View From Lodi, CA: No Apology In Duke Case—New York Times Marches On

The New York Times`

public editor,

Byron Calame, posed two fascinating questions in his
April 22nd column

Revisiting The Times`s Coverage of the Duke Rape Case.

In response to what Calame referred to as “a flood
of critical e-mails,” he questioned whether, as
readers demanded, the newspaper should write a public
apology to the three

Duke lacrosse players falsely accused of rape and
whether it should also reveal the name of their accuser.

These questions, prompted by offended readers, strike
at the heart of journalism`s woes today.

And Calame`s non-response may, in part at least,
explain

the dire state of the newspaper industry.

Boiled down to its minimum, here is what the NYT
is running away from: in a 5,700-word Page 1 article on
August 25, 2006 entitled

Files From Duke Rape Case Give Details But No Answers,
lead reporter

Duff Wilson and Jonathan Glater concluded that upon
reflection there existed “…a body of evidence to
support his [then-District Attorney Michael B.
Nifong] decision to take the matter to a jury.”

Calame [Send him

mail] and his boss, executive editor

Bill Keller, defend their reporters. Keller, as
quoted in Calame`s column, said that the August 25th
story taken as a whole is fair and balanced.

Bottom line:

no apology will be forthcoming from the NYT
to David Evans, Reid Seligman, and Colin Finnerty even
though the charges against them have been dropped
because of a

total lack of solid evidence—including DNA
evidence—against them and wildly conflicting stories by
the accuser.

As for naming the accuser, there`s no chance of that
either. According to Keller, the NYT has a
long-standing policy against identifying accusers in

sexual assault cases.

Calame concurs. Although the ombudsman says he hopes
the day will come when the NYT will revisit its
policy involving false claims, in the Duke case he
agrees with Keller because of his concern for the

“mental health“ of the accuser.

The question that remains is: why won`t the NYT
apologize for its story?

And why won`t it reveal the accuser`s name? Wouldn`t
so doing help restore the newspaper`s tainted
reputation? [VDARE.COM note:
Our major piece on the
Duke Hoax

mentions accuser Crystal Gail Mangum by name,
because our editorial position is that Ms. Mangum is not
the victim in this case.]

The NYT is still, after all, reeling from the

Jayson Blair scandal.

And are we to conclude from the NYT (and other
newspapers that have taken similar positions) that the
reputation of the accuser is more important than

those of the three Duke students?

The NYT realizes its

responsibility to be impartial—but isn`t capable of
following through.

In a 2000 internal memo

“Guidelines on Our Integrity”, now posted on the
Internet, the NYT states that “…the journalism
we practice daily must be beyond reproach” and
“Because our voice is

loud and far-reaching, The Times recognizes an

ethical responsibility to correct all its factual
errors, large and small.”

Yet The NYT, despite its lofty language, did
not take advantage of its chance to be a leader in
righting the

wrong done to the Duke lacrosse players. And its
failure is one of many reasons why so many newspapers
have lost credibility.

The NYT used poor judgment in refusing to back
down. The press is accountable to the public. When

it isn`t honest, trust is lost.

And once gone, it takes a long time to regain…if it
ever can be.

Pulitzer Prize winner

David Broder, writing in the Washington Post,
hit the nail on the head when he asked, “When will we
start to think about the people who are hurt by our
coverage? And when will we take our

responsibilities seriously?” [The
Media in the Mud, David S. Broder, Washington
Post, April 19, 2007]

Joe Guzzardi [email
him], an instructor in English
at the Lodi Adult School, has been writing a weekly
column since 1988. It currently appears in the

Lodi News-Sentinel.