Richard Brodhead, age 17
Posted on 01/07/2007 10:45:17 AM PST by Winged Hussar
Then, just last month, the director of a DNA laboratory that tested samples taken from the woman testified that he and the prosecutor had agreed in May to withhold some of the findings. The exculpatory nature of the results - specifically, that the swabs included traces of semen from several men, none of them the Duke defendants - offer the strongest evidence yet that the prosecutor himself should be the subject of an investigation, and that he should have no further connection with this case.
(Excerpt) Read more at cleveland.com ...
agreed.
I was under the impression that the email was in response to a Duke LAX mother that was asking him for help.
Mel speaks down, again ...
http://blogs.newsobserver.com/editor/
Monday, January 8, 2007
Journalism AND blogs
Though some of us thought the "bloggers versus journalists" debate was long over, from recent comments I see it still has life. I've never looked at the wide-open world of Internet communication this way. Like Sarah Davies, who posted comments recently, I see the Internet as a medium, not a source of information, and a blog as a form of communication. The substance of a blog, not the form, determines its value.
There are good blogs and bad blogs, reliable sources and gossip-mongers. Among local sources mentioned in recent posts, KC Johnson's Durham in Wonderland blog is notable for the research he puts into some of his posts; he writes from from a point of view, but he is a named and accountable source of this reported commentary.
Like some of The N&O's virulent critics, I think the Internet has opened up dialogue in a revolutionary way. In the history of media a new form rarely replaces an old one; instead, the effect is additive, radio adds to print, TV to radio and print, the Internet to all of the above. The Internet allows media to cross from print to electronic in a wonderful way that we are just beginning to comprehend.
Good journalism is defined by what it is, not who does it. Journalism involves a discipline of accuracy, verification, fairness, public-mindedness and truth-telling. As part of democracy it empowers citizens by informing them, holds people in power accountable to the rest of us and, conversely, takes responsibility for its own actions.
Good journalism is labor-intensive, which means it's often expensive to produce. This kind of journalism is practiced mostly at newspapers and magazines, and among some broadcast sources. I hope Internet sources provide more and more good journalism and that the medium doesn't become, as television did, a communication form that's almost completely dominated by entertainment and commerce.
A recent post by Malcolm Gladwell, author of "The Tipping Point" and "Blink" talks about reporters' role in exposing the Enron scandal. This kind of deep reporting, which requires not just individual effort but also the commitment of news organizations, keeps the lights on in this country. Those who find joy in the travails of these news companies miss the forest for the trees. Institutional fortitude, not just individual gumption, has supplied much of the best journalism of our times.
I thought of this in reading Thomas Goldsmith’s piece from Sunday on the rising number of mentally ill people sharing rest homes with frail, elderly patients. This reporting took a great deal of research and time as the reporter gained to an understanding of the situation as well as details on how it is affecting people in North Carolina. The same is true for The N&O's exhaustive and comprehensive reporting on the Duke lacrosse case; many of those who have been reading the coverage (rather than reading about it) have noted the results of our commitment to original and verifiable reporting.
The N&O’s long commitment to this kind of work, and to the everyday reporting of community life, remains. The Internet extends and supports it; beyond that, if the Web becomes home to more serious journalism from other sources, so much the better.
Posted at 10:48 am by Melanie Sill in The Editor's Blog, Journalism's role, N&O coverage of Duke lacrosse case
Here is the link to the thing I read about his email response to a mother of an LAX player. I am sure you and everyone else has seen this. Despicable.
http://durhamwonderland.blogspot.com/2007/01/baker-in-his-own-words.html
Speaking of Nancy Grace, I was curious as to whether she has simply dropped any mention of this case and avoids it like the plague, or has she devoted some time to it in the last few months? -- if anyone knows.
The Bakers don't want to talk now.
Who would have ever expected that...........LOL.
I'm glad to see that his "work" has followed him to Tennessee.
Don't you just LOVE the internet!
For a few nights after the DNA stuff came out, I tried to watch her to see what she would say.
For the first five nights, the word "Duke" never crossed her lips, while she talked about every other crime in America.
I quit watching, so maybe the rest of the posters can answer your question.
Forgot to ping you here.
amazingly silent.
