Back on Sept. 10 I posted, “The N&O finally tells about Gottlieb. So why now?”
How could we explain a Raleigh News & Observer Sept. 9 story detailing arrest records of Durham Police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, the principal investigator in the Duke Hoax case?
The records revealed that, compared to other officers, Gottlieb had arrested Duke students in disproportionate numbers. Also, that Gottlieb frequently handcuffed Duke students and jailed them for such minor offences as noise violations.
The records covered the 10 months prior to March 2006 when the N&O “broke” the Duke story.
Since Gottlieb’s arrest records were publicly available in March and thereafter, why did the N&O wait until Sept. 9 to report them?
I suggested the N&O’s Sept. 9 story was the result of its realizing CBS’ 60 Minutes, then planning a Duke Hoax story for Sept. 24, was on to Gottlieb’s treatment of Duke students and would include it in its report. The N&O didn’t want its faithful readers going off to bed on Sept. 24 asking themselves, “Now why didn’t I see anything about that in the N&O?”
The N&O is the principal news organization in Duke’s area. Its grossly biased, inaccurate and inflammatory Duke coverage, particularly its Mar. 25 “young mother gang-raped” story, defined the Duke witch hunt.
So 60 Minutes’ staffers would naturally want to spend a lot of time talking to N&O reporters and editors. And the N&O couldn’t very well give CBS’s 60 staffers the kinds of misdirection and brush-offs it has regularly given readers and bloggers asking about its Duke Hoax.
From 60 staffers questions and requests the N&O has learned a lot about what 60 knows beyond what the N&O and other media have told the public. That puts the N&O in a squeeze
Now, let’s fast forward to today.
The 60 Duke episode didn’t run on Sept. 24. It’s scheduled to run next Sunday, Oct.15.
There are a few people here in Durham who’ve almost always “gotten it right” in the past who say 60 has used the delay to investigate and interview in Durham until just last week. They say 60 is putting together an episode which will “move the story forward in a big way.” They haven’t said anything beyond that.
But I thought about their remarks when I read Thursday the N&O’s disclosures at its Editors Blog that withheld from the public critical parts of the notorious Mar. 25 interview with the anonymous accuser which did so much to turn inflame public sentiment and turn what should have been a fair, thorough police investigation into a witch hunt.
The lead editor on the story, Linda Williams, told readers:
Our March 25 article that included an interview with the woman who accused Duke lacrosse players of rape has been the subject of questions and speculation on blog posts. There is a mistaken assumption that the N&O conducted an extensive interview with the woman and deliberately withheld a substantial portion of the interview.Then Williams went on to acknowledge the N&O had been suppressing for almost 6 months the news that during interview the accuser had described the second dancer and made accusations about her. You can read more here including on the thread readers’ comments which expose holes in Williams’ misleading or worse “explanations".
I bet you’re already saying to yourself the next thing I’m going to say, “The N&O isn’t disclosing this news it's suppressed for almost 6 months to clear up mistaken assumptions. The N&O knows 60 Minutes is on to the content of the interview and may very likely include it in next Sunday’s episode.”
You're right
And again, 60 Minutes has "squeezed" the N&O.
I can’t wait to see the 60 episode. It hasn’t even run, and look at all it’s helping us learn.
Final note: On the comment thread to Williams post a reader, really a citizen journalist, Joan Foster, asked Melenie Sill, the N&O’s executive editor for news, whether the N&O was planning to tell its print readers about the news suppression, or whether those of us who’ve learned about it on the net are supposed to keep the information to ourselves.
Great question! I hope it doesn’t take the N&O 6 months to answer it.
Keep reading those blogs, stay tuned and have a good week.
John
7 comments:
Now this will be interesting - post 60 minutes....
Durham, NC -- Two panels composed of national and local journalists and Duke faculty will examine media coverage of the Duke lacrosse case as well as national security issues following the Sept. 11 attacks.
Both discussions, which are open to the public, will be held on the afternoon of Friday, Oct. 20, in Room 05 of the Terry Sanford Institute of Public Policy on Duke’s West Campus. Parking is available in the parking garage next to the Bryan Center.
