If you visit here often, you know the Raleigh News & Observer recently tanked for Duke professor Tim Tyson, one of the loudest and harshest of its faculty who used Crystal Mangum’s lies to help launch the Duke witch hunt and enable the frame-up attempt led by the now disbarred Mike Nifong.
N&O readers noticed that in its two-page, May 18 gushy profile hailing Tyson for his “gospel” of racial justice and reconciliation, writer J. Peder Zane never mentioned Tyson’s leading role in helping “stoke the mob” and promote Nifong’s transparent abuses.
Readers complained about the N&O’s tanking for Tyson.
As a result, Zane asked Tyson to respond at Zane’s blog to a few questions about his role in the hoax and frame-up attempt which Tyson did.
Zane then posted Tyson's responses on this post thread.
Predictably, Tyson misrepresented, justified and praised his odious conduct, and slimed the Duke lacrosse players.
Just as predictably, commenters quickly provided documentation refuting Tyson’s self-serving and fallacious responses.
Their responses prompted Tyson to further try to justify his shameful conduct with a lengthy thread comment in which he made more false statements, the most serious of which was that prosecutors in the Darryl Hunt capital murder case prosecuted Hunt “with no evidence.”
Once again, Tyson was quickly and irrefutably exposed for shilling false statements.
You can confirm all of what I’ve just said by reading this post and following the post’s links as well as reading Zane's post and its thread.
Now I want to tell you what the N&O did with all of what I’ve just summarized and linked to.
I think even those with a low opinion of the N&O will be surprised at what the N&O did and didn't do to tank for Tyson.
DID - In its Sunday, June 1 edition the N&O used 1/3 of a page to publish Tyson’s response to Zane’s questions under the headline: "Historian stands by his words." With Zane again bylined, all the N&O said about those who were critical of Tyson and provided documentation refuting Tyson's false statements was this:
... Tyson's efforts to promote racial reconciliation through Southern history elicited a few e-mail messages from readers who thought the story should have addressed Tyson's comments on the Duke lacrosse case.DIDN'T DO - The N&O didn't use any space to tell readers anything like this:
Please see the thread of J. Peder Zane’s post >>>>>> on which readers challenge Tyson’s response. You’ll see Tyson then comments, after which a number of readers, including KC Johnson, a widely respected authority on the Duke hoax and frame-up attempt, comment.The N&O didn’t say anything like that, but a newspaper which respected its readers and the truth would've done that and more.
They provide documentation refuting Tyson’s statements, especially those concerning Johnson’s interest in the Hunt case and Tyson’s sensational charge the Hunt prosecutors sought a capital conviction “with no evidence.”
N&O executive editor John Drescher has assigned investigative reporter Joe Neff to examine Tyson’s charge. We’ll report Neff’s findings as soon as they're available.”
Twice now in the past few weeks the N&O has tanked for Tyson.
Why would the N&O would do that when its integrity is so important as it battles ad revenue and circulation declines?