KC at the N&O? Not so far

Melanie Sill, the Raleigh News & Observer’s Editors’ Blog Melanie Sill, the N&O's exec editor for news is angry. (See her comment here at 18:09.)

Sill's mad at readers for asking why the N&O still refuses to publish accusations the woman it called "the victim" made during a March interview about the "second dancer."

Sill can't understand why readers aren't satisfied that the N&O told them in its now discredited March 25 story everything the accuser said about the Duke lacrosse players that could inflame public opinion against them, endanger their lives and play race against race.

She thinks that was enough for readers. She's called what the N&O did "good reporting" and repeatedly told readers she's "proud" of it.

Sill wants the N&O to continue hiding from readers what the accuser said about the second dancer.

Who's the N&O covering up for. Sill refuses to say: "[We will not be] hounded into publishing something (or not publishing something) because someone pressures us." (Here at 18:09)

Sill’s also angry at readers for asking on what date the N&O first learned of the lacrosse captains’ extensive cooperation with the police; and on what date and in what detail did the N&O first report the captains' cooperation to readers.

That pair of questions have been asked for months and have always been greeted with public silence by Sill and other N&O staffers.

They're all easy questions for an honest editor, aren't they?

Well, if Sill is angry and feels "hounded" by readers asking questions they have every right to ask – questions they never should have needed to ask in the first place – wait until she finds out what readers are doing now at this Editors' Blog post.

They’re telling Sill how to run the paper and who she should hire.

On the thread one reader says: “As an antidote to you people in the Drive By Media, Mr. K. C. Johnson of the blog Durham-In-Wonderland … has been invited by the Duke ACLU to speak [at Duke] on 10/26.

You all might send some reporters to interview him and learn what's new in the Duke Hoax Case..."

That reader's comment is followed by another reader who thinks the first reader’s suggestion is “splendid.”

The second reader continues: “Let me also suggest that all N&O reporters, columnists and editors … that work on the Duke Hoax, have KC Johnson’s column as a daily 'must read.' The wealth of information garnered from Professor Johnson’s columns would, I assure you, be educational and eye opening.

At a minimum, reading Professor Johnson’s column would educate your reporters and columnists to the extent they would know when they have been presented with a wealth of 'new information and evidence.'

As a side note, I was astonished and dismayed that Anne Blythe, Ruth Sheehan and Barry Saunders were unable to garner much new information or evidence from the Oct 15 60 Minutes coverage of the Hoax. It simply highlights your reporters/columnists lack of knowledge and education with regard to the intricacies and nuances of the Hoax.

The 60 Minutes piece contained a wealth of new information and evidence for any educated, discerning viewer."

Both readers are right, of course. But Melanie won't like what they say anyway.

Melanie and the other liberal/leftist journalists on the N&O’s News Suppression Team have done everything they can to keep Johnson’s reporting and commentary out of the N&O.

But since I’m an optimist, I’m going to try to change Melanie's mind.

I’m leaving the following comment at EB on the same thread as the comments by the two readers trying to help the N&O.
__________________________________________

Dear Melanie,

KC Johnson an N&O news columnist? What a wonderful idea.

Below is a sample of KC’s reporting. It’s part of a Q&A email interview KC conducted with Duke Law School Professor Edwin Chemerinsky concerning Chemerinsky’s assessment of DA Mike Nifong’s Duke Hoax conduct.

KC published the interview Aug. 23. You can read his article here.

Of course, you know a great deal about Chemerinsky. But for those who’ll read this and don’t, can we agree he’s arguably America’s leading liberal oriented law scholar, a defender of the rights’ of the accused, and regarded as a likely U. S. Supreme nominee if the Democrats recapture The White House in ’08?

Also, I know you’ll tell readers that a month or so before KC published his Chemerinsky interview, the N&O published a 1400 word fawning story on Chemerinsky ( "Duke law prof has pick of high-profile cases").

You told readers his views on many legal issues and cases, including a case he was working on at the time.

But your story, by Anne Blythe (She co-bylined the Mar. 24 and 25 stories framing the Duke players as victimizers, remember?) never said word one about Chemerinsky's assessment of Nifong. It didn't even mention the Duke lacrosse case.

There was plenty of “room” in the story for Blythe and the N&O to gush that “the defender of the rights of the accused” was a Chicago Cubs fan who still fantasized about playing shortstop for them. But nothing about what Chemerinsky thought of Nifong’s conduct.

It took KC to do that.

That’s just one reason why fair-minded, intelligent people think you ought to hire him and run his column daily.

Now to the sample portion of KC's Chemerinsky interview:

Question: I’ve been troubled by commentators (such as Andrew Cohen) or local editorialists (such as Bob Ashley) who have implied that even if Nifong blatantly violated procedures to secure the indictments, the “process” requires the case going to trial and being decided by a jury.

Do you share this view? Are there ways in which the media, or the academy, should be considering the procedural matters this case has raised absent the “facts” that would be determined at trial?

Chemerinsky: Of course, the process does not require that the case go to the jury. The prosecutor should take the case to the jury only if there are facts to warrant it.

As to the process, Susan Estrich had a wonderful essay about two weeks ago about its many flaws.

[Indeed, that Estrich essay notes, “If the discovery is any indication, [Nifong’s] case is sitting on quicksand . . . at the very least, standard procedure should have been to await the results of tests, and then, given the results, the inconsistencies in the woman’s statements, the fact that at least one of the boys seems to have an airtight alibi, investigate further before indicting anyone.” Instead, the USC law professor noted, Nifong demonstrated “a failure to follow standard procedure that is rather mind-boggling.”]

Question: I’m unaware of any case in the past 15-20 years where this extent of procedurally irregular behavior was widely known by the public at this stage of the process. (Obviously, we’ve seen worse prosecutorial misconduct than what Nifong has done, though the evidence usually doesn’t become apparent until post-appellate review.)

Are you aware of comparable cases, either from your time in LA or since you arrived in North Carolina, where a prosecutor first assumed control of a police investigation and then disregarded multiple standard procedures in order to secure indictments?

Chemerinsky: I can’t think of any in such a high profile case.(bold added)

Melanie, you can read the entire interview here.

If you want to bookmark KC, you can do that here.

Melanie, if the N&O hires KC, I promise I'll stop asking for at least 10 days:

On what date did the N&O first learn of the extensive cooperation the Duke lacrosse captains provided police on March 16?

And on what date and in what detail did the N&O first report that cooperation to it’s readers?

And, Melanie, if KC's working for the N&O, you can give him the answers to everyone's questions and he can publish them.


Then you won't feel so "hounded" by readers, right?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com