The most important outcome from tonight's episode?
Almost everyone “on the fence” will now say: “These kids are innocent. That DA with the soda cup in his hand is the guilty one. Why isn’t he in jail?”
That’s a huge plus for the players, their families and anyone concerned about justice in this horrendous series of Duke Hoax injustices.
Sixty kept a very tight focus: Kim Roberts, the three indicted players, Nifong, Coleman and a bit of Brodhead near the end.
While before the episode I wished for a broader focus, in hindsight I recognize the tight focus was very likely essential for the big “They’re innocent. They’ve been framed” shout out 60 gave viewers.
I don't think even Durham Herald Sun Editor Bob Ashley or Duke's President, Richard H. Brodhead, would dispute 60 was saying they're innocent.
Sixty made very effective use of graphics and close ups to hammer its "innocent" message.
Something I think many media critics may miss: Sure, 60 left Kim on there more than many of us would have liked. But by doing so 60, intentionally or not, allowed Kim to reveal herself in all her "what’s in it for me?" story changing glory.
What a contrast to David Evans, Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann who came across as intelligent, sincere, and with only one story to tell: the truth.
Aside from the impact of what the players said, the episode’s most powerful statements were provided by Professor Coleman and the graphics 60 used to support what he was saying.
When interviewing Coleman, Bradley did just what interviewers should do: He asked informed questions to draw his subject out. Come to think of it, he did that throughout the episode. Hats off to Bradley.
I think 60 and Bradley gave Brodhead “a pass.” It was the weakest part of the program. More about that tomorrow afternoon.
Thursday I posted, “60 Minutes: Six Sure Bets,” concerning what the episode would be.
How do I score myself?
With “A” as excellent and “B” as good, I score myself a “B-."
I had a lot right but missed in saying 60 would expose some of the enablers besides Nifong, Gottlieb and Co. I was also wrong when I said 60 would expose Brodhead as a principal enabler.
As for the brief tape of the Raleigh News & Observer's favorite young mother doing her bar-top dance about the time Sgt. Gottlieb said she has trouble sitting, it added the exclamation point to what 60 was saying from moment one: false statements and frame-ups.
Last thought for tonight: Weren’t there three seperate references in the episode to the disregard of standard federal Dept. of Justice procedures or some other matter that should interest the feds?
Hmmm.
I’m looking forward to hearing what you think about all of this.
Come tomorrow, if all goes well, I’ll get back to work.
When you close your eyes tonight remember: millions more now know they’re innocent. That’s what got done tonight.
Sunday, October 15, 2006
60 Minutes' Hoax episode: A first take
Posted by JWM at 9:13 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
22 comments:
This is as good as anyone could have expected from 60 Minutes. CBS News has put The New York Times to shame. Send your congratulations and thanks to Ed Bradley, the producers and to Sean McManus, the president of CBS News. They should be encouraged to follow this story. It almost makes up for the Dan Rather-Mary Mapes fraudulent records story, which occurred pre-McManus. Also thank Professor Coleman, who stands almost alone among professors on campus as a defender of the lacrosse players.
The 60 Minutes show was great. The bombshell was Precious 'working' 2 weeks later. Prof. Coleman is a hero.
John, maybe the reason why 60 Minutes did not go after Brodhead in their telecast on Sunday evening is that after investigating the case for six months, they came to realize that most of your criticism of him has been completely unfounded and should not be included in the show.
To Anon @11:34
60 Minutes concluded it could fool people with the phoney TANG documents.
60 concluded it could tell people it's then anonymous document source was unimpeachable. It thought the public wouldn't find out he was Democrtatic activist and long-time Bush-hater Bill Burkett.
So yes, it is possible 60 could be fooled by Brodhead.
But I don't think it was.
John
NCCU Joyner also intimated that the DA has "something" else. This is an NCCU law professor that is not aware of the North Carolina discovery laws???
Feds?
Title 18 U.S.C. § 241. Conspiracy against rights of citizens.
If two or more persons conspire to injure, oppress, threaten, or intimidate any citizen in the free exercise or enjoyment of any right or privilege secured to him by the Constitution or laws of the United States, or because of his so exercised the same, ... they shall be fined ... or imprisoned ...
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1512. Tampering with a witness, victim, or an informant--
(b) Whoever knowingly uses intimidation or physical force, or threatens another person, or attempts to do so, or engages in misleading conduct toward another person, with intent to --(1) influence, delay or prevent the testimony of any person in an official proceeding: shall be fined ... or imprisoned ... or both.
Title 18 U.S.C. § 1515. Definitions for certain provisions; general provision.
