Showing posts with label WRAL-TV. Show all posts
Showing posts with label WRAL-TV. Show all posts
Wednesday, June 19, 2019
Wednesday, November 8, 2017
Thursday, July 20, 2017
Thursday, March 16, 2017
Wednesday, January 11, 2017
Friday, July 22, 2016
Monday, August 20, 2012
Mainstream media’s big role in the conspiracy against Crystal Mangum
Word count: 1904
The truth will set Crystal Mangum free. That is a proposition of which I have been a proponent for some time. Durhamians and Tar Heelians would put a kibosh on the baseless and vendetta-driven criminal charges against Crystal Mangum (the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser) if they only knew the truth about events of April 3, 2011, that were responsible for Mangum’s current entanglement with the law. But the masses are ignorant of the truth… in the dark, left standing amidst the shadows of a moonless night. The reason for the misguided opinions and sentiments surrounding this injustice is due to actions and inactions of the mainstream media… all acting in concert with one another and their fellow co-conspirators. Media’s main contribution to the conspiracy against Mangum is to keep the truth hidden… buried deep beneath diversions, misstatements, selective omissions, misinterpretations, and outright lies. Instead of acting as a torch of enlightenment in the Mangum case, it has been functioning as a shroud to strike the death knell for justice.
For the prosecution to be able to bring such bogus and baseless charges against Ms. Mangum, with a straight face, requires the devoted participation of four additional center-stage actors: (1) the medical examiner (to provide the fraudulent autopsy report upon which to base the prosecution); (2) extremely pliable turncoat defense attorneys (to look the other way, pull punches, and advise against Mangum’s best self-interests); (3) enablers (individuals and organizations [NAACP, ACLU, etc.] who are in a position to do or say something to positively impact the situation, but elect to remain silent… mostly out of fear, having learned their lessons from the persecution of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong); and (4) the mainstream media. Of the aforementioned four, the media is one of the crooked prosecution’s most valued allies because of the influence it has over the public… a public that for the most part places a great deal of trust in the media to provide honest and accurate reporting.
Although the mainstream media has been charged with being a public watchdog, to expose corruption in government and business that adversely affects the civilian citizens, when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case or any of its participants, all bets are off. The driving force behind the remarkable unity of all media outlets stems from the fact that Rae Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, was an executive at CBS News for more than a decade. Afterward, she founded a highly successful Washington DC public relations firm of which she is president and CEO. In addition, her husband is an attorney in a prestigious DC law firm. As strong as her ties are to the other media outlets, there is no doubt that she possesses sway as to how stories are spun, and she has not kept her feelings hidden. During an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” show, Ms. Evans stated that she wanted Mr. Nifong to “pay every day for the rest of his life” (as retribution for his having the audacity to prosecute her son and the other lacrosse players). Defying journalistic codes of good standards, CBS never disclosed Ms. Evans’ ties to the station during any of its programs which featured its biased stories about the Duke Lacrosse case.
Another factor which drives the selective, skewed, and one-sided reporting of the Crystal Mangum case is the media’s desire to protect Duke University’s reputation and to mitigate the civil liability which Durham has self-inflicted upon itself with its unjust treatment of Mangum. The quandary at the root of the murder charge against Mangum is the fact that Reginald Daye’s death was not caused by the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. An unrelated botched intubation by Duke University Hospital staff, which resulted in brain death, led to Daye’s elective removal from life support… the proximate cause of his death. The media, through the prosecution’s charge against Mangum, has done its best to shift blame for Daye’s death from the Duke hospital, where it truly belongs, to Crystal Mangum.
Shortly after the stabbing of Reginald Daye by his live-in companion Mangum, the mainstream media flourished with articles about the stabbing, ABC-11 even falsely stating that Daye was repeatedly stabbed by Mangum. Lacking a lot of specifics, especially Mangum’s side of the story, the media devoted little attention to the incident itself, and focused much on the so-called “2010 arson” incident involving Mangum, and her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… never failing to misleadingly mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared “innocent.” Mangum was represented by media as emotionally unstable, mentally ill, and a perpetual prevaricator with a penchant for being physically violent with her boyfriends… none of which is true. On the other hand, the media hid from the public Reginald Daye’s criminal history (which included assault on a female), the fact that he was an alcoholic, and that he was highly intoxicated at the time of the incident. The media never bothered to mention that Mangum sustained physical injuries, including a swollen lower lip and a cut around her left eye. Nor did the media report findings at the scene of the incident which included clumps of Mangum’s hair, and a bathroom door that had been kicked in by Daye. In fact, the media, at all times, painted Mr. Daye in the most positive light.
