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.

John
_________________________________________________

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 (http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2009/05/kc-johnson-now.html), 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.

Two Posts’ Comments Closed

I’ve just closed the comment threads of Professor Halkides' Unintential Self-Parody and KC Johnson’s Response To “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

While some of the comments at each post are worthwhile, others are error-filled or off topic or contain gratuitous personal attacks or some combination of the three.

Of necessity, a good deal of what this blog is about is controversial. But that doesn’t mean what people say in comments has to be either false or ad hominems.

Everyone, for example, should be able to agree that in the last comment on the thread of his post, "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center," KC Johnson @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM wrote:

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

Everyone should also be able to agree:

1) - - KC addressed his comment ONLY "To Joan:"

2) - - KC said NOTHING in his comment about closing down the thread.

But while those two points are obvious to most people, there are other people who get upset and lash out if you don't agree with them that KC's comment really told his readers he was closing down the thread.

JinC is not meant for such upset and lashing out people, but there are blogs out there which are.

KC Johnson’s Response To “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:”

In April of this year at his Durham in Wonderland blog, KC Johnson said on the "Suggested Panels for the Stone Center" thread @ 4/26/09 10:06 AM:

To the 9.55, et al:

POLITICO reports, "Prejean has taken full advantage of her newfound stardom, becoming an almost hourly fixture on cable news," where, of course, she is being asked on same-sex marriage.

It's not clear to me whether Ms. California's defenders in the thread are also defending the hypothetical I had offered in the post, in which a university invited her to speak but censored the questions asked of her. I would hope not.

One of those who responded to KC was Bobo1949 @ 4/26/09 12:51 PM:

to 10:06AM

As best I can tell, no one is defending the hypothetical concerning free speech.

More likely, the "defenders" aren't defending Ms. California as much as they are attacking what they view as a cheap shot that you took while setting up that hypothetical. 6:45PM and 8:47PM raise cogent points. Your 4/25/09 12:36PM post seems petulant.

Among the many commenting on the thread critical of KC, Joan Foster was, IMO, one of the most effective in countering what KC's critics saw as the “cheap shot” he’d taken at Carrie Prejean.

The thread moved along until in the next to last comment Joan complained KC wasn’t clearing her comments. She ended her 4/27/09 2:56 PM comment with this:

:ban: :ban: :ban: :ban: :ban:

Nine minutes later KC Johnson responded @ 4/27/09 2:56 PM:

To Joan:

My best wishes to you.

I'm sure there will be hundreds of blogs that will give you their space to more fully develop the hypothetical you presented earlier in this thread: that there's no fundamental difference between a professor committing academic misconduct on a scale greater than anything we witnessed in the Duke case and a beauty pageant contestant not being rewarded for opposing marriage rights for her state's gay and lesbian citizens.

Among those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.

KC Johnson now insists he never banned Joan Foster. Many of his supporters say he was only trying to shut down an already lengthy thread.

But on a thread where many were critical of him, KC addressed his comment ONLY to Joan.

He told her there were many blogs where she could continue to comment, but “[a]mong those hundreds of blogs, however, will not be DIW.”

He posted that just nine minutes after she'd ended her comment with ":ban;ban;ban;ban;ban:"

And he never said he was shutting down the thread.

KC's now insisting he didn't ban Joan. He's posted saying I slimed him when I said he did.

But the first instance I can find where KC posted claiming he had not banned Joan didn't occur until AFTER I called him on it in KC Johnson Now.

If KC didn’t ban Joan, why didn’t he say so in the weeks BEFORE I called him on it?

Did KC Johnson really not know reasonable people would conclude from his “To Joan” comment immediately following her comment ending with “:ban:ban:ban:ban:ban:” that he'd banned her?

Professor Halkides’ Unintentional Self-Parody

Unintentional self -parody is one of my favorite forms of humor.

That’s why, for all its very serious errors and its ad himinems directed at me, when I got to the end of UNC-Wilmington professor Chris Halkides’ "John in Carolina’s post, ‘KC Johnson Now'” post I had to laugh.

In his Concluding Remarks Halkides tells readers:

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

He goes on to say I’ve made it harder:

“for those of us who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

Now look back at the head of his post where you’ll see:

“(Update 7/8/2009: This post has been edited since it was first uploaded. Three paragraphs have been removed.)”

Helkides says I’ve “given a clinic in how not to blog” and preens that I’ve made it “harder” for those like him “who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

But he begins his post with an “Update“ that doesn’t give his readers even a hint of why he removed three paragraphs from his post.

I'll bet many of you are at least smiling now, if not LOL.

Halkides says:

John and Joan Foster claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.

Joan Foster is very capable of speaking for herself, so I’ll respond only for myself.

Halkides seriously distorts and misleads his readers when he tells them I “claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case.”

I admire some of what KC’s done in the DL case and have said so often.

But I've also questioned publicly since late 2007 some of what he’s done and not done in relation to the case. What's more, I'm disgusted by other things he’s done and not done in relation to it.

Here’s some of what I said in KC Johnson Now:

KC Johnson's made extremely important contributions to the struggle for truth and justice in the Duke lacrosse (DL) case. When the lacrosse players who’d just been declared “innocent” by NC’s attorney general on Apr. 11, 2007 singled KC out for praise, he deserved their tribute.

I owe KC my own thanks. During the first year or so of the case he helped me to understand the DL case much better than I would have without his writings and our phone talks. It’s no exaggeration to say that during that time his DL posts were not only informative, but inspirational. I urged JinC readers to visit KC's Durham-in-Wonderland (DIW) blog daily.

