Late Friday afternoon attorney and columnist Michael Gaynor reported in a comment here that Judge W. Osmond Smith III, now presiding in the Duke lacrosse case, had just modified a gag order placed on attorneys and potential witnesses. Gaynor wrote:
Judge Osmond Smith modified Judge Kenneth Titus's gag order, ungagging potential witnesses (including the Duke Three) to speak to the media about the Duke case.Since no media were reporting a gag order modification, JinC readers reasonably asked for confirmation.
Cause for celebration for the Duke case defense, "60 Minutes," the people of Durham County, North Carolina and free speech supporters. Calamity for Mr. Nifong and his dwindling supporters. …
I contacted Gaynor. He got back quickly and said he was standing by his statement which was based on information he’d gotten from two sources he respected.
This morning the AP’s, NY Times’ and other news organizations’ accounts of yesterday’s court hearing make no mention of a gag order modification.
But in both my hard copy of today's Raleigh News & Observer and it’s online report we read at the end of its report on Friday's court hearing:
The judge also ordered the lawyers to abide by the rules of professional conduct that govern lawyers in North Carolina. The order replaces one issued by a previous judge that applied the rules -- and specifically the ones regarding statements to the news media -- to witnesses in the case.Congratulations, Michael Gaynor.
Judge Smith said he would make no judgments on the previous statements by lawyers in the case, but now that he was assigned, the lawyers should remember that cases are tried in court.
And a hat tip to the N&O for getting the news out there.
I know some of you will say: “Hat tip? It’s their job.” That’s true but so much of media is doing so lousy a job reporting the case, why not a “hat tip” when the N&O does something right, especially when all the other news organization accounts I found failed to mention the modification?
The modification has some very important implications as Gaynor points out.
On another matter –
If you’re still struggling to convince yourself that you can put at least a little confidence in anything Mike Nifong says, read no further.
For the rest of you, if you'll go to the N&O’s online account of the hearing, you’ll see a sidebar below a picture of Collin Finnerty’s father. Scroll down a few items and you come to one titled:
HOW MANY?Nice catch, N&O.
When one of the defense lawyers said that Nifong gave 50 to 70 interviews about the case, Nifong said he wanted to set the record straight. He checked his schedule and it showed that he actually gave more like 15 to 20 interviews. He said he had many conversations with reporters, some just to say that he would not comment on the case.
But the number 50 came from Nifong himself.
In a March 31 interview with a News & Observer reporter, Nifong was asked "How many interviews do you think you've given?"
"In excess of 50," Nifong said.
21 comments:
When it comes to who to trust--my sources or the AP and The New York Times, it's no contest.
The truth about the gag order is that the local NAACP called for it and Judge Titus (up for reelection in November)issued it on his own initiative (that is, without the benefit of motion papers).
The defense wisely moved to modify four days later, submitting papers so compelling as to make reasonable observers wonder what possessed Judge Titus.
BUT, the media merely reported that day that Judge Titus had restrained publicity and defense lawyers Joseph Cheshire reported said that the gag order was NOT a gag order. (I hope he was misquoted.)
I later learned of the gag order from the Friends of Duke University spokesperson, NOT because there was a public relations campaign to protest, but in an email aimed at dissuading me from ever chiding potential witnesses (especially the Duke Three) from not making any public statements about the case. (I don't believe in a one-size-fits-all, keep-them-quiet defense strategy for innocent defendants, especially ones being railroaded.)
I was delighted with the motion to modify and disappointed with the absence of a public protest.
So I reported the gagging.
If the accuser had been white, the defendants had been black and a local judge had issued such a gag order after a politically motivated prosecutor had done what Mr. Nifong had done, the mainstream media would have shierked in protest (and rightly so).
Liberals would have demanded the United States Justice Department intervene (and rightly so).
Protecting the rights of the Duke Three and their friends and families seem to have been less important than maintaining the illusion that justice was being served in the Duke case instead of blatantly denied, the persecution was merely a prosecution, and if the wheels of justice moved slowly, there were prior cases on the court calendar and the defense was overlitigating and responsible for some of the delay.
