Folks,
I enjoyed this takedown of Nifong, Brodhead and some of the 88.
Give it a look. It may a few seconds to load.
Saturday, August 04, 2007
Good Hoax Video
Posted by JWM at 5:22 PM
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
I'm a history buff who's skeptical of much that mainstream media tells us. I'm rooting hard for America and civilization.
Folks,
I enjoyed this takedown of Nifong, Brodhead and some of the 88.
Give it a look. It may a few seconds to load.
Posted by JWM at 5:22 PM
13 comments:
Very good video.
One thing is quite troubling. Over on Durham in Wonderland, it appears that points of view contrary to those which are supported by Professor Johnson are not permitted to be posted. Of course, no one reading the board can know that which is NOT posted. Inoffensive language, carefully worded posts that questioned the value of reporting the remarks of Jesse Jackson have been banned, as have any inquiry as to why such a prohibition has occurred. There has long been a group think mentality on that board, some would call it “supportive”; however, the regular posters on that board generally react quite harshly to critical replies. It is, however, quite surprising and most disappointing, to find the blog’s author and administrator have adopted a similarly closed minded approach, only permitting those postings which adhere to the party line.
re: Jack's comment.
I don't know anything about the deletion of comments over on DIW, but it is ironic to complain about posts being deleted while advocating suppressing Jesse Jackson's remarks. I have noticed that many people think that ad hominem arguments pass as critical thinking. For instance, calling people a herd does not address an issue or make a substantive point. If you have a particular criticism I think you should make it. I, for one, would be very interested in hearing any kind of argument that rigorously defended Nifong, the g88 or CGM. However, making an argument does not mean you have made a good argument.
For example, I would be like to hear why you think Jesse Jackson's remarks should not have been reported.( I assume you made the post that was deleted for who but the author would know his post was deleted?) I would be especially interested to hear an analysis that argued that in light of the fact that Nifong hid exculpatory evidence, Brodhead refused to talk to the lax players' parents after the indictments, and the G88 will not apologize for their actions, justice would have been better served by not reporting something a prominent public figure said about the incident. Consider also that the N&O did not reveal that much of their sourcing was the now disgraced, former DA and that they did not tell everything they knew about CGM's original testimony. I am skeptical that even a carefully worded post could score a couple of points in light of the above facts. However, I am open to the fact that suppressing Jesse's remarks may have served the public better than reporting them did.
This is not my blog but John strikes me as a fair-minded guy. However, if he decides not to post your comments, we can discuss this out of the public eye if you email me your remarks.
Brant Jones
yobrant@yahoo.com
There are a lot of good videos about the Hoax at youtube. Some are fun, some sad, some informative, some will make you angry while some will make you stand up and cheer.
Sorry, Jack but you're just wrong. I've seen plenty of dissenting opinions at DiW. As of the first 16 comments on the Jackson post, no deletions are shown. Recently, however, there has been a delay in comments being posted. I think, Professor Johnson may preview them before they appear and he has been busy.
Professor Johnson allows all kinds of comments, Jack, contrary to your erroneous assertion. He did need to delete many vile comments by a poster who called himself/herself "Polanski." Those comments should have been deleted.
My comments regarding Jesse Jackson had more to do with providing him a platform; the mere referencing of Jesse Jackson lends a credence and legitimacy he does not deserve. The major media has enjoyed his entertainment value for years, all the while knowing he contributes nothing of substance, except that sound bites get attention, regardless of content. Had they ignored him in the aftermath of MLK’s death, he might’ve gone on to do something productive and constructive with his life.
My underlying notion is that KC Johnson is taking advantage of his readers’ piranha like approach to almost anything he posts. Just toss something in the water, and there is a faithful cadre who will dutifully seize upon it and chomp for a few hours. Later, they collectively light up a smoke and bask in the comfort of knowing they are among this fun little group who answer KC’s every call to arms. When I posted my thoughts to that effect, well, I was banned. And the funny part is that the thread is not getting much currency – only 20 or so posts for the evening. When the faithful is really revved up, there may be a hundred or more. Maybe its vacation time, but I think it’s more that the topic is a bit stale.
Don’t get me wrong – I have followed this case for months, and have posted my thoughts, indignations and outrage with the best of them. Occasionally, I step away, and try to see the issue from an outsider’s perspective. Or I consider that this whole blogosphere of the Duke Lacrosse Hoax may represent such an insignificantly small portion of people, most of whom can not fathom that the rest world is oblivious to the scandal. That’s when the acolytes really come down on the interlopers.
Dear Jack,
I don't agree with most of what you say.
I'll post a more detailed response tomorrow.
We've company now and after they leave I need to help wash the dinner plates and glasses.