(a) As used in sections 1512 and 1513 of this title and in this section-. . . (3) the term "misleading conduct" means-
(A) knowingly making a false statement;
(B) intentionally omitting information from a statement and thereby causing a portion of such statement to be misleading, or intentionally concealing a material fact, and thereby creating a false impression by such statement;
(C) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a writing or recording that is false, forged, altered, or otherwise lacking in authenticity;
(D) with intent to mislead, knowingly submitting or inviting reliance on a sample, specimen, map, photograph, boundary mark, or other object that is misleading in a material respect; or
(E) knowingly using a trick, scheme, or device with intent to mislead;
60 Minutes kept its eye on the ball. That is on the 3 falsely accused kids. They did not want to complicate the central issue by bringing up dirt on either Brodhead or Nifong (they could have said a lot more Nifong too). They did not, and that was a smart strategy. The central issue here is that these guys did not rape the accuser. That point came across very well. Why muddy the waters by bringing issues about Brodhead or Duke? That would have only make a negative impact on those who now agree there was no rape but happen to be Brodhead loyalists. This was a smart decision. That battle will be fought another day, and not necessarily by 60 Minutes.
Good job CBS, excellent strategy. It makes a lot of sense. This does not mean Brodhead is doing a good job. It only means his handling of the case was not central to their objective in this expose.
1) Reade saying the Police nor the DA have never talked with him. Outrageous!
2) Kim clearly denying Kim's being injured. There is now no outcry witness.
3) The Accuser still stripping in clubs after the event. One club manager even hinted she has been consistently performing.
My question is how does the press not report this? We have heard the rumors she was still stipping. Why hasn't the Herald-Sun or N & O reported this?
There is a bigger story here, what it is I don't know?
The biggest problem? Bradley asked nothing about the second five to ten minute period of time Kim said she and AV were apart. Why no question about that period? No delving into what AV actually SAID after that period, and it was not made clear if her semi-conscious state was immediately after that period or simply when they were leaving. Viewers just haven't gotten a clear picture of the timeline for the time the women re-entered the house until they left. (Yes, Seligmann was gone by then, but that only means Seligmann is off the hook.) Why didn't Bradley question Kim as to exactly what happened when they re-entered the house?
Bradley also was guilty of "leading the witness" when Kim stated that AV wanted to go back into the house where "there's more money to be made." He led her in his question, "To do more dancing?" instead of ASKING her HOW more money could be made. Kim and Seligmann already stated that the boys were upset that they got only ten minutes for their $800, so exactly how could "more money" be made when the "ladies" hadn't even performed $800 worth?
Take these two together...more money to be made and another five to ten minute separation, and we have something going on that nobody wants to talk about, be it to the benefit of the DA or the defense.
The Brodhead interview was obviously tightly edited, leaving Brodhead a huge gap to claim his statements were taken out of context (they only served to make a case against Nifong for his assurances of guilt without any evidence, which was what "60" wanted to portray)and to pass the buck.
Very astute on Bradley's part was his confrontation over the "little dick white boy" comment that Kim admitted she made to the boys before she was called the "N" word, asking her if her comments might have incited the retaliatory "N" word response. Kim's answer to that would seem to indicate that she fully understands that European-Americans (i.e. "white" people)are still the only group of people who are allowed to be identified by their color without it being classified as a racist slur or, at the least, "insensitive." "White boy" is a derogatory term when spoken by blacks in situations just as Kim described, but it just isn't the same, now, is it? Though Bradley called Kim on it, he failed to get that point across, just as every media outlet is afraid to call this entire situation what it is...reverse racism.
I continue to read comments saying that Kim "changed" her story. There has not been any change in the story. News coverage of the show's previews all stated that Kim clearly did not know the AV had made the statements about her and AV clinging to each other outside the bedroom, etc. I saw nothing at all in Sunday's show where Kim stated she did not know this information. Prior to the show, it was indeed a case where no info had been changed at all since she didn't know the AV's story. That has all gone down the drain, because "60" never asked Kim if she had heard this story before. Her facial expressions indicated it was a surprise to her, but that can be written off as part of her 'act." Perhaps something was edited at the last minute?
I was disappointed to not have anything at all covered about the hotel job AV had the night before the party, the lack of any medical evidence of strangulation or being kicked and beaten (it was touched on but the medical records were not used as the proof, only the cell photos of bruises/cuts).
Overall, "60" likely proved the hoax, Nifong's prosecutorial misconduct, and that no rape occurred. But it was NOT proven based on Kim's story. She has now opened up herself to being completely discredited. If she testifies for the defense after being dropped by Nifong, she will be crucified. If she was paid for this interview, then, that's the end of her credibility, period.
No indication that there will be anymore to this story. I felt it left out way too much. Then again, many of us have been immersed in it far beyond media coverage and have read the evidence, ourselves.