The lessons of the Duke case are many, including:
(1) mainstream media should not have jumped to an erroneous conclusion that fit its agenda; (2) so-called educators at a leading university should not have lost their moral bearings;
(3) the President of Duke University shouldd not made the great mistake of presuming guilt, suspending the then sophomore defendants and keeping them suspended even as the case collapses;
(4) the local media and establishment gave fa too much credence to the hometown accuser (an ex convict stripper with a problematic history) and the prosecutor (a desperate and opportunistic politician) and too little respect to the three young Yankees from wealthy families without any history of sexual abuse (much less kidnapping and rape) and...(5) the defense gave paramount importance to preserving and seeking trial advantage, as though they were defending guilty persons, and not enough importance to the good people of Durham, who are the Durham solution (but NOT the Durham solution that DA Nifong has in mind).
"60 Minutes" long planned a Duke case expose as its season opener, but wisely delayed after Judge Smith scheduled a court conference on September 22, two days earlier.
When finally finished and broadcast, it should be well worth taping.
Still: The defense is passing on an opportunity to exposes the Nifongs (husband and wife)as misrepresentesrs of the survey questions approved by the defense for a survey designed to ascertain how badly Mr. Nifong's public statements had poisoned the Durham County jury pool.
Defense lawyer Joseph Cheshire said in court that Mrs. Nifong's versions of questions did not match the script. But, the script was submitted to Judge Smith for in camera examination to determine whether it was proper, not made public.
I don't doubt the questions were proper (even though atr least one erroneously mentioned rape instead of alleged or claimed rape).
But I also don't doubt that Durhamites would much appreciate seeing the evidence that shows that Mrs. Nifong's story does not match the script LONG BEFORE ELECTION DAY.
Preparing for a trial (and perhaps retrial) new year is one strategy, but it keeps the nightmare going.
Letting Durhamites know that Mr. Nifong is unfit and then moving to dismiss because the evidence shows that the indictments were improvidently granted and there is not credible evidence of guilt, much less proof beyond a reasonable doubt, is a better one. (Not necessarily as remunerative, but better.)
Michael J. Gaynor
John, how is it that no one has been able to find and publish a picture of Crystal? And not just the old NBC ones. A real picture. Surely someone has shots of her!
A 30-minute alleged rape magically morphs into a 5-minute alleged rape; 50+ media interviews by Nifong magically morph into just 15 media interviews....Wow. I wonder what new magical mysteries we can expect to see next in this case.
Let's try and remember that a small group of folks at FODU are working diligently. I am sure they have other responsibilities, including families and careers that this takes time away from. Let's give them a break and not give them grief.
If you believe in the innocence of Reade, Collin and Dave, then let's direct the negativism toward Nifong and Company (where it is rightfully deserved). Otherwise it becomes a distraction to the cause that so many of us believe in. We have much more to offer united on this issue.
GC: Yes, I could not agree more.
Frankly, I am getting a little tired of this Gaynor theme. How many times do we have to read for goodness sake that Gaynor wants the Duke 3 to talk and the FODU moderator told him he disagrees? So what? People disagree with one another every day; it is normal to disagree. I disagree with my wife a hundred times a day. I do not write a commentary about it. I don't see anything written by Gaynor lately where he does not bring up the issue up or he does not attack FODU? Doesn't he have anything else to write about?
DukeParent10
Excerpt from Gayor’s September 23 article:
----------------
But an anonymous poster [on FODU site where most of Gaynor’s recent article are based on] is not sure, because he fears "a Durham jury" might "ignore it all": " I hope you are right. This assumes a Durham jury will actually pay attention to what the alibis will say. What if they ignore it all?"
If defense supporters insult potential jurors, they should blame themselves if Durham jurors do decide to ignore the evidence and send a message.
-------------------
Can someone tell Gaynor that picking out an obscure comment made by an anonymous commentator on a website does not give him any basis, not by a long shot, to make such outlandish generalizations as to suggest “the defense supporters are insulting the potential jurors!” How does this guy come up with such crap and who actually reads this nonsense? We have been criticizing the DC judge for bringing up a comment taken from Salon.com during Collin’s trial. Just like that was the wrong thing to do, and there is no dispute about that, it is totally inappropriate for Gaynor to be making these heroic accusations about the defense supporters. Whose side is he on anyway?
Can somebody tell him to shut up until he has something to say that is not based on an anonymous post? If he does not have anything else to contribute (except those anonymous comments that has he been following so closely and ever so carefully) perhaps he should remain silent. We read those sites too, every day. And the last thing we need is for someone to give us a review of them, based on a few cherry-picked comments. I read all of the comments in FODU; every single day. I do not see a stance there suggesting that “defense supporters are insulting the jurors.”