Panelists for the discussion, “Why rape allegations against men’s lacrosse players became a national story on race, class and crime” include New York Times reporter and “Our Towns” columnist Peter Applebome (Duke Class of ’71); Herald-Sun editor Bob Ashley (’70); ESPN sports analyst and attorney Jay Bilas (’86, J.D. ’92); Duke law professor and chair of Duke’s lacrosse review committee James E. Coleman Jr.; Chronicle editorial page managing editor and 2005-06 editor-in-chief Seyward Darby; News & Observer managing editor John Drescher (A.M. ’88); former Newsweek senior editor Jerry Footlick, author of “Truth and Consequences: How Colleges and Universities Meet Public Crises”; and Newsweek senior writer Susannah Meadows (’95).
Frank Stasio, host for “The State of Things” on WUNC Radio, will moderate the discussion, which begins at 1:30 p.m.
John, some questions I left at the N&O blog.
DURHAM -- At first, a stripper who performed at a Duke University lacrosse team party doubted the story of a colleague who told police she was dragged into a bathroom and raped. Now, Kim Roberts isn't so sure.
WOULD SHE HAVE CHANGED HER STORY IF YOU HAD PRINTED WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
"I was not in the bathroom when it happened, so I can't say a rape occurred - and I never will," Roberts told The Associated Press on Thursday in her first on-the-record interview. But after watching defense attorneys release photos of the accuser, and upset by the leaking of both dancers' criminal pasts, she said she has to "wonder about their character."
"In all honesty, I think they're guilty," she said. "And I can't say which ones are guilty ... but somebody did something besides underage drinking. That's my honest-to-God impression."
WOULD SHE HAVE CHANGED FROM A "CROCK" IF YOU HAD PRINTED WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
Attorneys for the 46 players have aggressively proclaimed the players' innocence, citing DNA tests during a public campaign that has included describing and releasing photos from the party.
Those photos, the defense maintains, show the accuser was both injured and impaired when she arrived, and also support the claim that one of the two players who has been indicted would not have had enough time to participate in any assault before he left the party. The district attorney has said he also hopes to charge a third suspect in the case.
The attorneys claim Roberts at first told a member of the defense team that she did not believe the accuser's allegations. They say she has changed her story to gain favorable treatment in a criminal case against her. They note she also e-mailed a New York public relations firm, asking in her letter for advice on "how to spin this to my advantage."
"We believe ... her story has been motivated by her own self-interest," said attorney Bill Thomas, who represents one of the uncharged players. "I think that a jury will ultimately have to decide the question of her credibility."
Roberts, 31, was arrested on March 22 - eight days after the party - on a probation violation from a 2001 conviction for embezzling $25,000 from a photofinishing company in Durham where she was a payroll specialist, according to documents obtained by the AP.
On Monday, the same day a grand jury indicted lacrosse players Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty, a judge agreed to a change so that Roberts would no longer have to pay a 15 percent fee to a bonding agent. District Attorney Mike Nifong signed a document saying he would not oppose the change.
"It seems she is receiving very favorable financial treatment for what she is now saying," Thomas said.
COULD SHE HAVE GOTTEN FAVORABLE TREATMENT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
Mark Simeon, Roberts' attorney, said the bond conditions were changed because Roberts is not considered a flight risk. Nifong, who hasn't spoken with reporters about the case in weeks, didn't return a call seeking comment.
Roberts' testimony could be vital during any trial of the two sophomores, indicted on charges of first-degree rape, sexual offense and kidnapping.
Other than lacrosse players and the accuser, a 27-year-old student at a nearby university, Roberts is believed to be the only other person at the March 13 party.
Roberts said Thursday she does not remember Seligmann's face, but said she recalls seeing Finnerty - whom she described as the "little skinny one."
"I was looking him right in the eyes," she said.
Although she would not talk extensively about the party, she confirmed some of what the other dancer told police - including that the women initially left the party after one of the players threatened to sodomize the women with a broomstick.
WOULD SHE HAVE CONFIRMED ANYTHING IF SHE KNEW WHAT TNHE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
The players' attorneys have said their clients were angry and demanded a refund when the women stopped dancing, but Roberts disputed that.
"They ripped themselves off when they started hollering about a broomstick," she said.
The accuser told police that the women were coaxed back into the house with an apology, at which point they were separated. That's when she said she was dragged into a bathroom and raped, beaten and choked for a half hour.