The short of what I'll say is that while I have some differences with KC, I have enormous respect for him.
Allowing that no one's perfect, he's "top of the line" in my book.
John
Jack,
Interesting point about not giving Jackson a forum but I disagree with it. IMO, Jackson, the G88 and other members of the "something happened" crowd (e,g, John Feinstein)squander whatever legitimacy they have whenever they open their mouths. Their current strategy to regain relevance is to maintain silence and try to appear "above the fray". The more their words and actions are examined in the blogosphere,the more these phonies are exposed for what they are.
Brant Jones
Does "Jack" regularly read the D-i-W site? Professor Johnson allows anything except racist and vile postings or postings completely off the subject. He is an extremely fair moderator and put up with the "Polanski" poster longer than most would have. D-i-W also usually has far more than 20 responses per post. Why are these ridiculous and inaccurate charges being leveled against one of the bright lights of the lacrosse flame?
Yes, I read DiW, and post, or I had posted on occasion. Perhaps mine is an isolated case. I am merely reporting what has in fact occurred. I made several attempts to post my remarks, the tone of which were quite civil, the content as I previously described. As it pertains to this incident, my comments are neither ridiculous nor inaccurate.
Sweetmick says: Jack, I've been quite critical of DIW's attempts to rehabilitate Ruth Sheehan. None of my postings have been deleted. As to regular posters reacting harshly to critical replies, you have a point.Recently , I made the "mistake' of criticizing the logic employed by a regular DIW poster, JLS, and what I deemed were his faulty conclusions. His response can be characterized as having a "hissy fit". It's actually an entertaining and amusing sideshow to see how each of us responds to criticism from other posters.
Folks,
I'd planned to say a few more things in response to Jack.
But you all have taken care of just about everything I wanted to say.
I've said it before but it bears repeating: the people who comment at JinC are with very few exceptions informed, civil, intelligent, serious-minded without being stuffy,and communicate well. They're often witty, too.
I'm very lucky to have such people reading and commenting here.
Thanks to all such folks.
As for the few others of a different cast, I think they're also very lucky.
Yes, they're at the wrong blog but there are millions of blogs out there.
With just a little intelligence and searching they'll find the blog that's right for them.
I wish them well. With so much choice, no one should find themselves at a blog where they're unhappy or feel unfairly deleted unless they really want that happening to them.
Best,
John
Since DIW was mentioned, allow me a brief comment.
My general approach to the blog--which has featured over 80,000 comments--had been to allow anyone to post, anonymously, in a belief that the marketplace of ideas would take care of problems.
Unfortunately, on several occasions, two or three commenters made vile or racist comments and/or hijacked threads. So for the past four or five months, I have been using comment moderation (which takes a good deal of time) periodically. Unfortunately, as one of the earlier commenters in this thread observed, moderation means comments don't appear as soon as they're made. I regret that, and wish I didn't have to moderate.
I recently decided to institute moderation on a permanent basis until the end of the blog, for two reasons:
1.) A commenter impersonated the subject of a post in a comment thread, and then e-mailed the subject urging her to "have fun" with his fraud. The commenter was banned, and I have rejected his subsequent attempts to comment.
2.) Two or three commenters, including the since-banned commenter, had developed a troubling habit of making racist comments on posts that were several days old--at a time when no one else was reading the posts. Those comments were--coincidentally, of course--seized upon by a few critics of the blog as reflective of the blog's general comments.
My current comment moderation policy is:
1.) The commenter who impersonated a post subject was banned.
2.) Any racist or otherwise vile comments are not cleared.
3.) Any slanderous remarks are not cleared.
4.) Any comments unrelated to the post are not cleared.
As to the suggestion that I am screening comments excessively or with editorial content in mind, I'd invite readers to take a look at this thread, which features, among other things, several sympathizers with the Group of 88 harshly attacking my professional and personal integrity. That thread, by the way, featured 250 comments.
Since I initiated this topic of banned posts, I wish to set the record straight. I have always attempted to offer constructive commentary, sometimes sarcastic, sometimes contrary, but NEVER off color, racist, slanderous or derogatory. The posts I referred to yesterday were on topic, and, if the approved posts are any indication, entirely appropriate. The posts I offered were not deleted; they were simply not posted by professor Johnson, which is entirely his right. If he is implying that I am the poster who created the deceptive e-mail from an UNC professor last week, I resent that. If he is implying that I am a poster who denigrates others, or who attempts to hijack threads, I resent that as well. He has a record of any post I have made, none of which had been banned, until yesterday. What he has failed to make clear is that none of my posts, all of which he had an opportunity to review, met his stated criteria for objectionable material.
Post a Comment