One last thought. For those who are urging us to contact "60" to "thank" them for this story, I say "hogwash!" The media has irresponsibly contributed to the circus and farce this entire case has been allowed to become. Unless CBS has been living under a rock for the past six months and never had a clip on the case, I see this as a FRACTION of what they OWE these innocent boys and the public. After all, CBS is backtracking to make up for years of an agenda that they finally, inevitably got caught on. Now, they pay their dues to regain their own credibility. Sunday night, they just got started.
Twaddlefree
I was fortunate to watch the 60 minutes piece with a group of people who knew very little about the case. After the segment they were all convinced of the innocence of these young men and outraged at Nifong. Well done CBS.
The majority of the general public has had a preconceived notion of guilt on the part of the three defendents. This airing changed that dramatically!
Thanks for sharing that. This is apparently what "60" wanted to convey and they succeeded. Let's hope that the streets were empty in Durham, NC, during the show's first 40 minutes and that the booths will be full on election day with outraged, decent people who have seen the truth.
Twaddlefree
I agree with 60 Minutes' decision to focus on the key issues of the players innocence and Nifong's self-serving manipulation of the case for his own benefit. Congratulations to 60 Minutes on a job well done.
But I could not help but be struck by the thought while watching Prof. James Coleman's strong declaration of outrage at the DA's evident prosecutorial misconduct... that this is the kind of man we need for President of Duke University. Brodhead may have been a victim of tight editing, but he came across as a quivering, credulous fool, whose only defense for participating in the "rush to judgment" was that many others had also been misled by Nifong's false claim to incontrovertible evidence.
A true leader who not have allowed himself to be seduced so quickly by Nifong... and a true leader would have maintained control over the most extreme members of his faculty, who should be condemned for leading a modern-day rhetorical lynching of the lacrosse players, Duke University students all, primarily because of their race, gender, class and perceived social status.
CBS.... thank you.
I just read today's Chronicle and Herald Sun in which Duke students are quoted. They stated that the 60 minutes broadcast was one sided, there are no innocent people in this, the prosecution should continue. What the hey? I know they're young, but I think they've had too many Holloway classes. I'm really beginning to wonder about Duke. Everyone except Coleman seems locked in the ivory tower.
John,
I don't think you were that far off. I'd give you a B not a B-. I first heard of the 60 minutes program from your blog several months ago while the N&O chose to acknowledge the 60 minutes piece only today - rather than informing their viewers that they could tune into such a program on Sunday. I found that quite unfortunate.
That said, I never did believe that Duke would be a focus of the investigation. It isn't that they share responsibility - they do - but 60 minutes, as you have said, tries to use their time in the most effective way possible. They did: The piece was powerful.
The Early Show was fairly decent as well. I think that Bradley believes the Lacrosse players in that he can spot BS given his lengthy career investigating and encountering BS.
I was a bit disappointed that 60 minutes did not do more to attack the personal credibility of Nifong, ie, that he took over the investigation, that he would have lost nearly 30k had he been defeated in the primary (which he would have been prior to the lax), and his asinine behavior throughout the investigation and judicial proceedings. He's a jerk; that takes all of about 45 seconds to show.
One problem with their video editing: THE DEFENDENTS INTERVIEWS. Bradley should have included (if it was not said he should have prompted him) the accused discussing the lineup. This is especially true with Finerty (Evans got some of it in) when he was asked how he was picked out 'I don't know'. That may have lost viewers and may have been a sloppy time saving editing job. A throwing darts quote would have been great.
Other than that I'm glad 60 minutes picked it up.
I'm not sure how you feel about the 'heat' NC is receiving from out of staters but I have been asked repeatedly about what NC is 'like'. My relatives and friends think that NC has out of control prosecutors with southern justice alive, if in reverse. Two have said there would be no way they would let their kids go to NC for school (I still plug WFU though..).
That's what I dislike most about this case - the damage that it has done to Durham, the Triangle area, and the whole of NC. We look like a complete joke.
"My question is how does the press not report this? We have heard the rumors she was still stipping. Why hasn't the Herald-Sun or N & O reported this?"
The N&O has chosen not to disclose statements the AV made to the N&O in her only interview to the media. If they had disclosed those statements they would have cast doubt on the credibility of the accuser given that the substance of the statements appear to involved the AV alleging that Kim Roberts stole money from her. The interview, by the N&O's admission, lasted around 2 minutes. It appears that she spent half the time discussing Kim Roberts which never made it into the paper.
The N&O has made their failure to disclose this information known but only on the editor's blog (to my knowledge). They are loathe to admit any role in the 'witchunt' that Durham was rocked by in March/April (today too but the caveats were not exposed at the time by the media).
I would not be too worried about the views of most Duke students.
A current poll in the campus newspaper, the Duke Chronicle, which is heavily read by Duke students, is running about 92% in support of the CBS 60 Minutes show, with only a few % against.
http://www.dukechronicle.com/poll/index.cfm?event=displayPollResults
What is appropriate to worry about, however, is the ability of the Chronicle staff to reflect accurately the sentiment among students on the Duke campus.
