N&O Public Editor Scams – Post 1

Readers Note: The Raleigh News & Observer has a public editor, Ted Vaden, whose job is to watch out for readers’ interests. He likes readers to think of his as their “watch dog.”

Vaden writes a Sunday column. His April 15 column was titled, “Assessing The N&O’s lacrosse coverage.”

A more accurate title would have been: “Scamming readers about The N&O’s Hoax coverage.”

Vaden's column contains a few grudging admissions of N&O errors which he minimizes. But most of his column is a mix of air brushing, factual errors, and blame-shifting.

Vaden's column doesn't offer readers what they have a right to expect from a public editor: a thoughtful, no holds barred examination of the N&O's biased, often false and racially inflammatory Hoax coverage. What Vaden gave readers is really a scam.

In this first post in a series, I comment on one section of his column. In subsequent posts, I’ll comment on other column sections or assertions Vaden made.

I hope you read the series. I’ll be interested to know whether you agree his column is a scam.

I’ll send Vaden links, invite his comments and offer to publish them.

If past history is any judge, I won’t get back much, if anything, of substance.

John
_______________________________________________


Vaden’s April 15, 2007 column is here. I’m commenting today on one section with the subhead: “Fairness in editorials.”

On the editorial pages -- operated separately from the news reporting -- the paper raised early questions about the fairness of the prosecution. In two editorials in May, the paper questioned the police lineup procedure and the prosecutor's refusal to meet with and hear evidence from the defendants' attorneys. "For justice to be served, certainly the accuser deserves a vigorous prosecution on the basis of the evidence," one editorial said. "But if the alleged attackers' right to fair treatment is abused, any case against them could, and should, melt away under the courts' scrutiny."

It should be noted also that an early editorial called for canceling the lacrosse season, which Duke President Richard Brodhead subsequently did. (bold added)

That single sentence in bold refers to the N&O’s March 28 editorial, “Lacrosse time-out.” (pay req’d)

Here’s some of what's in that editorial that our “watch dog” didn’t mention in his assessment of his employer’s “Fariness in editorials.”

The editorial called Mangum “a victim” and referred to “the victim's story.”

The N&O said the “woman's reporting to the police that she was attacked was an act of courage.” Then it added: “And no one -- no one -- deserves the violence alleged here. “

The N&O followed that by telling readers research “indicates that sexual assault is far too common on college campuses [and research indicated] between 15 percent and 20 percent of college women say they've been raped, and alcohol often is involved.”

The editorial included a retelling of the false story the N&O had scripted for its March 25 “anonymous interview” story about a night the N&O declared, with no qualification whatever, ended “in sexual violence.”

Before demanding President Brodhead “bench this lacrosse team” the N&O couldn’t resist sliming the students with this cheap shot:

As things stand, all are suspects in a criminal investigation. Surely, Duke students wouldn't want to be represented by those under such a cloud -- on the lacrosse field or anywhere else.

That cheap shot from the editorial page editor Steve Ford who in November was castigating Durham voters who didn’t want Nifong representing them in the district attorney's office or anywhere else.

I’ll say more about Vaden’s “Fairness in editorials” section and other N&O Hoax editorials tomorrow.

Closing thought: Vaden’s one sentence which we’ve just considered is the only thing he said that could be construed as critical of his employer’s editorials.