An American Journalism Review post-mortem on coverage of the Duke rape case brought by disgraced prosecutor Michael Nifong contains some telling — and damning — quotes.
First up: Former New York Times ombudsman Daniel Okrent: “It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That’s a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us.”
And then there’s this gem:
“We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players,” says Newsweek’s Evan Thomas. “It’s complicated because there is a strong stereotype [that] lacrosse players can be loutish, and there’s evidence to back that up. There’s even some evidence that that the Duke lacrosse players were loutish, and we were too quick to connect those dots.”
But he adds: “It was about race. Nifong’s motivations clearly were rooted in his need to win black votes. There were tensions between town and gown, that part was true. The narrative was properly about race, sex and class… We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place… We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong. That says worlds about Newsweek’s ideological slant—and its willingness to ignore “truthiness” in service of ideology. Remember the magazine’s inaccurate report about Koran-flushing, for which the magazine later had to apologize?
As The Wall Street Journal‘s James Taranto points out, Thomas’ defense sounds a lot like the infamous “Fake But Accurate” defense of memos used in the “60 Minutes” hit piece on George Bush’s service in the National Guard.
All of which offers a useful reminder that, no matter what impression might be left by initial charges, sometimes the truth turns out to be rather different. So as much as I (and no doubt you) abhor animal abuse, maybe it would be a good idea to withhold judgment about Michael Vick until there’s an actual conviction—if there is one.
Reader Comments:
R. Smith,
I agree it is the editorial page. I even agree the comments were not totally out of line. I just happen to believe the tenor of the comments was about the same as the Newsweek interpretation, not superior, and only “carefully measured” in a bad way. Rape is not the same thing as being “irresponsible”.
What does the typical black man have to do with it ? Only everything. Face it. None of us are interested in routine university party violations. We are interested in juicy stories that hit all the faultlines of race, class, gender, culture and creed.
Larry, you can only put the woman under the jail if you can prove she lied. Hard to prove she lied; hard to prove she told any truth.
There are many issues not discussed because they offend someone, because they are not politically correct. One is the preposterous notion that a streetwalker has just as much credibility as an aspiring hard working student. Another is the preposterous notion that the testosterone displayed on the playing field is absent beyond the locker room. Or that alcohol can not incite dangerous behavior from the very best of us. The preposterous notion that money can not buy the best lawyers. The preposterous notion that loutish behavior from the very rich would not trouble a disadvantaged woman who sees the huge gap between the options open to one group of people and the lack of options to another group of people.
These issues are crucial but we never discuss them openly and honestly because they only serve to rile people up and get us one and all antagonistic.
What would a mature and restrained media response really be ? Not sensationalizing the issue. Of course that would not sell papers, and I don’t want to see that day arrive just yet. I’m happy that all the editorials were written. The only thing worse than blatant bias is complete indifference. Keep us riled up by all means.
Hey Larry! The Duke players, all male, thought up a terrific event. It may have not made prudes, NOW and mom happy, but it is something that is hilarious, a good time to drink keg beer and be entertained. There is absolutely nothing wrong with the it.
Unfortunately the type of people they hired saw an opportunity to make money off the rich kids, along with a prosecutor playing the race card to get re-elected. Those are the perps, period.
R. Smith, I was mentioning an RT-D editorial which made pointed reference to their smirky looks. I was criticizing that editorial, actually, because it seemed so un-RT-D-like. I was not speaking from my standpoint.
My beef with those guys was that they exhibited horrible behavior and lousy judgment from the word go—yet everyone paints them as innocent poor victims who were ambushed. In my own stand-alone way, I am wishing to ‘set the record straight’ that they played a major role in what happened. That’s all. I’ve seen some bad things happen to truly innocent victims in my time...but those guys ain’t it.
And BTW: Everyone’s harping on Nifong’s unethical conduct. What about the rape accuser? Why is that lying witch not buried under a jail, right now?
Ed,
It’s an editorial. Slant tends to show up in those. Thats why it’s called the op-ed page...for opinion-editorial.
