(This post is by now retired NC journalist Bob Wilson, former editorial pages editor of the Durham Herald Sun. JinC)
In "Brodhead’s Failed" JinC goes straight to the issue with Duke's President Richard Brodhead: moral cowardice. Now, who's really in the catbird seat at Methodist Flats, Brodhead or Duke's own Red Guards, the Group of 88? For Brodhead, who quoted Shakespeare as Mike Nifong trampled the civil rights of his students, we who hold Duke degrees say: “Exit, pursued by a bear.”
Brodhead's failure is by no means the only example of moral cowardice
and corruption in the seediest rape hoax since the Scottsboro Boys
trials in the early 1930s. The Raleigh N&O, the Durham H-S, and, of course, Mike Nifong have all been weighed and found wanting:
-- Steve Ford, editorial pages editor at the N&O, could have moderated the great harms inflicted on the Duke players and their families over the past nine months. Yet, Ford was essentially silent until, like Brodhead, it was safe to come out following Nifong's decision to drop the rape charges.
Now with today's lead edit, the N&O is finally asking serious questions about the validity of Nifong's case, questions that the paper should have asked months ago. Stalin said silence gives consent. Was the nine months of editorial silence the N&O's consent?
-- Bob Ashley's H-S has been complicit in the hoax from the beginning.
Ashley made a fundamental mistake when he came to Durham in January 2005: He sided his newspaper with a powerful interest group, the Durham Committee on the Affairs of Black People. Coupled with Ashley's own stated pro-prosecution views, the H-S became part of the problem. It should have been part of the solution.
Now that Nifong and the hoax are going down in flames, Ashley must find a way to save his hide. Both he and his newspaper have shredded their credibility. Moral cowardice doesn't come cheap.
-- Of the four who failed, Mike Nifong alone wielded state-sanctioned power. He used it recklessly and ruthlessly to upend the lives of the players and their families. Even with the rape charges dropped, Nifong brought up his “reserves” -- charges of kidnapping and sexual assault -- to keep the case alive. This abuse of power is Nifong's lifeline, but as events of the last week revealed, his lifeline is fraying.
If there were an award for moral corruption, Nifong would rate an Oscar. For the moment, however, disbarment and disgrace will do nicely.
--Bob Wilson
Saturday, December 23, 2006
Four who failed
Posted by JWM at 2:46 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
Very nicely done. If you want to read something mind-boggling, go to FODU's most recent. They are saying in essence, that's o.k. dick, you meant well. Incredible!!!!! This clown has to go.
The lack of evidence is so incontrovertible in this hoax that Colin and Reade should be readmitted for the 2nd semester. No reasonable person acould find fault with that course of action. If the Brodhead adminstration wants to "partially redeem itself" it has no choice but to open its doors to these maligned students.
Check out the editors' blog at the N&O — the Durham editor gives her explanation of the misleading interview in late March. Still no apology or correction on the front page for inflaming citizens and enabling Nifong. Will it take a libel suit to get answers from the editors? And was publication of the vigilante poster libel per se?
Anon 11:02 asked about a libel suit against the N&O, particularly publication of the vigilante poster.
Libel suits rarely succeed. Since the 1964 Supreme Court ruling in the Times v. Sullivan case, a person suing a publication for libel must prove the newspaper acted with "actual malice." The N&O was reckless in printing the vigilante poster, but I doubt it did so with malice.
The N&O can mitigate its damage with a front-page apology for its early excesses in the lax story. The paper went well beyond the bounds of responsible journalism -- we know it, the editors know it. In one fashion or another, the N&O must answer for its sins. And it shouldn't take more than a century, as in the paper's recent apology for its role in the 1898 pogrom against blacks in Wilmington.
Thanks, Bob. You're right, of course, on libel suits rarely succeeding. However, doesn't Times v. Sullivan deal with public figures? The 40-something pictures in the vigilante poster weren't of public figures, by the definition of that phrase. Therefore, the malice imperative doesn't apply.
Anon 11:05, Times v. Sullivan set the libel bar for public figures -- you're right. But what constitutes a public figure today later is more problematic than it was in 1964. Were the Duke 46 public figures before the N&O published the vigilante poster? A sharp lawyer might convince a jury that they were as a result of pre-poster publicity. Not being a lawyer, I can't say -- but I do suspect that nicking the N&O on recklessness alone would still be a hard row to hoe.
Great analysis, Bob. These four certainly did fail and I hope they are held accountable for that. I also hope that disbarrment and disgrace are in Nifong's future. A jail cell would be nice too.
I agree with 4:11pm that Collin and Reade should be reinstated at Duke. If Brodhead is really interested in fairness he will do it. As 4:11 says, no reasonable person could find fault with it at this point.
Nifong deserves and should get jail. The N&O and the Herald Sun deserve to go bankrupt with no career opportunity anywhere in the business for any editorial staff or upper management, Brodhead deserves to be fired, fined by the NCAA since they seem to be the only ones that can touch the slimy bastard and the Duke 88 all deserve each other.
Duke alums deserve a better cachet than their alma mater can now provide, but life is tough and perhaps they could just tell people they went to community college and avoid the ridicule.
Post a Comment