Readers Note: I left the following comment on the thread for The Chronicle's April 20 editorial: "Buy The N&O Instead."
John
____________________________________________
I agree with your assessment of the Durham H-S. It's a terrible newspaper. But why do you urge people to buy the Raleigh N&O?
It was the N&O which on Mar. 25, 2006, published what it now admits was a false account of what Mangum said in the interview it granted under anonymity because, the N&O told readers, that was its policy for "victims of sex crimes."
The N&O deliberately withheld from its Mar. 25 story critically important news, including:
1) Mangum said the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also raped at the party.
2) Mangum went on to claim Roberts didn't report the alleged rape for fear it would cost Roberts her job.
Mangum, the N&O now reports, also said Roberts would do "anything for money."
The N&O never told readers Mangum had even mentioned Roberts.
There’s more.
On Mar. 25 the N&O said Mangum only reported the alleged gang-rape because she knew if she didn't her "daddy" would have "a hurt that would never heal."
Now the N&O is admitting Mangum actually said she reported it because she wasn't going to let those "Duke boys" think they could get away with anything.
Have The Chronicle editors considered what might have happened if on Mar. 25 the N&O had told the truth about the anonymous interview?
Have The Chronicle editors, many of whom are planning careers in journalism, asked themselves why the N&O withheld from the Mar. 25 story the news of the lacrosse players’ extraordinary and extensive cooperation with Durham Police?
Or why the N&O decided instead to promulgate the "wall of solidarity" falsehood, thereby casting the lacrosse team as composed of three gang-rapists and their teammates who were covering up for them?
Do any Chronicle editors think the witch hunt and frame-up would have gone very far if the N&O’s Mar. 25 story had been an honest news report instead of a deliberately malicious fraud?
Do any Chronicle editors know why the N&O went more than a year covering up what Mangum actually said during the anonymous interview?
What do The Chronicle editors think of the N&O’s thirteen month long cover-up?
Suppose on Apr. 10, the day the public learned all DNA results had come back from the state lab negative, and one week before DA Nifong secured grand jury indictments against Collin Finnerty and Reade Seligmann, the N&O had run on page one a correction beginning:
“In our Mar. 25 page one story which included an anonymous interview with the accuser in the Duke lacrosse rape case, we didn’t tell you that along with claiming she was raped, the accuser said the second dancer, Kim Roberts, was also raped but failed to report her rape because ….If something like that had happened, how much further could the witch hunt and frame-up have gone?
Regarding what’s now called the lacrosse players “wall of silence” (we used the term “wall of solidarity” in our Mar. 25 story) and widespread reports the players refused to cooperate with authorities, the N&O regrets not reporting that the players had cooperated extensively with police and that …
Wouldn’t a full, frank public admission by the N&O of all that was false in its early reporting have forced even people like President Richard H. Brodhead to speak out against the trashing of the lacrosse players; the circulation of the “Wanted” poster that many attorneys say libeled them; the circulation on campus of the “Vigilante” poster which added to the danger they were already facing; and the frame-up of three of them by Nifong, certain Durham Police officers and others?
The Chronicle urges people to buy the N&O? Why?
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
6 comments:
Great analysis as always, John. You've been one of the real stalwarts in this shameful saga. I hope your recovery continues and that you'll be well soon. With best regards, Bob Hyde Duke '67.
John: Have you ever asked publisher Quarles about the N&O coverage in March 2006? Does the editorial page editor report directly to the publisher? What does the publisher think of the publishing of the so-called vigilante poster? What does he think of the Khanna-Blythe "interview" with the "victim?"
Many otherwise intelligent people continue to buy dailies like N&O, NYT, WP, etc, saying "oh, I buy it for the crossword puzzle (or the food section, or the entertainment, choose one)." They could get any of those things on the internet or other places. I guess they don't understand that when they continue to pay for the lying rags, the money helps keep them afloat and enables the big lies to get bigger.
Sweetmick says, I hope KC is reading your comments. He has appeared a little wobbly towards Truthless Sheehan and the rest of the N&O marauders. So what happened to "editor" and "renowned law expert" Linda Williams' claim that revealing this info would be libelous, slanderous? JinC, you are rising to the TOP.
anon 6:47 : I make a copy the New York Times Sunday crossword puzzle at the library. Love the puzzle, but otherwise wouldn't spend 2 cents on that rag. It appeals to a certain ghettoized Manhattan type of person I know well though. Those airheads that can't think for themselves and somehow think the Times is the intelligent highbrow paper. They are no different from a trailer trash hairdresser somewhere in the boonies reading the National Enquirer and believing every word.
Joe T. has got it nailed. "Ghettoized" is a marvelous description of those poor, ignorant ciphers who think they're the elite of our society. Not much different from the trailer-trash at the end of the day.
Post a Comment