IMO, an indication that in excess of 90% of the Duke student body believes that Durham DA Nifong is attempting to railroad a group of Duke students into a false conviction, and that the Duke administration and faculty has done more harm than good in this process, is accurate.
I am still waiting for the segment in which 60 Minutes tears into Brodhead and shows everyone what a terrible guy he is, the segment that John said we could all bet the farm on. Did they postpone that segment until next week?
60 minutes held back several segments which they may air next week. they want to be able to refute any BS that nifong comes up with this week to refute Kim's statements, the boys' innocence, etc. i'm sure there is a mega power meeting going on in Nifong's office and they're twisting and manipulating their stories. We'll get some new police reports etc.
60 Minutes was correct in using the time to show the innocence of the boys because this is by far the most crucial issue.
Hopefully, Brodhead's complete mishandling of this will be brought to light for the whole world to know. He is a weak, spineless person who is blinded by political correction. He basically believed a stripper over 46 duke students. Why? We know why. He's a fool and does not belong in any position of leadership. If 60 Minutes doesn't tackle him next week, he'll be fried in Stuart Taylor's book.
It has continued to amaze me that when the only DNA found inside her came from consensual sex, yet none from any of the accused. Why isn't that a huge issue? How could there be any penetration without DNA left inside her (she denies using a condom)? And let's not look at the faulty identification. I would think to have an airtight case you would have positive identification and DNA confirmation. There are neither in this case. If it was black defendents, the potbangers would have had Nifong's head.
To 7:50 PM poster:
You're damn straight the potbangers would be after Nifong's sorry hide - and rightfully so. That point needs to be emphasized, IMO.
please. this show was defense talking points 101. and the video? please. it was dark. the owner was supposedly quoted but not shown so you only have bradley and cheshire's word that he said she is working. also, she reported to UNC the very next day after the rape to seek further medical attention not two weeks later as bradley's voiceover implied. you only have bradley's word that that was her in the video and cheshire was the one that told him! look closely and compare to the actual photos from the case file of the accuser that were on 60 minutes. the woman in the video was thinner, taller and of a different complexion(lighter) than the woman in the photos. in short it was a fake.
and please, do not start canonizing coleman. he is a duke employee and was appointed to help rehabilitate the team's image in his report. his goal is to help derail this case and get duke off of possible liability if the accuser sues them for knowing about a disciplinary problem and dangerous location and doing little to stop it. he will say anything to defame nifong and his word holds little weight. brodhead looked bad and it was edited to look that way.
the report was laughably one sided and full of errors. bradley said he had seen the entire case files and then says it was more than 2000 pages yet we know nifong handed in an additional 6000 pages at last discovery. note how the walk thru of the crime mysteriously stopped and did not include anything after the woman was helped into the car. the trip to Kroger, Durham access, etc were not discussed nor was it discussed that the lax players lammed out of the house like bats out of hell minutes after kim and the accuser left.
this was just the defense version of the case pure and simple. i predict it will not hurt nifong as it was the same old same old that the defense has been saying from day one. please ask yourself why the defense is so afraid to go to trial? why? they are afraid because a lot more stuff going to come out.
Here's the Herald Sun's 10/16 news article by Ray Gronberg, '60 Minutes' interview draws local reaction .
Sunday's report by "60 Minutes" on the Duke University lacrosse case delivered a wounding blow to District Attorney Mike Nifong's image, but its impact on the course of the prosecution is more doubtful, participants in a Herald-Sun roundtable said afterward...
And here's the HS's 10/17 editorial, Little New in '60 Minutes' report.
Those of us who have followed the Duke lacrosse case watched "60 Minutes" closely on Sunday to see if the venerable TV news magazine would reveal any new information. But there were few revelations in a broadcast that was clearly slanted toward the three indicted players...
"nor was it discussed that the lax players lammed out of the house like bats out of hell minutes after kim and the accuser left"
because Kim shouted that she was calling the cops which she did leading to her famous 911 call
"and the video? please. it was dark. the owner was supposedly quoted but not shown so you only have bradley and cheshire's word that he said she is working. also, she reported to UNC the very next day after the rape to seek further medical attention not two weeks later as bradley's voiceover implied. you only have bradley's word that that was her in the video and cheshire was the one that told him! look closely and compare to the actual photos from the case file of the accuser that were on 60 minutes. the woman in the video was thinner, taller and of a different complexion(lighter) than the woman in the photos. in short it was a fake."
The defense has NEVER had to retract a public statement nor has the defense story changed in 6 months. I'll bet the snippet shown on 60 Minutes is only part of an extensive strip club video collection. If you think the defense doesn't have proof of her activities in the 6 months after the party you're kidding yourself.
Post a Comment