article and he offers this conclusion: “But, contrary to the insinuation of the correction text, the memo’s earlier date actually raises more questions about Nifong’s conduct, rather than weakening any of the article’s conclusions.”
http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/28991.html
Also on August 8, John In Carolina posted thoughtful commentary at The Editor’s Blog and on his blog on this topic:
Dear Melanie:
Regarding DPD Inv. Michelle Soucie's memorandum of April 4 which the N&O incorrectly reported as being written on April 17 you say:
"The error means the lead illustration on the story does not have the significance we thought it did. We have removed the illustration from our Web site."
In a front page correction today the N&O says in part: “This error changes the implication of the first five paragraphs of the story: that the conversation between Nifong and Soucie was an example of the words and actions of police and persecutors outpacing the facts in the file.”
No it doesn’t change "the implication of the first five ...."
Much more from JinC on 8/08/06 at 15:44 The Editor’s Blog and at his blog:
http://www.johnincarolina.com/
To conclude my thoughts, Mr. Vaden, precisely what did you mean when you wrote: “…and, potentially, of the newspaper's future reporting on this emotionally charged story.”?
While my thoughts on your commentary are probably clear, nonetheless I have taken the time to address your comments and the WTVD quotes. Further, I have directed some pointed questions to you. They are asked in earnest and are not rhetorical. Should you decide to reply to my comments and questions, I ask you to respond at your blog for the sake of openness and clarity for all your readers.
ME
copies to Melanie Sill and Joseph Neff
Vaden N&O Readers' Corner Blog: http://blogs.newsobserver.com/readers/
Vaden email: mailto:ted.vaden@newsobserver.com subject=readers_corner_blog_comment
WTVD article: http://abclocal.go.com/wtvd/story?section=local&id=4442161
ME's informative post should be sent to Gary Pruitt, CEO of McClatchy. Do any readers know the publisher of the N&O? What is the name and what is his/her role in the Nifong prosecutorial abuse scandal?
Post a Comment