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:
I agree, R. Smith, with your observation of the Michael Vick (ie. Dawg Killa) case. But yet I see another catalyst for the media trumpeting & broadcasting this case:
When it first came-out that Vick was being investigated, some folks were very knee-jerk in DEFENDING the guy—yes before “the facts” came out. He’s being persecuted because he’s African-American, it’s all a trumped-up plot vs. black athletes, blah blah blah, the usual excuses for violent crime…
...so naturally the ‘other side’ (the Feds) is going to broadcast what they do find-out as facts, to loudly prove the complainers wrong. Does this make sense to anyone but me???
...I guess what I’m trying to say here is that if Surry County C.A. Gerald Poindexter had done his job from the gitgo, this might not have ever involved the Feds and the case would not have become as indiscreet as it has become. And BTW: I think a Fed investigation of Poindexter himself would be appropriate—if there already isn’t one.
Clinton was a celebrity but was never tried and convicted by the media. His trysts with Monica, lying to a grand jury and to Americans were even documented by the politically correct media. However no judgements about his character or even a suggestion that he should resign from office were ever made. After all it was only about sex. He was even a white male. Maybe the lack of media criticism was that the narrative was not right but he is a liberal DEM?
Yet, those whitebread Dukies were ripe for the pick’ens.
As for Vick...we’ll see. He could honestly have not known what was going on, although he likely did.
There’s a reason celebrities are treated differently than the man on the street....because they’re celebrities and, not the man on the street.
You can bet your barticles that if I was caught running a doggy death camp in my back yard the feds would’nt have to take over the investigation from the locals because they were “dragging their feet”.
Good grief Ed, he used the mans own words to back up what he implies...."the narrative was right but, the facts were wrong”????? Newsweeks “narrative” started muslim riots (yawn) and almost sent 3 innocent men to jail for the rest of their lives.
And Nifong didn’t fool anybody that didn’t WANT to be fooled.
Larry, this is my favorite topic because it encapsulates so perfectly the toxic wasteland that is much of media, adademia and pop culture. These same people bring us the “truth”, from Katrina to Iraq to Globalcoolingwarmingclimatechange. And, can you believe...some people are skeptical!
I wonder what the narrative is for those topics? Don’t bother....it’s a rethorical question.
Ed says, “The thing I hate about the Michael Vick case, and so many others like it, is that he is being tried for being a celebrity. How many men on the street would get national attention for dog fights ?”
Ed—how many men conduct dog fights?
Speaking of bias, slant, and jump to ideological conclusion, the characterization of liberal Newsweek and NYT as obviously imbalanced but conservative WSJ as staunchly sensible and on target is almost repugnant, well, biased.
That Journalism Review link did not quote much wrongdoing from Newsweek. More handwringing and concern than wrongdoing.
We had Nifong to lead us down the garden path. Had it not been for Nifong, then maybe yes. What can you do when the prosecutor feeds you lies ? Not much.
Also, there seems to be an unwritten (don’t know if that is my own bias) code of political correctness in journalism. It isn’t politically correct to suggest that maybe the stripper was a lowdown no account street ho because Al Sharpton will come after you if you say that out loud.
She did come across that way, but we aren’t supposed to talk about that. Instead, they played up the fact she is a mother. As if anyone and everyone can’t be a mother these days. (not supposed to talk about that openly either) Lots of things we aren’t allowed to talk about openly and honestly because someone might get offended. Race, class, you name it. We are supposed to politely ignore it.
I will give you conservative media boys credit for correctly observing the liberal Duke professors were too quick to jump on the bandwagon.
The thing I hate about the Michael Vick case, and so many others like it, is that he is being tried for being a celebrity. How many men on the street would get national attention for dog fights ? Few or none. I’m not saying he was unfairly singled out. No, no sympathy at all. I’m saying he was fairly singled out, but why do we have to pay so much special attention to celebrities. That ain’t fair at all. Not fair to them. Not fair to us either.
R. Smith—LOOK!—your favorite topic! 
Ps. No offense sir.
Post Your Comments:
Commenting is not available in this weblog entry.