Mike why don’t you open up your column for comments? I would love to provide some feedback to you, as I am sure many others would.
A defense supporter
I agree with the comment above completely. However, I want to ask two additional questions to Mike Gaynor. I do this as an “eye witness” to a recent incident. Here are my questions Mike:
About 7-10 days, I was on the FODU site. That was the day the big “Cash Michaels discussion” took place. I witnessed it first hand. This is how it started. I saw a new comment posted; a nasty one. It was not written in the familiar language of the posters there, it was over the top. I waited for 2 minutes and when the comment persisted, I sent an email to the moderator informing him. Two minutes later, the comment was removed. In total, the comment was there for 4 minutes. The next day, you gave extensive coverage to that comment in your column and you even mentioned the fact that it was removed from the site.
My first question is how ethical is it, in your opinion, to publish a comment from a site after it has been removed, especially if you are going to use the comment in attacking/insulting the moderator of that site? What is a moderator to do? Once you remove an offensive comment what else is there to do? Can you go and find the author of the offending comment and shoot him? No, of course not! So, on which basis are you attributing these removed comments to either the moderator or spokesperson of FODU? If you have to attack anybody (and I don’t see why you should) why not attack the authors of those comments? Could it be that you are perfectly aware attacking anonymous commentators on a blog is a futile activity and by redirecting your attacks to others (who had nothing to do with those comments) you are trying to improve your credibility? Well, this tactic is not working with me Mike, and I don’t think it works with anyone. A sensible person does not attack other individuals (or a whole site) on the basis of an anonymous comment. So, your activity is still futile.
My second question still relates to the comments that have been removed from the FODU site. If we do a tally of your quotations from that site, in your columns, there are more quotes of removed posts than those persisting. How is it that you have access to these removed comments? Do you back up all posts made there everyday? Every 15 minutes, what frequency? If you don't backup that site, how is it that you have access to even removed comments? How do you explain your obsession for backing up comments on other people's sites before they are removed? How is it that you are able to backup these comments even when they are on the site for 4 minutes or less? What trick do you use, I am curious. Or, is there no backing up going on; you are simply posting them in your columns directly from the original copies as written and saved on your C drive? Which one is it Mike? Either way, it stinks.
An eye witness
To Anons at 12;21 and 2:27,
Tough, fair questions and careful reasoning.
Thank you.
John
I have come to believe that many, many people would benefit from a brief history lesson, especially since the Duke Lacrosse Rape Case began almost to the day on the 75th anniversary of another important criminal case, perhaps the most significant in all of American jurisprudence with respect to civil rights and the rights of the accused. I’m referring to the ‘Scottsboro Boys’ Rape Case in Alabama, which began on 25 March 1931. The parallels between the Duke and Scottsboro cases are striking almost to the point of exactness, yet the lessons of so many years ago have seemingly been forgotten — that is, if they had ever been learned at all.
ORIGINS
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case begins in an ugly, racially charged brawl on a freight train between a large number of black youths and a smaller number of white men. The white men lost, and were tossed from the train.
DURHAM, 2006: Following a house party, the case begins in an ugly, racially charged argument over money in a residential neighborhood between a large number of white youths and two black women hired to perform as strippers at the party. The black women lost the argument and left the property.
INTERVENTION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: In the aftermath of the brawl, a dragnet at the local railroad yard results in the detention of a number of people, including many of the black youths from the brawl and two lower class white women.
DURHAM, 2006: In the aftermath of the argument, police take into custody one lower class black woman. She, along with a second lower class black woman, had been among the principals in the earlier argument.
ACCUSATION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: Facing possible charges, one of the white women claims she had been gang raped by 12 negro youths, some of the youths who had participated in the earlier brawl.
DURHAM, 2006: Facing possible charges, the black woman taken into custody claims she had been gang raped by 3 white youths, some of the youths who had attended the party.
CORROBORATION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The other white woman changes her initial story. She eventually claims that both she and the original accuser were gang raped.
DURHAM, 2006: The other black woman changes her initial story. She eventually claims that she believes that the accuser was gang raped.
EXAMINATION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two white accusers were examined by a doctor, who declared that both women exhibited genital symptoms “consistent” with forcible rape.
