Saturday, July 11, 2009

Professor Halkides Explains Why He Posted

Readers Note: For background to this post, read UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides' "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" and my first response to that: Professor Halkides’ Unintentional Self-Parody.


I spent hours yesterday and today responding to people, including some directly involved in the Duke lacrosse case, who've asked why UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides posted
"John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now."

I listened sympathetically. I agreed what Halkides posted was, at best, irresponsible.

But I told everyone who asked I didn’t know why Halkides posted what he did.

Now, however, Halkides himself has answered that question.

On his "John in Carolina's post, 'KC Johnson Now'" thread Halkides says at 7/9/09 @ 11:12 PM:

… I posted something because I wanted to discuss JinC’s post without rancor but with the hope that he would retract some of the things he said.
Ah, yes! Halkides "without rancor." He begins his post:
In his post “KC Johnson Now” on 24 May 2009 (, John in Carolina (JinC) attacked fellow Duke Lacrosse (DL) blogger KC Johnson.

I will examine two points that JinC raised, that KC Johnson banned Joan Foster and that Professor Johnson was untruthful about his sources that confirmed a Raleigh News and Observer (N&O) story from 1 April 2006.

I will treat the second, more serious matter first. (Note: I never said Johnson was untruthful. I did express considerable skepticism about what Johnson said. The distinction between skepticism and untruthful was either lost on Halkides or he chose to ignore it. - - JinC)
Now look at what Halkides says in his Concluding Remarks:

In his post “KC Johnson Now” John has given a clinic in how not to blog.

He failed to edit obvious errors (attributing “It’s Not About the Truth” to Chuck Yeager, not Don Yaeger*).

He published a rumor as if it were fact. He failed to check with Professor Johnson about either the non-banning or the story about the bar.

He apparently did not ask Joan Foster directly about her supposed banning, either.

He questioned KC Johnson’s truthfulness twice but disclosed no evidence to support his innuendo.

Moreover, by accusing KC Johnson of making up sources,

John has cast a shadow over on any work that Professor Johnson has done that involves confidentiality, this despite the fact that both John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.

When called on some of these matters, he either ignored them or brushed them aside.

In doing these things he has made it a little bit harder for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.

(Folks, I did say “Chuck” when I should have said “Don.” I’ve corrected at the post and thanked Halkides for pointing out my error.

But everything else he says in this portion of his concluding remarks quoted here is at least wrong to a significant degree and, in some cases, outright false.

I’ll post on all of that in the coming days. - - JinC)

Folks, I'm confident most of you will know what I'm doing when I give the last words in this post to professor Halkides once again explaining the "purpose" of his post:
… I posted something because I wanted to discuss JinC’s post without rancor but with the hope that he would retract some of the things he said.


Anonymous said...

In attempt to help Chris change the subject over at Carolina Beach, I responded to his question about the Charlie's article in the N&O. I even tried the "without rancor" part and got no response. I am actually interested in revisiting this subject that I haven't seen comments on in quite some time.

Here is the post:
I'll comment on the Charlie's incident (or non-incident). The article in the N&O was a report on what happened to her (Jill Hopman) after her column appeared in the Duke Chronicle (she also wrote a letter to the Herald Sun). The attempts made to verify her story (being 'banned' from Charlie's because of her article) were documented by the N&O (one call-manager not around). I think the responsibility here should have been with the Chronicle to verify the original column. I don't recall her original column being published in the N&O but I could be mistaken about that.

Jill Hopman may have had some connections to a feminist organization at Duke that were not explored (that I can recall)either. I understand that John has not been pleased with the N&O reporting of this case. However, what I remember about their reporting of this incident has them not as the 'source' of the accusation.

The Chronicle is the news source that should have either provided an update or correction. I don't think that was ever done.


Anonymous said...

Continuing my previous post regarding Charlie's. I tried to remember what first caught my interest about this. It seemed 'fishy' to me at the time. I believe it was this comment:

KC Johnson said: "The "Duke lacrosse" chant story, which allegedly occurred on the 25th or 26th, is vehemently disputed. The person who made the claim, Jill Hopman, stood by her story to me and seemed credible; an equally credible (non-lacrosse player) source who was in the bar that night strongly denied it. I wasn't there, so I've never either used the story or challenged Hopman.

But even assuming Hopman's story to be true, this wasn't a "team" event. There were only three Duke lacrosse players (all 21 or over) at the bar that night."

At the time I was thinking KC said she "seemed credible". That just doesn't sound like the typical KC to me, especially when he said there were 3 members of the Lacrosse team at Charlies and she said there were 20. The KC I know and love (sarcasm) would have said: Is this the same Jill Hopman that helped found the Feminist Majority Leadership Alliance at Duke?

Is this the same Jill Hopman that was one of only 2 contact persons for the Feminist Majority March listed here:

In her article Jill Hopman mentioned reporters and photographers at the bar as well and I do remember a Chronicle photographer mentioned in an article related to Jill Hopman and this Feminist organization. I have been unable to locate that but will continue looking.

In any case I have seen so much in this case written and said from the standpoint of an agenda that it makes me sick. Most of you know I support feminist issues, but something about this Charlie's Lacrosse Chant story does not ring true to me. I don't know if this is even the same Jill Hopman but it would seem to make sense that it is.


JWM said...

To Red,

I'm glad it's you posting and not Red Mountain or Rougemont because I've banned them both as trolls.

More on the troll matter another time when we can discuss whether I made a mistake about RM and R-mont. I don’t think so but who knows. I’ve been wrong before.

Right now, you're “adding to the story” and helping expose the Charlie’s shot-slamming fraud.

I don't know whether feminism was a factor motivating Jill Hopman to write her false story.

She could be Phyllis Schlafly for all I care.

What's most important and what needs to be said again and again now that Johnson and Halkides are pushing Hopman's fraud is that it is indeed a FRAUD!

All of KC's and Halides' talk about “corroborating witnesses” can't make Hopman's FRAUD story anything other than a FRAUD.

And all of the Debrahs', and all of the Moo!Gregorys' and One Spooks' with their vitriol and threats can't make KC's and Halkides' "corroborating witnesses" believable.



Anonymous said...

JWM said...

To Red,

I'm glad it's you posting and not Red Mountain or Rougemont because I've banned them both as trolls.

I am past the point of being upset about my banning. Still it was nice posting here again. I have enjoyed many of our discussions in the past. I meant what I said to you when you were planning on closing your blog. Best wishes even if you continue.

(still) BannedInRougemont