KC Johnson's 7-24-09 Comments & My Response

On Friday, July 24, 2009 historian and blogger KC Johnson, co-author with Stuart Taylor of Until Proven Innocent (UPI), an account of the Duke lacrosse case, made a lengthy statement on the thread of this post.

KC’s statement follows in full after which I offer my responses below the star line.

KC Johnson said...

As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. (He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting.)

I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. (I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum.)

This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." (Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter.)

While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger.

In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek.

Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly.

July 24, 2009 8:29 AM

********************************************

Folks,

KC’s comments are in italics and parentheses; mine are in plain.

( As I have said on a number of other occasions, I became involved in this issue only when a Durham-based blogger attacked me for not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O. )

I did not attack KC for “not criticizing the Blythe article in the N&O.”

The Stancill- Blythe article was one of a number of specific articles I cited in KC Johnson Now which illustrate the absurdity of this:

UPI claims “The N&O … distinguished itself after its lamentable first few articles in late March[.]” (p. 259, hardcover edition

I added:

That's an absurd statement. It grossly understates what the N&O really did in March.

It presents a characterization of the N&O's subsequent DL coverage which gives readers no hint of what the N&O's DL coverage was really like for weeks, and in some cases many months, after Apr. 1.

Folks, if you haven't already, please read KC Johnson Now. See for yourselves what I actually said.

( To my knowledge, this blogger (who publishes the John-in-Carolina blog) has never done any direct reporting on the incident. )

I can’t recall doing any reporting on what KC calls “the incident” before KC Johnson Now. I only began reporting and commenting on Hopman’s hoax when KC said he found her credible and thought her story could be "correct."

( He has said that he spoke with unnamed "crews" on the question, though I'm not aware of any media organization in which "crews" do reporting. )

News “crews.” News “teams” News “organizations.”

But KC Johnson's "not aware of any media organization in which 'crews' do reporting."

I had to smile. What about you?

( I responded that in the course of researching the book, I had encountered a source who I trusted completely who said nothing happened; but that when I contacted Hopman, she stood by her story, and produced two other witnesses who confirmed her story. I considered my confidential source more credible than Hopman, who I don't know. )

Yet KC also said Hopman “seemed credible” and that the “confidential witnesses” to whom she referred KC “corroborated in no uncertain terms” her story so that KC Johnson thinks it “could have beed correct.”

But he doesn't say that here, does he?

( So, as any readers of either DIW or UPI know, I never mentioned the Charlie's incident in either the book or in my blog posts, since I didn't consider it likely or even probably to have occurred in the way Hopman described. )

Again, I didn’t criticize KC for not mentioning “the Charlie’s incident” in UPI or his DIW blog posts.

I wish he’d stop repeating that falsehood.

( At the same time, since Hopman and two others stood by her story, since my source wasn't in a position to talk to the N&O at the time the article appeared, and since there were dozens of articles that clearly did violate principles of media ethics, it hardly seemed fair to criticize the N&O, either. )

Here KC's offering another variant of his false claim I attacked him for not publishing on the Stancill-Blythe story. He doesn't make the slightest attempt to respond forthrightly to what I actually said.

KC brings to mind Reagan’s gibe to Carter: “There you go again.”

( I have, of course, repeatedly criticized the paper for its pre-Nov. 2006 editorials, and for its "all-false" interview with Crystal Mangum. )

I wish KC had said he's praised the N&O for withholding for 13 months statements Mangum made during the Mar. 24, 2006 interview.

Mangum's statements included her claim the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also sexually assaulted at the party but hadn't reported it for fear of losing her job. Also, that Roberts would do anything for money.

( This approach struck me at the time, and continues to strike me, as the appropriate one on this issue. )

I don’t doubt KC’s convinced what he’s done is “appropriate.”

But thoughtful people, including many close to the DL case, are asking why, against all the evidence to the contrary, KC concluded Hopman’s obvious hoax story “could have been correct?”

We don’t even know how KC determined his "witnesses" he apparently didn't communicate with until more than a year after "the incident" were even in Charlie’s the night of Mar. 25, 2006.

And KC's said nothing about interviewing any of the lacrosse players or their parents.

When is he going to talk about that?

( Yet the Durham-based bloger has gone on and on and on--first suggesting that Hopman couldn't have provided me with sources, then conceding that these sources probably existed but couldn't be credible, then ruminating that my refusal to label Hopman's allegations a "hoax" meant that I probably believed the allegations, and (most recently) referring outright to Hopman's story as a "hoax." )

I’ve already responded to all the rehashing KC’s doing here except the red herring he tosses out about my use of “hoax.”

In reading KC Johnson Now and my comments on its thread, you’ll see I never gave any credence to Hopman’s story. It was and is a false story meant to mislead. That’s what a hoax is.

I plan to continue using the term "hoax" and trying to persuade others that, contrary to what KC and Chris Halkides are saying, Hopman's story is a very obvious hoax.

( Again, to my knowledge, this Durham-based blogger has done no original reporting on the issue, even to the minor extent of contacting Hopman, despite the enormous importance that he apparently attaches to the matter. )

KC’s right about my not contacting Hopman. But then I didn’t contact Crystal Mangum before reporting she was a hoaxer.

On the matter of how much importance any of us should place on KC’s assertion he has witnesses who “corroborated in no uncertain terms” Hopman’s story which he believes “could have been correct” I’ll say much more soon.

And for now here are just two things I'm sure many of you know also:

1) - - - KC’s conclusion expressed on May 24 that Hopman’s story “could have been correct” and his persistence in that belief since tell us something important about his judgment.

2) - - - His “Charlie’s incident” claims have already been clipped and saved by attorneys for defendants accused of trashing the lacrosse players. Who would have thought even a few months ago that those attorneys would come to rely on KC Johnson and to a lesser degree Chris Halkides?

( While UPI has been extensively reviewed, the only published source (to my knowledge) that has criticized the book for not mentioning the Charlie's incident is the many posts of the Durham-based blogger. )

There he goes again.

If KC thinks repeating that falsehood often enough will get people to believe it, he’s right. Some do.

On the other hand, fair-minded people who’ve looked at what I’ve said don’t.

( In the course of writing UPI, the entire manuscript had to be cleared by a libel attorney hired by the publisher. )

Sure. That’s routine for a book such as UPI.

( Even if I had been so inclined to label Hopman's story a "hoax," it's laughable to believe such a claim would have been allowed, with three people saying one thing (including one on the record) and one saying the opposite, and with a much tamer version of what strikes me as essentially an innocent event that conceivably could have been misinterpreted (a version that included a comment from a lacrosse parent) included in Newsweek. )

You don't need me to tell you KC’s flailing here.

What he says brought to mind Raleigh N&O editor Linda Williams claim the N&O had to withhold Mangum's statements out of libel concerns.

Attorneys can say more about what KC says.

( Obviously, some bloggers are more cavalier when using an extraordinarily strong term like "hoax." )

I use “an extraordinarily strong term like ‘hoax’” only when it’s called for as it is for the stories told by Crystal Mangum and Jill Hopman.

( Their credibility should be evaluated accordingly. )

Most of you know people are wise to evaluate all bloggers credibility post by post.

Folks, thank you for reading and your support.

John