DURHAM, 2006: The black accuser was examined by medical personnel. Law enforcement officials afterwards declare that the examination revealed that the woman exhibited genital symptoms consistent with forcible rape.
IDENTIFICATION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two white accusers were allowed to “identify” their attackers exclusively from among the black youths apprehended at the railroad yard.
DURHAM, 2006: The black accuser was allowed to “identify” her attackers exclusively from among photographs of white youths who had attended the party.
ALIBIS
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: One of the accused youths was charged despite having provably been elsewhere on the train at the time of the alleged rape.
DURHAM, 2006: One of the accused youths was charged despite having been provably elsewhere at the time of the alleged rape.
FORENSICS
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The accused were charged despite the finding that semen taken from the two accusers was found to be non-motile. This would be consistent with a finding that the semen was deposited long before the alleged rape supposedly occurred. Also, charges were brought despite the fact that the accusers were found to lack evidence of non-genital injuries consistent with their allegations. NO physical evidence therefore existed to substantiate any allegation of rape.
DURHAM, 2006: The accused were charged despite the finding that possible semen and other samples taken from the accuser yielded DNA that differed from that of the accused and from everyone else thought to have possibly attended the party. Also, charges were brought despite the fact that photographic evidence from the night in question demonstrates that various bruises and non-genital injuries sustained by the accuser were evident BEFORE the alleged rape occurred. NO physical evidence therefore existed to substantiate any allegation of rape.
PREJUDICE
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case was prosecuted in a community where whites held all political power, and where blacks were deeply resented. The prevailing attitude is best summed up in the trial judge’s instruction to the jury: He told jury members they should very strongly presume that "NO white woman would voluntarily consent to sexual relations with a negro."
DURHAM, 2006: The case is being prosecuted in a community where blacks hold the balance of political power, and where whites, especially well-to-do whites, are deeply resented. The prevailing attitude is best summed up in an opinion widely echoed by various observers: It has been opined that since the accused (or their friends) had allegedly asked specifically for BLACK strippers to attend their party, the clear presumption should be that the accused acted with premeditation in planning an eventual rape.
AMBITION
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The case was prosecuted by a politically ambitious District Attorney who shamelessly played to racial prejudices prevalent in his community.
DURHAM, 2006: The case is being prosecuted by a politically ambitious District Attorney who shamelessly plays to racial and social prejudices prevalent in his community.
ABANDONMENT
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The NAACP, the supposed premier advocacy group for the black community in the U.S., initially declined to grant legal or financial assistance to the accused, or to lobby on their behalf, or on behalf of fair trial procedures in their case. The organization feared a possible public relations backlash in the event the accused were convicted or proven guilty of the crime.
DURHAM, 2006: Both Duke University, where the accused attended school, and the mainstream media were apparently quick to accept the accuser’s story, and to vilify the accused. For its part, the University precipitously fired the lacrosse coach, cancelled the entire season, suspended a number of white team members from school, and took other prejudicial actions injurious to the accused and their team mates. The American Civil Liberties Union, the supposed premier civil rights advocacy group in the U.S., has so far remained silent on the case.
CREDIBILITY
SCOTTSBORO, 1931: The two accusers were eventually found to be common prostitutes and women of generally low morals.
DURHAM, 2006: Both the accuser and the other woman, by virtue of their employment as personal "escorts," would appear to be common prostitutes, and are women of generally low morals, having each been convicted of serious crimes. Moreover, the accuser had made an apparently false accusation of gang rape against THREE males 10 years earlier.
CONCLUSION
The Scottsboro defendants were all quickly convicted and sentenced to death. This happened more than once, in fact, since their convictions were three times overturned on appeal by the U.S. Supreme Court. Though none was ever executed, the last defendant wasn’t released from prison until 1950. The case was recognized as a watershed event even at the time, so I’m positively amazed that it has been forgotten in our OWN time, when we so casually pride ourselves on how far we’ve come as a society in upholding justice, civil rights, and the rule of law. The last of the Scottsboro defendants, Clarence Norris, died in 1989 at age 76.
