Sports columnist Selena Roberts is a gifted writer who usually sounds just the right notes in writing about the way sports intersects with issues like race, class, politics and the law. But she was dead wrong about the Duke lacrosse case. Roberts wrote a terrible column on March 31, 2006 that centered around this 20-word paragraph:But why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?Roberts' thesis was that the Duke lacrosse players were banding together to protect the rapists in their midst. Of course, as we now know, it wasn't so hard to gather the facts in the Duke lacrosse case -- the facts were right there, out in the open, but a corrupt prosecutor named Mike Nifong (the only person who went to jail for the Duke lacrosse case) was so eager to twist the facts to his own political advantage that he would have sent three innocent men to prison had the attorney general not taken the case out of his hands.
But while Roberts got the story wrong in March of 2006, that can be understood -- it was a complex story, one that most members of the media got wrong. What is harder to understand is Roberts' continuing refusal to admit she was wrong, nearly two years after the fact.
Roberts has an interview with The Big Lead today that contains this exchange:
Q: Which column - over the span of your career - have you taken the most heat for? Why do you think readers were so upset?
Duke Lacrosse. No question. Basically, I wrote that a crime didn't have to occur for us to inspect the irrefutable evidence of misogyny and race baiting that went on that night. Not a popular stand. I received lots of hate mail, some of it threatening. I think the intense response came from Duke-player supporters who felt threatened when someone, whether it was me or another columnist, started poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement. We're always dissecting the African-American and Hispanic communities – is it gangs? is it the rap lyrics? - when trouble strikes minority athletes. Obviously, some segments of the Duke lacrosse crowd did not enjoy the scrutiny of their world.
For Roberts to suggest that people who objected to her column did so because they don't want her "poking at the culture of affluence and entitlement" is appalling. People who objected to her column did so because they believed, correctly, that the column was contributing to a climate in which the innocent Duke lacrosse players were being portrayed as rapists.Roberts worked for the New York Times when she wrote that column in 2006, and the Times' sports editor is on the record as saying he very much regrets the paper's coverage of the Duke lacrosse story. Why is it so hard for Roberts, who now works for Sports Illustrated, to express her own regret?
Photo caption: A sign posted in Durham, North Carolina, on April 11, 2006, reads, "Nifong Admit how wrong you were! How stupid -- stop while you can save face and apologize. Lacrosse deserves it!"
Comments (Page 1 of 1)
good point. I think it's pretty clear that for Nifong to be disbarred over it, there's absolutely no evidence of any wrongdoing. Roberts sounds like the only one who hasn't acknowledged it.
Actually if you really read what she said, she offers no opinion on whether or not the duke players were guilty or not. The only subject she addresses is why she received such a negative response. At the time, I believe there were very few who knew the real facts surrounding the incident and the media, Roberts including, reported the story as it was presented. But roberts brings up a good point, why can we be critical of minority athletes (read: Pacman Jones, etc) when they have unsubstantiated or unproven brushes with the law and not affluent white athletes?
So it was only wrong because they hired a black stripper. If the stripper was white then it would be misogyny. So everything would have been completely fine if the Duke women's basketball team hired a white male stripper.
Felix, I'm not sure I follow. Why shouldn't the stripper receive a negative response when she ruined the lives of the players and nearly brought the whole Duke Lacrosse program down? The players suffered hugely based simply on someone's wild and twisted imagination. And I really don't get your last sentence about not being critical of white athletes based just on initial reports. Do you not remember the rape charges, the canceling of the season, the firing of the coach, the public protests, the hate expressed toward the players, the 60 minutes episode where they had to prove their own innocence, etc.? Is that what you call preferential treatment?
"Of course, as we now know, it wasn't so hard to gather the facts in the Duke lacrosse case"
Hmmm.. FTA, ""but to the dismay of investigators, none have come forward to reveal an eyewitness account.)""
Sounds like the facts, coming from eyewitness accounts, weren't being offered. Strange, that. In fact, this makes your statement totally and completely wrong - the facts, that nothing happened, were not being given to investigators. Which would make it quite hard to gather.
"People who objected to her column did so because they believed, correctly, that the column was contributing to a climate in which the innocent Duke lacrosse players were being portrayed as rapists."
You have no idea if this is true or not. At best, you are guessing without seeing the contents of the mails she received, or knowing the identities of the people who sent them.
Dave, you're wrong on all counts. Roberts' report that the players hadn't come forward was inaccurate. And I have seen the criticism leveled at Roberts in the form of letters to the editor of the Times and critiques of her reporting written by other journalists.
"Dave, you're wrong on all counts. Roberts' report that the players hadn't come forward was inaccurate."
Well, somewhat - let's say half and half, from what I read - the team captains came forward willingly much prior to her article (Mar 17 or so), the rest of the team not until after the sham lineup in April. Here's the NYT correction.
"The police in Durham, N.C., said that although most team members had not voluntarily submitted to police interviews and DNA tests, the three residents of the house where the accuser said the incident occurred had done so"
http://johninnorthcarolina.blogspot.com/2007/03/duke-and-selena-roberts-column-1-2-3.html
"And I have seen the criticism leveled at Roberts in the form of letters to the editor of the Times and critiques of her reporting written by other journalists."
I have as well, and they were much deserved, it was an awful column then and now - but, she wasn't commenting on those. She was commenting on the emails she received, and the intensity from them.
I wouldn't even be surprised if she specifically brought up those emails instead of professional criticism.