Later, police received a 911 call from a woman complaining that she had been called racial slurs by white men gathered outside the home where the party took place. Roberts acknowledged that she made the call because she was angry.
Roberts drove herself to the party and said she could have left anytime, but she said, "I didn't want to leave her with them."
WOULD SHE HAVE SAID THIS IF SHE KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
Roberts then drove the accuser - whom she had just met that night - to a grocery store and asked a security guard to call 911. The accuser was described later by a police officer as "just passed-out drunk."
Roberts said the woman was sober when they arrived at the house. But by the time the party was over, she said the accuser was too incoherent to tell her where she lived, let alone that she had been raped.
"I didn't do enough," she said, tears welling in her eyes. "I didn't do enough. I didn't do enough."
COULD SHE HAVE PULLED THIS OFF IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCUSER TOLD THE N&O?
The defense timeline is backed up by a cab driver who said Seligmann called for a ride at 12:14 a.m., and was picked up five minutes later. The defense argues that if the dancers were performing around midnight, Seligmann would not have had enough time to participate in the 30-minute assault described by the accuser.
The cabbie, Moez Mostafa, also said he saw a woman leaving the party in anger, and overheard someone say, "She just a stripper. She's going to call the police."
"She looked, like, mad," he said of the woman. "In her face, the way she walked, the way she talked, she looked like mad."
IF THE TRUTH HAD BEEN TOLD WOULD MR. ELMOSTAFA HAD TO ENDURE A TRIAL?
On Thursday, authorities released warrants detailing their search earlier this week of Finnerty's and Seligmann's dorm rooms. Police took a newspaper article and an envelope addressed to Finnerty from his room, and an iPod, various accessories, computer manuals, photos and a CD from Seligmann's room.
Also Thursday, 5W Public Relations, a New York firm that specializes in "crisis communication," distributed an e-mail signed "The 2nd Dancer," and Roberts confirmed she sent it after learning the AP knew her identity.
"I've found myself in the center of one of the biggest stories in the country," she wrote. "I'm worried about letting this opportunity pass me by without making the best of it and was wondering if you had any advice as to how to spin this to my advantage."
COULD SHE "SPIN" IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE ACCCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
Ronn Torossian, 5W's president, said he replied, but got no response.
"If this person is indeed who they say they are, I would be happy to speak with her," said Torossian, whose firm has represented the likes of Sean "Diddy" Combs, Ice Cube and Lil' Kim.
WOULD HE SPEAK TO HER IF HE KNEW WHAT THE ACCUSER SAID ABOUT HER?
Roberts, like the accuser a divorced single mother who is black, took umbrage at the notion that she should not try to make something out of her experience. She's worried that once her name and criminal record are public, no one will want to hire her.
"Why shouldn't I profit from it?" she asked. "I didn't ask to be in this position ... I would like to feed my daughter."
COULD SHE PROFIT IF THE PUBLIC KNEW WHAT THE N&O WON"T TELL US?
Roberts said she knows what it's like to sit in jail, and that she would never wrongly accuse an innocent person.
"If the boys are innocent, sorry fellas," she said. "Sorry you had to go through this."
SORRY FELLAS. SORRY FAMILIES. "YOU"RE A DEAD MAN WALKING, THEY SHOUTED TO READE."
But unlike her and the other dancer, she said, they have money to hire the best attorneys.
"If they're innocent, they will not go to jail," she said. But, she added, "If the truth is on their side, why are they supporting it with so many lies?"
WHAT IS THE TRUTH ABOUT WHAT THE ACCUSER TOLD THE N&O ABOUT KIM?
Roberts is bracing for an all-out attack, but said she's almost past caring.
"Don't forget that they called me a damn n-----," she said. "She (the accuser) was passed out in the car. She doesn't know what she was called. I was called that. I can never forget that."
WHAT DID YOU SAY FIRST KIM? AND WHAT DID THE ACCUSER TELL THE N&O ABOUT YOU?
---
First off:
I post anonymously (although I do note where I am from and where I am now periodically) to prevent pro-Nifong/hoax readers from 'tracking me down'. This isn't paranoia - I did get several nasty emails when I was posting with my blogger login - I had my email on my blog since I do like feedback, etc. I want to note, however, that none of the emails were from Nifong, Nifong's direct supporters, etc. I created another account for comments but just choose not to use it here. Using the login for that account is as anonymous as using 'anonymous' postings.