The Scottsboro Case wasn’t a cause celebre because the defendants were such fine, upstanding citizens — they were far from it. It was a cause celebre because judicial practices as applied in their case were patently UNFAIR, and offered them no legitimate opportunity for a legal defense. This is exactly what we see today in the Duke Rape Case. In fact, the cases so closely, so exactly touch upon the same issues that anyone who can appreciate the injustice of the one, MUST acknowledge the injustice of the other. If the Scottsboro Case was a travesty of justice, then the Duke case is a travesty of justice. I’ll go further: If the Duke case embodies a legitimate application of due process, then the Scottsboro Case did equally so, the defendants were justly convicted, and by right should have been put to death. Now I ask, who DARES to argue this last point? Any prosecutor who is unaware of Scottsboro or who cannot see the parallels to the current day, does not deserve to try a case anywhere in the United States of America.
-- SteveDinMD
Steve, thanks for a very good post. Vey well done!
Mike why don’t you open up your column for comments? I would love to provide some feedback to you, as I am sure many others would.
A defense supporter
12:21 PM
@@@I receive many comments, even though I don't have my own website. The websites which regularly post my articles decide what contact info to provide. Each of my submissions to them includes my name, home address, telephone, fax and email address. MichNews.com provides an email link. RenewAmerica.us does not (although I have said I have no objection), but sometimes forwards comments. PostChronicle.com and webcommentary.com also forward feedback. My email address is gaynormike@aol.com.
Anonymous said...
I agree with the comment above completely. However, I want to ask two additional questions to Mike Gaynor. I do this as an “eye witness” to a recent incident.
Here are my questions Mike:
@@@An anonymous eyewitness.
About 7-10 days, I was on the FODU site. That was the day the big “Cash Michaels discussion” took place. I witnessed it first hand. This is how it started. I saw a new comment posted; a nasty one. It was not written in the familiar language of the posters there, it was over the top. I waited for 2 minutes and when the comment persisted, I sent an email to the moderator informing him. Two minutes later, the comment was removed. In total, the comment was there for 4 minutes. The next day, you gave extensive coverage to that comment in your column and you even mentioned the fact that it was removed from the site.
@@@I was checking the site when it was posted. I deemed it worthy of reporting. I do not know how long it was up. I do know that the site lists and delists articles and removes comments in its discretion. Sometimes I approve of removal; sometimes I don't.
My first question is how ethical is it, in your opinion, to publish a comment from a site after it has been removed, especially if you are going to use the comment in attacking/insulting the moderator of that site?
@@@First, I reject your characterization of my article and refer you to my article.
Second, I thank you for noting that I noted that the comment had been removed. Fair is fair. The fact that it was posted is what I accurately reported; I also accurately reported that it was removed, you admit.
Third, the comment hardly was the only objectionable comment (in my judgment) that I know was removed. Recently a comment referring to Durham as a freak show also was removed.
Fourth, I have defended Cash Michaels against what I deem unfair criticism and I am pleased that he went to the FODU website himself after I sent him some questions for him that had been posted there and left a lengthy response well worth reading.
What is a moderator to do? Once you remove an offensive comment what else is there to do? Can you go and find the author of the offending comment and shoot him? No, of course not! So, on which basis are you attributing these removed comments to either the moderator or spokesperson of FODU?
@@@Read more slowly. Then perhaps you will not misrepresent me.
If you have to attack anybody (and I don’t see why you should) why not attack the authors of those comments?
@@@You missed my doing so?
Could it be that you are perfectly aware attacking anonymous commentators on a blog is a futile activity
@@@Is that why you are anonymous?
and by redirecting your attacks to others (who had nothing to do with those comments) you are trying to improve your credibility?
@@@I have criticized the FODU spokesperson and moderator for what they have done, but hardly for removing what I deemed an objectionable comment.
Well, this tactic is not working with me Mike, and I don’t think it works with anyone.
@@@Your tactic is to misrepresent me. Hopefully, it will be ineffective.
A sensible person does not attack other individuals (or a whole site) on the basis of an anonymous comment. So, your activity is still futile.
My second question still relates to the comments that have been removed from the FODU site. If we do a tally of your quotations from that site, in your columns, there are more quotes of removed posts than those persisting.
@@@I don't know whether that is true or false, but I don't have the time or interest to find out.
How is it that you have access to these removed comments?
@@@I don't reveal sources, but I will say that after I noted how comments appeared and disappeared on the site, I opted to copy any that interested in me before the great censor struck.
Do you back up all posts made there everyday? Every 15 minutes, what frequency? If you don't backup that site, how is it that you have access to even removed comments?
@@@There are some who agree with me and some who don't. Don't you find it the same? If you suspect that I would back up all posts made there every 15 minutes, you should try to relax.
