NEW YORK TIMES
The NYT's Flip-Flop on Nifong [Stephen Spruiell]
K.C. Johnson's review of the New York Times' coverage of the Duke rape accusations hits the jugular:
In a major August article, [NYT reporter Duff] Wilson asserted that he had personally reviewed more than 1800 pages of Mike Nifong’s discovery file—or all the material compiled in the case between March and late July. The contrast between how he characterized this evidence, in a radio interview for today’s Times, and how he characterized it on August 25 is striking.
August 25: By disclosing pieces of evidence favorable to the defendants, the defense has created an image of a case heading for the rocks. But an examination of the entire 1,850 pages of evidence gathered by the prosecution in the four months after the accusation yields a more ambiguous picture. It shows that while there are big weaknesses in Mr. Nifong's case, there is also a body of evidence to support his decision to take the matter to a jury.
Today: [The case] amounted to, really, Mr. Nifong believing that if somebody said she was raped, and if he believed her, he was supposed to take that to a jury, despite overwhelming lack of other evidence.
Those two statements cannot be reconciled.
More on the media's coverage of the case from Howard Kurtz, Andrea Peyser and Glenn Reynolds.
04/12 06:01 PM
Share
