Lawyer for Duke lacrosse players rips Durham paper

It's amazing how politically incorrect it is for anybody to publicly castigate the lying stripper who started this unconscionable injustice. It's OK to scream at Nifong, Duke, the Durham paper, the NY Times or any other number of villains -- all of whom deserve a great deal of scorn.

But criticize the STRIPPER WHO LIED ABOUT THE ENTIRE NIGHT AND STILL GETS TO HIDE BEHIND A CLOAK OF ANONYMITY WHILE THE GUYS' NAMES HAVE TURNED TO MUD? OMG, how could you, you horrible sexist ogre!!!

 

Listening to talk radio -- I know, why would I want to do a stupid thing like that -- and the comparisons that are now being made between the Duke and Rutgers cases. That Al Sharpton was all over this case when it first came out but you don't hear anything (like an apology or condemnation of the stripper) now. It is an interesting thought.

 

I don't blame the paper. I'm sure the players are guilty of something.

They sure looked guilty.

 

Therefore, the Fifth Amendment to the Constitution is meaningless.

 

There is such a rush to judgement by the media -- and primarily that fringe part (like talk radio and the TV news-entertainment shows) that is pseudo-media. Something happens, a massive media barrage follows which gives the appearance that the individuals are guilty.

Now in this case, the print media has done a reasonably good job of following the story as it has disintegrated over the last 6-9 months, but there is no comparison between firestorm of coverage over the "these guys are innocent" vs. charges filed.

I don't deny the 5th Ammendment rights of the media to cover a story but at some point the media needs to ask the question, "Am I covering this story to this extent because the people have the right to know this or am I doing this because it will sell papers?" If you are doing it to inform, then great. If you are doing it to sell papers, then shame on you.

(Remember many of you have challenged your employers to put off layoffs and make a little less money because the cutbacks affect your ability to adequately cover a story. If this is the case, then you should be willing to cover the story fairly, foregoing the desire to add coverage because it will also sell papers).

 

Lots of good points being made here. I have always had a problem with seeing an acquittal get buried when the arrest story was blown out on 1A, or at the top of SportsCenter, whatever. This happened yesterday. I went to ESPN's site shortly after the news broke on these three lacrosse players to see if it was the lead item on the home page -- like it was when the scandal first broke -- and I found the release of the 2007 NFL schedule with a graphic showing a road in the desert leading to the new stadium where the Super Bowl will be played as the lead. This story was on a link under breaking news, and stayed there for hours.

I haven't yet had a chance to peruse other newspapers around the country today to see how the story was played, so perhaps some of you in other regions can enlighten me. I'm really interested to see what the New York Times and USA Today did.

 

On the other hand, the 1st Amendment gives people the right to condemn anyone accused of a crime. And the 5th Amendment doesn't even apply outside of criminal law.

 

The sun has gone to shit. Paxton took over and squeezed the fucker dry to compensate for paying $100 million + for a 40,000 circulation paper, a number which has declined 15% since they took their massive shit on the newsroom. A colleague told me that at the same time their circ numbers were dropping, they were promoting that their circulation actually went up. It does not surpise me at all that they are getting ripped, I heard their coverage of the case was 2nd to the other paper during the breaking of the story, and for a long time afterwards.

Interesting link on the paper: http://www.indyweek.com/gyrobase/Content?oid=oid%3A27101

 

She's not anonymous any longer: Crystal Gail Mangum, according to the New York Post and other media outlets.

 

hondo,

I think it's OK to hold a district attorney, a university and a newspaper to higher standards than a stripper.

 

Your point, please?

 

My point is that they are deserving of the criticism. What's the point of going around and yelling at a lying stripper?

If some bum on the street said you stole his shoes and a cop came up and threw you in jail and a newspaper did a series about wealthy folks who steal shoes from bums, who would you be mad at?