How do you explain your obsession for backing up comments on other people's sites before they are removed?
@@@It's like the gang rape. A figment of someone's imagination. Specifically, yours.
How is it that you are able to backup these comments even when they are on the site for 4 minutes or less? What trick do you use, I am curious. Or, is there no backing up going on; you are simply posting them in your columns directly from the original copies as written and saved on your C drive? Which one is it Mike? Either way, it stinks.
@@@If you think I post objectionable comments at FODU
and then write about them after they are removed, you are deluded.
Also, I have not done ANY "backing up." I have copied some posts that interested me, because they interested me. You may prefer revisionist history; I don't.
Michael J. Gaynor
An eye witness
@@@So anonymous you claims.
I am totally baffled by the implied accusation Gaynor makes against the Duke defense in his latest column:
Duke case defense, respect Durhamites
Here is an excerpt from his column (I made a couple of syntax corrections for legibility):
Mr. Nifong’s biggest problem is not the accuser's claim of a 30-minute gang rape, but an expose by "60 Minutes" that he cannot escape.
Pray that defense mistakes do not help Ms. Mangum. (There will never be a conviction, but treating the people of Durham as part of the problem instead of the solution helps instead of hurts Mr. Nifong.)
Mike, this is pretty interesting advice you are offering to the defense. What makes you think they intend to treat Durhamites with anything other than respect? Do you have any evidence suggesting that Duke defense treated Durhamites without respect either in the past or at present? If yes, why don’t you spell out your evidence to make your point? If no, why do you feel compelled to urge them to not do something that have not done thus far? What is your objective here; what are you trying to accomplish? Are you trying to take a controversial and messy case and make it even messier and more controversial?
I have not seen any source even remotely suggesting the defense lawyers are not respecting Durhamites! How did you come up with such an off the wall accusation and such a suggestive title for your column? More importantly, what is your goal? Let’s assume you succeed in convincing Durhamites that Duke defense is not showing them respect (a completely false premise), how is that going to help the case? Do you think about the statements you make in your columns, or do you just blurb them out? To be honest Mike, it sounds awfully like you are marching to a different drum than we are. Your recent columns are full of bizarre and unsubstantiated accusations. I think it is time you started making some sense in those columns or you will lose us all.
A friendly advice
Mr. Gaynor, I suggest that you take it easy. There is a process of jury selection. I imagine people who know a lot about the case are not going to be allowed on the jury. Thus, people who read FODU are highly unlikely to be allowed on the jury. Regardless of this, I sincerely doubt that somebody reading an anonymous post on a message board is going to be upset to such a degree he/she would want to convict innocent men to send a message.
Everyone relax and calm down. This is beginning to remind me of the scene in Thunderball where James Bond gets away in part because he gets the bad guys shooting at themselves. Finally the head bad guy realizes this and says "You idiots, he's got you shooting at each other."
You can strike the word "idiot" from that because no one around here is an idiot. Everyone commenting on this is obviously intelligent. And we are the good guys, no question. But we are shooting at each other in a manner of speaking and we shouldn't be. We're all on the same side. Just stop, take a deep breath and think about what's really important - Collin, Reade, Dave, all the players on the team and their families. That's why we're all here. Let's fight for them and not fight each other.
Mike Gaynor, in your comment above you write:
"@@@I have criticized the FODU spokesperson and moderator for what they have done, but hardly for removing what I deemed an objectionable comment."
1. I went back and read your columns over again, for about two months. That’s when your assaults began on the FODU site. I cannot find anywhere in those columns "what they have done." The only issue you keep bringing up, and you do it repeatedly, is they did not link to your Lucci column? Is that what this is all about Mike? Don’t you think all webmasters have the right to decide what to link and what not to link to? I personally think they do, at the very least. This is quite childish behavior Mike. I suggest you correct this little problem and you do it now, before you lose too much credibility.
2. If you are not criticizing them for comments deemed objectionable and removed, as you indicate above, why do you keep reproducing precisely those comments in your columns? And, who gives you the right to reproduce comments, especially removed ones, in your columns without the consent of the owner of a site? If a webmaster removes a comment, that’s hardly an invitation for others to reproduce it in their columns. Are you doing this just because you can? Well, I hate to tell you but you have company in that department. Another Mike is also doing something “just because he can”. Shame on both of you!