To my knowledge, the words "Duke" or "Lacrosse" haven't been uttered from Nancy Grace's cavernous piehole in months. IIRC, her sub was on when the Fonger dropped the rape charges and talked about it briefly that evening.
It was on a Friday night and it was barely mentioned by the sub.
But the next week, when it really broke in the news, you're right -- she never said one word.
I don't see how she gets away with it.
But look at Wendy Murphy, STILL saying that one of the boys has "turned" and given Nifong all he needs to get a conviction.
She barely took a breath when he dropped the rape charge.
http://z9.invisionfree.com/LieStoppers_Board/index.php?showtopic=1318&st=0&#entry7321358
January 8, 2007
Dear Members of the Duke Community:
I write to greet you at the start of a new year. I also want to address
some important developments that have taken place while the University
was on break, and to offer some thoughts as we go forward.
Last spring, this community became embroiled in a major controversy
arising from a party held by members of the men's lacrosse team. It is
universally acknowledged that the behavior at the party was inappropriate
and unacceptable. Several factors came together to intensify the emotional
response to this event. Though vehemently denied by team members, the
accusations that resulted from the party raised deeply troubling questions
about sexual violence and racial subjugation, issues of fundamental
concern to any decent community. Passions were further intensified by a
series of statements by the Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong that a
rape had indeed taken place. Intense media coverage heightened these
passions, promoting an air of instant certainty about rapidly changing
"facts."
In the confusion of this situation, the University's response was guided
by two principles: that if true, the conduct that had been alleged was
grave and should be taken very seriously, and that our students had to
be presumed innocent until proven guilty through the legal process.
As perceptions of the story changed, the University continued to maintain
the need for broad deference to the legal process. If this case has taught
us anything, it is our need for a legal process based in fairness, the
rule of evidence, and withholding judgment until the truth is established.
In an interview with "60 Minutes" last fall, I noted that given the
concerns that had been raised, when the case came before a judge and jury,
Mr. Nifong's case would be on trial as much as the students would. But as
that comment recognized, the road to a resolution necessarily involved
going through legal process, not outside or around it.
In mid-December, there were important developments as the legal process
entered the courtroom. These included the revelation, in sworn testimony,
that the district attorney had not shared with the indicted students
potentially exculpatory evidence from the DNA tests. Also, on December 22,
the Friday afternoon before Christmas, the district attorney announced
that he was dropping the rape charge because the accuser was no longer
certain about her claim. After Christmas, the North Carolina State Bar
announced that it had reviewed concerns about the district attorney's
public statements and found grounds to file a formal complaint. Days
later, the North Carolina Conference of District Attorneys also called
on Mr. Nifong to recuse himself in this case.
On December 22, I issued a statement saying that, given the certainty with
which the district attorney made his public statements regarding the rape
allegation, his decision to drop that charge must call into question the
validity of the remaining charges. I added that the district attorney
should now put this case in the hands of an independent party, who can
restore confidence in the fairness of the process. That last phrase is,
for me, the heart of the matter. We entrust our conflicts to the law to
provide a path to a fair resolution. But to earn this faith from the public,
those who work in the legal process must behave with elemental fairness and
regard for the rights of those involved. We need and deserve for that faith
to be restored.
In the wake of these new circumstances, I concluded upon the recommendation
of Vice President Moneta that we should offer reinstatement to Collin
Finnerty and Reade Seligmann so that they can return to Duke and resume
their studies. (David Evans graduated last spring.) Interim suspension,
the policy measure that had been invoked last April, is not a disciplinary
measure or judgment of guilt. It is a temporary measure taken when a
student is charged with a violent crime, and its use must balance a
variety of factors, including the gravity of the charge, the presumption
of innocence, the possibility of danger to the student or the community,
and the need of students to continue with their education. Although the
two students still face serious charges, in the changed circumstances,
it seems only right to strike the balance at a different point. The fair
thing is to allow the students to continue with their studies.
We all pray that the legal matter will be resolved in a fair and speedy
fashion. But as a university, we also need to look to the future and see
how we can learn from this chapter of history. By facing the lessons of
this painful episode, we can make Duke a better place. Let me outline a
few specifics.