The outstanding work KC’s done will always be to his credit.(bold in original)

But it needs to also be said that KC's ignored very significant matters related to the case which by any reasonable standard he should address. What’s more, he’s written things and offered judgments that are at best highly questionable and, in some instances, absurd.

I want to give you examples of what I’m talking about.

I’ve two reasons for doing so.The first is to inform you. The second is to make clear why I read KC now with a good deal of skepticism, often discounting what he says because it’s biased or factually wrong or petty or some combination of the three. . . .

Can anyone explain why Halkides distorted what I actually said into his unqualified statement that I “claim to admire Johnson’s contributions to the DL case?”

He was at best sloppy with the information that was right there for him in KC Johnson Now. (At this time I’m willing to grant that Halkides’ distortion was not deliberate.)

By being at best sloppy with the information he had, Halkides invites laughter given that he scolded me for making things harder for him and others “who want blogging to be held to as high a standard as traditional journalism.”

I’ll comment in the next few days on some of the much more serious problems with professor Halkides' post.

UPDATE @ 7:15 pm on 7/10: Professor Halkides has now added a second update to his post explaining the deletion of the three paragraphs and apologizing for any confusion he may have caused. I commend him for doing that.

Another Inconvenient Truth

This one’s from the National Oceanic and Atmospheric Administration:

… DUE TO THE UNUSUALLY COOL AND WET CONDITIONS IN JUNE...

HERE ARE SOME INTERESTING FACTS TO NOTE:

THIS JUNE IS TIED FOR [NEW YORK CITY'S] 8TH COOLEST ON RECORD.

THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS 67.5...

3.7 DEGREES BELOW NORMAL...

WHICH ALSO OCCURRED IN 1897.

THIS WAS THE COOLEST JUNE SINCE 1958...

WHEN THE AVERAGE TEMPERATURE WAS 67.2 DEGREES. …

The rest of the story’s here.

I bet it makes Al Gore hot and leaves most of you smiling.

H/t: Drudge Report

Examiner.com’s Lombard Story Provides Research Data

Examiner.com National has just posted a story which is sure to upset many gays and lesbians.

The story concerns Duke University health administrator Frank Lombard.

While much of the story simply restates already published allegations that Lombard sexually abused and drugged a child, now 5, whom he and his partner adopted shortly after the child’s birth, the story also reports research findings of the respected California School of Professional Psychology. The findings are not included in any other news story Ive read concerning Lombard and the charges against him:

In a study by the California School of Professional Psychology, the research with 942 adult participants revealed that gay men and lesbian women reported a significantly higher rate of childhood molestation than did heterosexual men and women.

Forty-six percent of the homosexual men in contrast to 7% of the heterosexual men reported homosexual molestation.

Twenty-two percent of lesbian women in contrast to 1% of heterosexual women reported homosexual molestation.

This research is apparently the first survey that has reported substantial homosexual molestation of girls.

The Examiner’s publication of those research findings will surely anger many gays and lesbians who are no doubt pleased with the minimizing and “sweep it under the rug” treatments most MSM has so far given the Lombard story.

The Examiner’s report is here. Be sure to read the background tag of its author, Jim Kouri.

Sill, N&O Owe Retraction & Apologies To Players, Families, Readers

In Mar. 2006 the N&O first “broke” the Duke lacrosse case with a guilt-presuming front page story in which, without once ever using the standard qualifier “alleged,” the N&O seven times referred to the accuser as either “the victim” or with the possessive “victim's”

Melanie Sill was N&O executive editor then. She remained executive editor through all the months three innocent young men remained under indictment until Apr. 11, 2007 when the NC AG declared them innocent and called Mike Nifong a “rogue” prosecutor.

In Oct. 2007 the McClatchy Company, which owns the N&O, moved Sill to the executive editor’s chair at what has been traditionally viewed as McClatchy’s flagship paper, The Sacramento Bee.

Just as she did at the N&O, Sill publishes in Sacbee’s print and online editions a Sunday column. They usually read like infomercials, all with the same working title.

The title: “At Sacbee all things would be bright and beautiful but for revenue and circulation declines and those pesky readers who tell lies about us. But we’re made of stern stuff and you can’t do without us.”

This week Melanie looks back at Sacbee editions from the 1930s Great Depression and other tough times to find inspiration and assure readers Sacbee will always be there for them. ( Many Sacramentans fear she may be right. - JinC.)

I just left the following comment on Sill’s column thread:

jwmakm wrote on 07/05/2009 07:19:30 AM:

Dear Melanie,

Concerning a 1933 Sacbee front page you say: "the paper reported on President Franklin D. Roosevelt in London working to stabilize currency[.]

FDR wasn't in London in 1933; he was never in Great Britain whilst President.

His last visit there was in 1918 in connection with his duties as Asst. Sec. of the Navy in the Wilson cabinet.

It was at a London banquet on that trip the he first met Winston Churchill.

While on the topic of accuracy in newspapers - - -

As executive editor of the N&O you refused to identify the "police documents" you say you relied on for the deliberately fraudulent 3/25/06 Duke lacrosse frame the N&O told readers was about a night which ended in "sexual violence."

Why do you refuse to identify those documents?

Since the Mar. 25 story is now so discredited, will you support its retraction and an apology to the players, their families and N&O readers?

Both are long overdue.

John in Carolina