Posted on 10/09/2006 9:44:07 AM PDT by abb
Ping
"Newsweek senior editor Jerry Footlick"
Guess how he got THAT cushy job...
Note that our old buddy, Susannah Meadows will be there...
Living up to your name (?) ping :-).
Of course, what this means is they can't sweep it under the rug anymore...
Always liked the name of that Clinton Prime Obstructionist, Jamie Gore-lick.
:-).
He must be a "friend" of Dick Morris'.
“Why FAKE rape allegations against men’s lacrosse players and a CORRUPT local government became a national story on race, class and crime”
No Dan Abrams (Duke '88)?
Dukie Dan's got bigger fish to fry anymore. He's busy re-arranging the deck chairs on SS MSNBC...
I strongly agree, Abrams has a crucial role in any discussion. He has reviewed Nifong's evidence. He and Colemen will be dependably skeptical and will insist on fact based observations.
They'll be bunches of Freepers and bloggers in the audience. Count on it...
And who wants to take ping responsibilities while I'm gone to the Redneck Riviera next week?
This has the hallmarks of a frustrating evening. Ashley and the media will pontificate about why they are great (the media loves nothing more than talking about themselves), Coleman will talk about procedural irregularities but nothing more, and they will all nod in agreement that Duke handled it correctly and well and that, to quote the Bard of Trinity, "whatever they did was bad enough." They will discuss the "larger" issues of race, class, etc. and the innocence of the three Duke students will be irrelevant to them -- the thought that they may have all been wrong will simply be too awful to contemplate.
Hope I'm just being too cynical but this looks like damage control and for Duke to have something to cite to when they are inevitably accused (maybe sued) for deprivation of civil rights.
I see it the same way. There's no reason to expect anything just to come out of Duke as long as Brodhead remains at the helm.
I actually think Abrams would be an asset because he would try to keep the focus on the hoax and the legal response instead of letting the media whores worm their way out of it. Too bad.
This just in...
http://media.nationalreview.com/post/?q=YWFmNDIyYmM1NjY5ODRlYTA1ZGYxNWI4MTE3MDBjNWY=
After NYT's Shoddy Duke Reporting, Anderson is Becoming "A Believer"
10/09 03:51 PM - The Markup
Via Romenesko, New York columnist Kurt Anderson writes that the New York Times's coverage of the Duke lacrosse team rape case has caused him to revisit his attitudes toward the mainstream media and bloggers:
... real facts are stubborn things. And today, the preponderance of facts indicate that there is an injustice—committed, as it turns out, against those perfect offenders. Yet at the epicenter of bien-pensant journalism, the New York Times, reporters and editors—although pointedly not the paper’s columnists—are declining to expose it. “The only thing we can look forward to now,” says Dan Okrent, who was the Times’ ombudsman until last year, “is what the Times will say to the accused once the charges are dropped, or once acquittals are delivered.” [...]
“I’ve never been a source for anyone on any story ever written about the Times,” one reporter at the paper told me. So why on this one? “I’ve never felt so ill over Times coverage.” That’s ill at a paper that published Jayson Blair’s fabrications and Judy Miller on WMD. “It’s institutional,” said one of the several editors to whom I spoke. “You see it again and again, the way the Times lumbers into trouble.” [...]
In the movie, Tom Hanks would play K. C. Johnson. He’s the most impressive of the “bloggers who have closely followed the case,” in the Times’ tacitly pejorative construction. But Johnson is the Platonic ideal of the species—passionate but committed to rigor and facts and fairness, a tenured professor of U.S. history (at Brooklyn College), a 38-year-old vegetarian who lives alone in a one-bedroom Bay Ridge apartment and does pretty much nothing but study, teach, run, and write. [...]
... For the past few years, I’ve tended to roll my eyes when people default to rants about the blindered oafishness or various biases of “the mainstream media” in general and the Times in particular. At the same time, I’ve nodded when people gush about the blogosphere as a valuable check on and supplement to the MSM—but I’ve never entirely bought it. Having waded deep into this Duke mess the last weeks, baffled by the Times’ pose of objectivity and indispensably guided by Johnson’s blog, I’m becoming a believer.
Welcome to the party, Kurt. NR's Anthony Dick wrote a great piece on the passions driving the Duke lacrosse story, available to NRD subscribers here. You can read K.C. Johnson's blog here.
I posted this on another thread, and the fact that NRO and others are running with it adds weight:
The 60 Minutes segment coming up must be pretty explosive. The reason this is so is we have had revelations in the last few days regarding the line ups, the FA history of flipping out in public when drinking, the FA continuing to accuse Kim Roberts stealing/participating in the rape long after March 13/14 (which is the tidbit the N&O refused to publish), and the New York Times story that are just more nails in the coffin for Nifong. There will be more, but there is no reason for this information to come out now. We are in a lull in hearings and motions, and these leaks have all the hallmarks of CYA so that when 60 minutes broadcasts some folks who screwed the pooch back since March can have cover stories. Just a theory but there is a reason all these leaks are suddenly occuring.
And now Duke is forming panels to discuss the issues. Too bad they did not do this months ago when it would have mattered, but add another party trying to CYA.
The "60 minutes squeeze" is indeed having an effect. Also recall our "telling the truth slowly" theory from 5 months ago. The media is getting everyone used to hearing what they know is upcoming. But one thing didn't work out for the media.
That is WE (the global we: liestoppers, talk left, free republic, FODU, durham-in-wonderland, etc, etc.) stayed focused.
They could not shut us up. They knew they would have to come clean - they just hoped they could do it while no was was looking. We looked and we saw - 24/7. The defense team is proud of us - this I know, "from a source close to the defense team."
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.