The American Journalism Review’s “Justice Delayed” assesses media coverage of the Duke Hoax which the Raleigh News & Observer reported last March was about “ a night of racial slurs, growing fear and, finally, sexual violence.”
About the middle of the AJR’s article we read:
Wendy Murphy [is] an adjunct professor at the New England School of Law and a former assistant district attorney in Middlesex County, Massachusetts.A pundit? Wendy Murphy a pundit?
On April 10, 2006, after defense attorneys announced that DNA results found no links to the athletes, Murphy told [CNN’s Nancy] Grace, "Look, I think the real key here is that these guys, like so many rapists--and I'm going to say it because, at this point, she's entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim."
Emerging questions about the investigation did not prompt Murphy to reassess.
Appearing on "CNN Live Today" on May 3, 2006, she posited, "I'd even go so far as to say I bet one or more of the players was, you know, molested or something as a child."
On June 5, 2006, MSNBC's Tucker Carlson asserted, relying on a Duke committee report, that the lacrosse team was generally well-behaved. Rejoined Murphy: "Hitler never beat his wife either. So what?"
She later added: "I never, ever met a false rape claim, by the way. My own statistics speak to the truth."
Asked to evaluate her commentary [she] notes that she's invited on cable shows to argue for a particular side. "You have to appreciate my role as a pundit is to draw inferences and make arguments on behalf of the side which I'm assigned," she says.(italics added)
My online dictionary says a pundit is “a learned person, expert, or authority.”
That’s not Wendy Murphy! She’s nothing like a pundit and too much like Mike Nifong.
But I found an appropriate word for Murphy.
It’s deceiver: “someone who leads you to believe something that is not true.”
You’d think a law school professor would know a little more about herself, wouldn’t you?
But then, it may be that she does.
I just wish I knew what the Massachusetts Board of Bar Overseers thinks about what one of its credentialed attorneys has been doing out and about on the cable network circuit.
7 comments:
"...draw inferences and MAKE ARGUMENTS ON THE SIDE WHICH I AM ASSIGNED"? What is this law professor assigned to do? And who made the assignment? And whatever happened to the pursuit of TRUTH? When law professors sell themselves to media entertainment ( NOT news, but propoganda) they have voluntarily removed themselves from a profession to a circus. As such, they are entitled to have their opinions heard with the same weight as any other circus performer. But no longer as a law "pundit". Everybody has their price, we're told. Ms Murphy's is pretty cheap.
And who "assigned" her to get mixed up in this case?
Wendy Murphy has a long and evil history in dealing with accusations of rape, child molestation, and the like. She is one of the leading advocates of "recovered memories" therapy, which truly is fraudulent.
My sense is that the devils are stoking the fires of Hell extra hot in waiting for Murphy's arrival.
Murphy is no pundit. She's a blivet. Never heard that one before? It's three pounds of s**t in a one-pound bag. Doesn't that fit Murphy perfectly?
Try googling Fells Acres, Notre Dame or SNAP for more of Murphy's greatest hits. I have to admit that my current favorite Murphy moment came not from her attempting to put innocent people in jail but her reaction to a Nine Foot Snow Penis.
I turn the channel whenever Wendy comes on Fox. For that brief second or two, she is constantly putting out a false smile. What is Fox pushing this maniac.
"What is Fox pushing this maniac."
Fox is an entertainment company specializing in sensationalism and crass.
They didn't start a non-liberally-biased news outlet for reasons of principle. They did it because they saw an unexploited market niche. And however welcome and valuable it may be it is still first and foremost a Fox entertainment product.
Post a Comment