In March of 2006, when a stripper falsely claimed that she had been raped by Duke lacrosse players, no media outlet spilled more ink detailing the since-disproved allegations than the New York Times.
Nearly two years after the fact, the Times' coverage of the Duke lacrosse case is still often held up as an example of the way the media can run amok and damage the lives of innocent people as a result. So it's not surprising that when Times sports editor Tom Jolly did a Q&A with readers this week, one reader asked this question:
Jolly's answer expressed regret.Q. When the Duke Lacrosse "rape" case first erupted, the New York Times sports section was one of the leading cheerleaders for the conviction and slandering of the Duke team as a whole and the three charged players. When the charges imploded, the players exonerated, and Michael Nifong disbarred, the sports section and "pundits" remained steadfastly silent. Since you are the chief editor, one must assume that you led and approved of all the reporting (and non-reporting) and the commentary (however incorrect and one-sided). Question: As the editor of the sports section how do you justify your behavior in toto?
Here's Jolly's answer:
A. First, let me clarify that our reporters remained involved in the coverage of the Duke case throughout. The placement of the articles moved into the national section of the paper once it became a court case, as is generally the case with such stories, including the rape cases against Kobe Bryant and Mike Tyson. We've written stories about the team since it was reinstated and covered its run to the title game last season.
As far as our coverage of the case itself, if the essence of your question is whether I feel good about it, the answer is that I very much regret my failure to recognize that we were dealing with a rogue prosecutor and that the university had compounded his bravado by overreacting to the initial reports about the case. I don't recall another instance of a university canceling the season of a team that was a contender for a national championship. Nor do I recall a similar example of a prosecutor launching such an aggressively wrongheaded investigation.
But the bottom line is that I'd do some things differently, and that knowledge gained by hindsight has informed our approach to other stories since then.
There's nothing the Times will ever be able to do to make up for the way it covered the Duke lacrosse story, but acknowledging their mistakes and vowing to change the paper's approach going forward is better than nothing.
Reader Comments (Page 1 of 1)
2-15-2008 @ 11:03AM
carl said...
None so blind as those who will not see
Reply
2-15-2008 @ 11:10AM
Jack Buechner said...
The players and former coach have asked the question, "Now where do we go to reclaim our reputations?" When the NY Times says "excuse me" it should be somewhere equivalent to the exposure that slandered these men" not simply at a Q & A reported on a blog site. We in the public must be greatly relieved that the Times has learned from this fiasco.
Reply
2-15-2008 @ 12:52PM
Tom said...
Hahahaha, what a laughable "apology". Really? Your apology talks more about the fault of the University and the Prosecutor than the New York Times. Ever thought that one of the reasons Nifong stayed with his story for so long was because he was getting such favorable coverage? I thought my anger over having my senior year at Duke tarnished was beginning to fade, until I read this and realized that you guys really don't care about "people" unless it fits your left wing agenda. Funny how you attack people for not taking responsibility when they make mistakes, yet when given the opportunity you deflect just like the best. Sickening, truly sickening.
Reply
2-16-2008 @ 12:37AM
rob said...
Not much of an apology from the self-righteous prick
Reply
2-16-2008 @ 5:41PM
mark said...
By claiming that they had no reason to back down during the case because they had never covered such a story with a "rogue" prosecutor and a canceled season of a "championship" contender is a poor justification for what they did. I guess they've done this before then.
Reply
2-18-2008 @ 1:08PM
Brian said...
Sorry Mr. Jolley, that non-apology apology won't do. First,who was questioning the noninvolvement of your reporters? No one. The problem was Duff Wilson REMAINED involved, long after all of his reporting had been discredited. I must tell you, whenever I see his byline on a piece, like the baseball steroids issue, I immediately discount it. He will be forever identified as a biased hack.
Then there's the matter of your columnists -- Selena Roberts and Harvey Araton. Their performance was nothing short of disgraceful.
Finally, to say that your only regret was being taken in by a rogue prosecutor and the "overreaction" of the University is pathetic. You were leading the charge condemning these boys, forcing the hand of the University with your politically correct, white men are evil, so they must have done it attitude.
That might have worked if the falsehoods and manipulations by the prosecutor in the Durham Police Department hadn't been so obvious. As it was, your reporter, your sports section, your paper, disgraced themselves entirely with the August 2006 front page Sunday piece falsely claiming that the prosecutor's case had merit, based on your review of the "complete file". As was shown in the disbarment hearings and in the attorney general's investigation, there was nothing. NOTHING.
You would've thought the Times sports section would have learned their lesson after their ridiculous crusade against the Augusta National Golf Club. Apparently Howell Raines still lives there, at least in spirit.
Reply
2-19-2008 @ 6:04PM
veritas88 said...
Uh, no.
Defend the three simps looking to hide behind conservative commentators and all of that Georgetown Prep foundation money all you want.
Pressler ran an an Animal House that allowed trading of sex, beer, and God knows what else.
The Blunderland Nation will have to answer one day before God.
Reply