First, we still have work to do on this campus. One thing that has made
this event so difficult is that particular charges against individuals
have tended to be conflated with larger community issues of race, gender,
privilege, and respect. During these hard months, some have seemed to
imply that if you insist on the students' innocence, then you must not
care about the underlying issues. Others have seemed to suggest that if
you insist on the underlying issues, then you must not care about fair
treatment for the students.
But it is essential that we separate the legal case from the larger
cultural issues and give each its separate, appropriate response. The
Campus Culture Initiative, begun last year and due to report this spring,
is not a referendum on the party last March. It is an effort to visualize
the best community we could make for students to grow and learn in, a
community of mutual respect and vibrant mutual engagement. It will be all
of our work to advance toward that goal. I see this as a chance to build
on existing strengths in our educational experience and to press toward
higher ambitions: the latest chapter in Duke's long history of self-
improvement.
Just as important, we must work together to restore the fabric of mutual
respect. One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and
faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in
ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the
Duke community. In the age of instantaneous worldwide media coverage,
members of the lacrosse team were judged around the world on the basis of
highly selective, highly prejudicial coverage last spring. A number of
them were subjected to vile abuse. More recently, a group of Duke faculty
members (including a number of African American faculty) have been widely
attacked in blogs and emails - and in some cases personally attacked in
highly repugnant and vicious terms - based on caricatured accounts of
their statements on the lacrosse event.
We want to see an end to these destructive assaults. We cannot change the
nature of modern communications, but we can make an effort on this campus
to promote more constructive dialogue and a more charitable atmosphere for
exchange. This does not mean that troublesome issues should now be avoided.
It's the mark of maturity in a university when hard issues can be freely
and vigorously engaged, and this past year has shown us many areas in need
of discussion and debate. But it does mean that we need to be less quick to
take offense at the words of others, and work harder to understand what
others are actually trying to say - even if we then disagree with it.
In its very difficulty, this moment gives us a chance to strengthen the
climate of respectful engagement in this community, and it is crucial that
we come together to seize the chance. Turning conflict among divergent
points of view into the basis for mutual education is at the core of the
university's work.
Last, in the heat of recent debates, there's been a danger that we will
lose sight of something fundamental, and I want to say it on all of our
behalf. This is a great university, one of the greatest in the world.
The vigor, intelligence, and devotion of each member of this community -
faculty, students, and staff - are what make Duke great. This place needs
all of us. And all of us are incalculably lucky to be part of this place,
and to have the others who surround us for partners and colleagues.
Duke can and will become better yet, and it's our business to make it so.
This is the season of the New Year - a time for new starts and fresh
beginnings. Let's work together to make our university as great as it can
be.
Richard H. Brodhead
President
Sounds like "poultry" to me. :)
Brodhead is wrong in claiming to have been dispassionate throughout this whole affair. Now, he's trying to look like one of the good guys. Will the trustees and students buy it?
I've worked as a lawyer and, in a prior life, as a radio/TV reporter. When it comes to gossip, the broadcasters are far worse.
And my two MD parents were too busy working to notice, hear, or repeat any juicy gossip.
"One of the things I have most regretted is the way students and
faculty have felt themselves disparaged and their views caricatured in
ongoing debates, often by individuals - sometimes anonymous - outside the
Duke community"
wahhhh. What a baby. Stands behind the 88 and condemns free speech from others that feel the whole LAX group was disparaged. If I were an Alumni I would be calling for his head on a platter.
Richard Brodhead, age 17
The claim that Baker left Duke in protest is revisionist history. I bet with a search, we can find him claiming that was not the case. I know papers have quoted him saying previously that was not the case.
I didn't mean to insult your parents. Not painting with a broad brush :-)
In my experience as a nurse in a hospital and office setting, they love getting the "scoop."
Here is what Baker told the NC press:
http://www.newsobserver.com/145/story/447255.html
"Now Baker and his wife, Charlotte Pierce-Baker, a professor in women's studies, have decided to depart Duke for Vanderbilt University.
"We just got absolutely unrefusable offers," said Houston Baker, who added that the recruiting by Vanderbilt began before the lacrosse story broke."
The article goes on to say that Duke Administrators say the exits of six black profs are not directly related to the lacrosse situation.
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.