"Durham, NC -- Two panels composed of national and local journalists and Duke faculty will examine media coverage of the Duke lacrosse case as well as national security issues following the Sept. 11 attacks."
Please attend, if you are able, to counter the inevitable pro-Nifong faculty/community 'activists'/liberals/etc. I imagine there will be newspaper space on this so be vocal and perhaps confrontational about the Duke response, how Duke feels about their students being subject to a different' DPD standard, and if we're really lucky you can engage Duke's 2 woman re-election committee (with good quotes for the paper). Please be sure to speak with the N&O reporters on hand to increase your 'chances' of being quoted in the article. Make sure to note that you are a NC resident and perhaps a Duke alum. Don't get rude/nasty or the N&O will suggest that is what the supporters of the defendents are in general (at the event).
John,
There is, perhaps, one potential 'problem' that may occur after the 60 Minutes story (well, assuming it's really powerful and not a numbing rehash of N&O stories). That is, the N&O may choose to assign a metro reporter to report on the 60 minutes episode. You and I know who those two metro reporters are (primarily one really). The 'story' could be a very brief and bland summary of the 60 Minutes story with the main content of that story being say in one of the later paragraphs, ie, the N&O does its 'own' take first, then goes into the 60 minutes story for two or three paragraphs and then does another rehash of their reporting.
I do believe that the Melanie's blog is really a 'vent' for angry readers and not a place where issues are resolved, ie, corrections go to the paper - and we've noted this with their admission in the blog about their errors and not in the paper.
I would hope Mr Neff is assigned the story and that, assuming the TV story is powerful, he reinforces the inevitable conclusion that this is a hoax.
Perhaps the blogger community could tell the N&O what they 'expect' but perhaps say it kindly in that the story should be given to a senior reporter, say Mr Neff, rather than the (biased) metro department.
John,
Forgot to note something about 60 minutes: they need to start advertising the story. It's a 'great' one to advertise because it is a rich white men vs poor black woman story (we know that the former is inaccurate for many of the playes while the latter is suspect: she worked so much that she had to be doing fairly well).
So it is a 'charged' story. 'Charged' stories boost ratings when advertised several weeks in advance. Advertising also ensures that more Triangle residents tune into the show either from direct exposure to the ads or indirectly through word of mouth, blogs, etc.
Any idea if they plan on advertising this? Any idea IF THE N&O WILL LET READERS KNOW IT WILL BE RUNNING? It should be of interest to at least some of N&O readers...
I will wait until I see the piece before I exclaim its virtue.
I was close to a 60 minutes piece once, as not an interested party but as someone who was hired to clean up the mess. They told nothing but half-truths to appeal to their public and what the producers wanted to believe.
It can go either way. But the decaying bones of people who were hopeful that a 60 minutes piece would be in their favor sit outside Black Rock.
I hope I am wrong. Especially so close to an election.
"Anonymous said...
"I will wait until I see the piece before I exclaim its virtue.
"I was close to a 60 minutes piece once, as not an interested party but as someone who was hired to clean up the mess. They told nothing but half-truths to appeal to their public and what the producers wanted to believe.
"It can go either way. But the decaying bones of people who were hopeful that a 60 minutes piece would be in their favor sit outside Black Rock.
"I hope I am wrong. Especially so close to an election."
"60 Minutes" DOES tell its viewers what the producer wants people to believe. This time that reality is great news for the Duke Three. Mary Mapes is not producing the Duke story for "60"; Michael Rudetsky has not been fooled or intimidated by Mr. Nifong." Duke grad Sean McManus heads CBS News as well as CBS Sports. Telling the whole truth works nicely this time.
It is also great news that the Duke story was postponed from Sept. 24 to Oct. 15, since the Sept. 22 lifting of the gag order by Judge Smith (the gag order was a gift from Judge Titus to Nifong)made for a more powerful presentation.
Michael J. Gaynor
Thanks Michael Gaynor for your insight! Great article you posted today on your website, "Foley scandal implications of Duke case".
Post a Comment