To The Chronicle: Letter 5

Readers’ Note: On Oct. 27, Duke’s student newspaper, The Chronicle, published an editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.” The editorial and its comment thread are here.

The Chronicle editorial leveled extremely serious charges at bloggers.

I’ve responded to The Chronicle with a series of electronic letters which I’m posting at JinC. Each letter is headed "To The Chronicle" and enumerated. Here are links to letters one, two, three and four.

Letter five follows.

John
_________________________

Editorial Board
The Chronicle
Duke University

Dear Editorial Board Members:

This is the last of five letters responding to your Oct. 27 editorial, “Bloggers get point, miss complexity.” (Here are letters one, two, three and four.)

At JinC and blogs where I regularly read about Duke Hoax issues, bloggers are careful not to misrepresent people, including Duke faculty and President Brodhead. We typically link to documents we reference.

So, for example, concerning then Duke Professor Houston Baker’s March 29 letter in which he said there’s “scarcely any shame more egregious than one that wraps itself in the pious sentimentalism of liberal rhetoric,” I’ve told readers Baker meant by “pious sentimentalism of liberal rhetoric” what most of us mean when we use terms such as “due process,” “presumption of innocence,” and “constitutional rights.”

I think that’s a very straightforward interpretation of what Baker said. But I’ve made sure to link to his letter so readers can judge for themselves.

Recently Professor Thomas J. Crowley published an op-ed in the Durham Herald Sun. He told readers he was “surprised” so many people without “legal knowledge” nevertheless were asking that the lacrosse case be dismissed. He said he knew of “items about the case that would lead one to hesitate before throwing out the case.”

Crowley’s “items” included the following questions :

Why was the woman sober when she arrived and staggering to the point of passing out a mere 30 minutes later? Was she possibly drugged by someone when they encouraged her to have a drink? If so, what were the motives?

Whatever our individual thoughts may be about the case, I'm sure we agree that Crowley’s questions dealt with extremely important matters that needed follow up.

Blogger KC Johnson did just that. He promptly emailed Crowley and informed him regarding toxicology testing done at Duke Hospital the night of the alleged crimes.

KC subsequently reported :

Crowley responded: [original all caps]

I DID NOT KNOW ABOUT THE TOXICOLOGY REPORT.

Yet again, it seems to me extraordinary that a professor would publicly suggest that a student or students at his own institution could have used a date-rape drug without checking as to whether the state had performed a toxicology test; and, if so, what results that test produced. (Results were negative. JinC)

Growing numbers of readers want and expect KC's kind of factual reporting and informed commentary. Serious bloggers, like serious journalists, strive to provide it. Other bloggers, like other journalists, don’t seem to even try.

I hope we now agree that some of the best Duke Hoax reporting and commentary have come from MSM and blog sources as have some of the worst.

I look forward to hearing from you.

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com