More friendly advice
Here we go again! An excerpt from Gaynor's column today (September 25):
"Second, the anonymous commenter wrongly suggested that my article was based on an anonymous post at the Friends of Duke University website; it was a couple of lines. My article was based on the September 22 court conference and focused on the defense survey of a tiny sample of potential jurors and the defense decision to assert privilege and submit the survey script to the court for in camera inspection instead of make it public."
Gaynor, if that is the case why did you include the anonymous quote from the FODU site? What purpose was it serving? And, I can give many more examples of the same in your new article today. If you are now saying those anonymous comments do not have anything to do with the premise of your article; that’s even worst. So what are they for? Do you use them for decoration?
Mike, stop quoting anonymous posts in your columns and stop attacking people you do not know. Trust me; you will save yourself and us a great deal of time, energy and frustration.
Nobody else is doing what you are doing. Go read KC, Anderson, LieStoppers, and many others. Their columns are not filled with anonymous posts picked up from here and there. Follow their example, stock to the issue – the real issue.
A friend
Anon @ 9:11 a.m.
Your comment raises very important issues.
I'll be tied up most of today but will check what you say:
"I went back and read your columns over again, for about two months. That’s when your assaults began on the FODU site. I cannot find anywhere in those columns "what they have done." The only issue you keep bringing up, and you do it repeatedly, is they did not link to your Lucci column?"
But I won't be able to check until this evening. I hope you can point me to where those columns are.
On the matter of grabbing part or all of a deleted comment from a site, and than using that to "beat on" the site that deleted it I think you are on very strong ground. Again, please point me to where that's done.
As to FODU, I can't speak to every particular action there but overall I think very highly of them.
If somehow FODU made mistake(s), I'd tell good folks like those there to come and sit by me.
I hold lifetime membership in the "Look, he just made another mistake" club. As a matter of fact, there's been talk by some of the "mistake" club board of directors of voting me into the club’s Hall of Fame, but other board members think that would be a big mistake.
I'll look for you response tonight.
John in Carolina
I don't own this blog, but may I make a few suggestions.
#1 IGNORE. Certain people like attention whether it's negative or positive.
#2 Careful when you don't post as anonymous. Certain people like to refer to you in their articles, simply because you may disagree with them on a small point. (It has happened to me.)
#3 Don't sweat the small stuff. In a case this complex, we can not agree 100% on everything. Let's together focus on the BIG PICTURE. It's the best thing we can do to help Collin, Dave and Reade.
Thank you.
It seems to me Mike Gaynor is trying to have it both ways. Let me explain.
You are either a journalist or a blogger, and if you don’t know which one you are, you are nothing. Unfortunately, it sounds like Mike Gaynor may not know in which category he is in. Mike you need to make a decision, and you need to do it fast. Either you are a journalist [that does not include the recent stuff you have been writing and your over reliance on anonymous posts from wherever you can get them], or you are a blogger in which case, you ought to get yourself a blogspot just like everybody else and open it up for comments. Your suggestion above, that people should send you emails, is absurd. Why aren’t you sending emails to the those you are criticizing in your columns? That should do the job, right?
No, Mike, you cannot have it both ways. You are either a blogger (where is your blog) or a journalist (where is your journalistic coverage). You need to do a bit of homework. This is not going to cut it, not on this issue. If we were dealing with some other minor issue, one could perhaps get away with it (being cross between a journalist and a blogger), but not on this one. This is the big one, this is the 800 pound guerilla and we need to spend all our energies on the case, not on reviewing obscure anonymous posts from websites for no good reason whatsoever (as acknowledged in your latest column when you say your premise was not based on those quotations, then what were the quotation there for?)
My two cents
The Johnsville News offers Mike Gaynor this friendly advice:
http://johnsville.blogspot.com/2006/09/duke-case-friendly-advice.html
Also, here is some more friendly advice. Please shut your mouth regarding giving legal advice to the three innocent defendants in this case. Their team of attorneys have a better view of the situation and will make the best decisions. Lobbing half-baked ideas over the public transom will not help.
I have a suggestion regarding Gaynor. If what he writes bothers you then don't read it. It's a free country and he's going to write what he wants to. If this annoys you then just ignore it. I don't see the point in getting worked up over it.
There are three innocent young men who are being railroaded by a politically ambitious and corrupt DA. Whatever Gaynor writes seems very small compared to that reality.
Post a Comment