Wednesday, August 30, 2006


Stuart Taylor on the Duke Rape Case

The case is a shambles but the NYT has tried a new tack to keep from looking like Mike Nifong's cheerleaders. Taylor points out their folly in Slate.

Like the headline, the piece cultivates a meretricious appearance of balance. But its flaws are so glaring that it was shredded by bloggers within hours after it hit my doorstep. They were led by a Durham group called Liestoppers and by KC Johnson, an obscure but brilliant New York City history professor of centrist political views. Johnson alone has produced more insightful (if sometimes one-sided) analysis and commentary on the Duke case—about 60,000 words—than all the nation's newspapers combined.

The Wilson-Glater piece highlights every superficially incriminating piece of evidence in the case, selectively omits important exculpatory evidence, and reports hotly disputed statements by not-very-credible police officers and the mentally unstable accuser as if they were established facts. With comical credulity, it features as its centerpiece a leaked, transparently contrived, 33-page police sergeant's memo that seeks to paper over some of the most obvious holes in the prosecution's evidence.

Read the whole thing. Quite disgusting. They use every post-modern, deconstructionist stereotype in the book.


<< Home

This page is powered by Blogger. Isn't yours?