Last Friday’s change of venue motion filed by defense attorneys cited as one reason they were asking a trial be moved out of Durham The Herald Sun’s coverage of the case which the attorneys noted has been grossly biased against the lacrosse players.
As one example of the H-S’s bias, the attorneys noted that the author of a November 19 op-ed critical of the players had on December 1 written a letter to the Herald Sun retracting his column because it had significant errors.
On page 24 of the change of venue motion the attorneys also said that the op-ed writer’s retraction letter had been removed from the H-S’s online site but that his op-ed was still online with no mention to readers that the author had retracted it.
Unbelievable I thought, even for the grossly biased Bob Ashley’s H-S. So I called the paper and asked when the op-ed would be taken down or readers informed the author had retracted it.
“We’ll look at that right now,” someone told me Friday afternoon.
This morning at 8 A.M. the op-ed is still at the H-S's online site.
And yes, you guessed it, there’s no notice to readers the author has retracted the op-ed.
Well, there it is: another example of The Durham Herald Sun’s kind of journalism.
Monday, December 18, 2006
In Ashley's H-S venue
Posted by JWM at 8:02 AM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I have written previously to them on this...nothing.
Obviously they like having that error-filled piece. It makes them feel better. What a bunch of losers! They are beyond redemption or forgiveness, they are evil. Wouldn't it be great if the change-of-venue is granted and they become one of the reasons for that? They will kick themselves forever.
Happy holidays John. Thank you for all you are doing.
The change of venue motion will be granted.
See it from another direction. The change of venue statutes are on the books. If this case doesn't qualify for a change of venue what will? Answer: nothing.
It's an automatic grant just like the Scott Peterson case. The Durham judge will likely keep the case for all purposes until time of trial, and at that time it will be transferred to another county. The judge will make this ruling now, or keep the motion in limbo until time of trial and enter a written ruling then.
Yep, it's still there. I just checked. Isn't that something?
HS is likely increasing their online "hit rate" from the Duke case by taking this patently absurd bias for the prosecution. However, when all is said and done, the HS will pay the price.
Yep, still there. And H-S got yet another editorial supporting Nifong.
It's still there when I click on the link. The link goes right to the op-ed.
Well it is now Friday the 22, and the column is still there.
I am not up on all the nuances of this case, but I am pretty good at anaylsis generally. I really admire the inference drawn in the column from the absence of photographs of the incident. The author's interpretation is that these so-called rowdy drunks were careful enough to censor their photos of anything really bad and that the absence of any photographs of the alleged crime is evidence of its occurence. He seems to have missed the rather obvious alternative explanation: there are no photographs of the alleged crime because it never happened. What does this guy teach? I shall make sure never to hire anyone from Duke if this is the calibre of faculty there.
JeffM
Post a Comment