A “good ol’ boy interpretation”? How does being cautious and opining only on what facts were actually known qualify as a “good ol’ boy interpretation”. The players threw a stipper party, got drunk and behaved irreponsibly...this was a known quantity. Their guilt as rapists was not. Carefully measured statements and reserved judgement are nowhere close to “boy’s will be boy’s”.
And what does “the typical black man” have to do with it? What does the “typical black man” think now that the whole thing was a frame up? Should the truth be shaded to appeal to the prejudices of “the typical black man”.
Larry, smirking and having more than someone else is not a crime. You may resent (envy) these guys because they are wealthier than you but, that doesn’t justify what was done to them. Otherwise, someone with less than Larry would be justified in rooting for and gloating at Larrys persecution.
Patrick, weren’t you the one who gave me that ‘Its Your Responsibilty to Be a Informed, Smart Shopper’ sermon on the other post? Didn’t you imply that I voluntarily paid for what I received, and so what I got is what I deserved?
Look at what the Duke players shopped and paid for!
Of course they should not be convicted of a crime they didn’t commit. But c’mon, wouldn’t you agree that their judgment was so stupid that it warranted a good ‘life’s lesson’? This is all I’m saying. I sincerely hope they did learn a lesson from it.
Hey Larry, an incredible post! Are you so prejudice against the Duke players that you pervert the situation to attack the players? What a stupid piece of reasoning. There is no polite way to say it. Surely you are smarter than what you expressed in your post.
Bob Powell says,
“If I remember correctly, the Times Disgrace got into the act of condemning the Duke defendants.”
Bob you do remember correctly—I recall that particular editorial very clearly. That editorial was highly unusual by RT-D standards. Among other things it attacked the Duke players’ ‘smirky looks’, or something very similar. I found that one editorial to be strange because RT-D editorial writers usually do not attack people’s looks—much less imply that people deserve bad things because of their looks.
I fault the Duke players because of their racism which preceded the rape allegation. Has anybody else wondered—besides me—why upper-middle class white kids (from NY; NJ of all places) would hire a ‘down-home’ black stripper...instead of a more exotic one that their money could have easily afforded? Wake up people!
The reason is simple: They felt the black domestic woman could be cheapened easier; would make an ideal target for the racial slurs (which they did freely hurl). That, my friends, is BULLYING. It looks to me that those stupid-arses did not get the last laugh.
This is why I’ve been so heavy on blaming those guys.
“drunken jocks who put themselves in a vulnerable position with their irresponsible behavior.”
No slant there. Nope.
And tell me please how that good ‘ol boy interpretation might sound to a black man as opposed to a good ‘ol Duke boy. I’m not saying the T-D interpretation was incorrect. I’m saying “maturity” ? Is the typical black man going to feel the same degree of sympathy for a drunken jock that a Yalie frat brother insider would ? Would a black man doing time for armed robbery be inclined to call it “irresponsibility” ? Once again, not saying the T-D took the wrong interpretation. I’m saying some of us live in a different reality, and the irresponsibility comes in not acknowledging the multiplicity of viewpoints, or being sanctimonious when uncalled for. Priggish and piggish.
Larry, R. Smith is correct that celebrities do not get treated like the rest of us, in both good and bad ways. Just the way it is. Can’t say I like the R. Smith notion though of lumping pop culture, acacdemia, and the media into one big “toxic wasteland”.
If anything, the biggest Superfund site of them all is the conservative media, and we all know how the conservatives feel about funding the EPA. Quite apt they use the word “toxic”.
Apologize for the bashing. Not enough time or room to debate it as an issue, or am I being overly sanctimonious here.
I only remember 1 editorial in which the players were chastised for being drunken jocks who put themselves in a vulnerable position with their irresponsible behavior. Seems to me the paper showed great restraint and maturity by not grabbing the rope and torch like so many others.
Especially the hyper leftist faculty at Duke.
If I remember correctly, the Times Disgrace got into the act of condemning the Duke defendants. It was citing the liberalism of the university as the main culprit. Now Bart, as second in command of the editorial page should be penning an apology to the defendants. But being an ideologue means you never have to say you are sorry.
Not to pick on the T-D exclusively. The new Black Panther Party which led demos for the complaintant has never gone back on its stand vis a vis Duke.
The lesson that should be learned is that one is assumed innocent until proven guilty.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.