As the media became more aware of the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, its coverage of the case markedly diminished. On the third postoperative night, after Duke University Hospital staff intubated the esophagus rather than the trachea which resulted in Daye’s comatose state, the media went into a self-imposed news embargo on the subject. For a week, while Daye lay in a coma, the media kept the public in the dark as to the serious and significant turn of events in Daye’s medical condition. It was not until after Daye died a week later that the people were even informed about the fact that Daye had been in a weeklong coma. A suddenly apathetic media all of a sudden had no curiosity as to how Daye’s condition dramatically evolved from “expected to make a full recovery” to “irreversible brain-damaged induced coma.” Instead, the media placed the blame for Daye’s death on Mangum… never mentioning the botched intubation and, with the exception of only one media source, not mentioning that Daye was even on life support and that his elective removal from it preceded his death.
There was a flurry of media activity when the autopsy report was released to the public four months after it was written by Medical Examiner Clay Nichols. The media falsely proclaimed to the people that the stab wound inflicted by Mangum perforated “six” organs… the left lung, the diaphragm (not an organ, but a muscle), the left kidney, the stomach, the spleen, and the colon. As I revealed online in the operative report I procured from prosecution discovery, only the spleen and colon were damaged by the knife wound. In addition, other medical reports from prosecution discovery contradicted that Daye sustained any lesions to his left upper extremity which Dr. Nichols interpreted as being “defensive injuries.” Although the lack of credibility of the autopsy report by Nichols was brought to the attention of the mainstream media, they never attempted to question its accuracy or to set the record straight. Instead, the media chose to let their readers and viewers continue to believe that Daye’s death was due to the perforation of six organs by a single stab wound to the torso with a steak knife.
Specifically, I made contact with WRAL and its investigative team (including manager Randall Kerr), and ABC-11 at its downtown Raleigh studio, to enlighten them about the problems with the Daye autopsy report by Dr. Nichols. I even hand-delivered a letter to Jim Goodmon, the president and CEO of Capital Broadcasting Company which owns WRAL and FOX 50 among other media holdings. Per the usual response I have received from the media, I was ignored. As I was aware, the problem was not that the media did not know that what they reported regarding the autopsy report was incorrect and misleading, but that they did not want the general public to know. Such is still the case as the media continues to ignore the injustices in Mangum’s plight.
Another tactic utilized by the media is to not so subtly defile supporters of Mangum by presenting them as being lawless, unstable, and irresponsible. The headlines may blare that “Mangum supporter is being investigated by the State Bar,” but it is that which is underlying that story that is concealed. When approaching her one year anniversary of incarceration with no activity by her attorney of record, Mangum requested my assistance in drafting motions for her. I innocently drafted three motions based upon prosecution discovery that she sent me. She signed the motions and I filed them with the court. According to the State Bar, more than one journalist complained about me practicing law without a license… which propelled the Bar to investigate me. In order to conceal the identities of the journalists, the Bar itself assumed the role of the complainant in the action against me. Although the alleged wrongdoing against me was trivial and petty, the media, and the State Bar both made a mountain out of this tiny molehill. Diversion ruled the day, as the media brought attention to the alleged unauthorized practice of filing the motions (even questioning whether or not Mangum knowledge or consent for their filings), while disregarding the issues addressed by contents of the motions.
The selective and biased reporting by the media is not without severe consequences with respect to the administration of justice. Its role in the conspiracy against Mangum has helped keep a person innocent of committing a crime (and actually being a victim of crimes against her by Daye) incarcerated for 505 days as of today’s posting… and counting. The media is doing a disservice to Ms. Mangum, to Lady Justice, to the cause of “equal justice for all,” and to the public which reads its reports and views its broadcasts. In all fairness I do not fault reporters, news anchors, managers, and editors on the lower rungs of the media business, as the policies regarding how stories about Mangum are to be presented are determined by those at the top. Mr. Goodmon, as president and CEO is to be held accountable, rather than anchor David Crabtree, for example. Presidents and CEOs of ABC-11 and NBC-17 are guilty of failing in their duty to the public, as well. The media conspiracy in this Mangum criminal issue is long on fidelity and ubiquitous throughout the country.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t help persuade the mainstream media to do the right thing when enablers, such as politicians, retired judges, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, civil rights leaders and organizations, including the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, sit on their hands and allow their mouths to be muzzled. Only the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is speaking out against the injustice towards Crystal Mangum… and as would be expected, the media has gone out of its way to minimize the group and discredit it whenever possible.
The media’s handling of the Crystal Mangum case has been disgraceful, and its subscribers and the public at large deserve better.
The truth will set Crystal Mangum free. That is a proposition of which I have been a proponent for some time. Durhamians and Tar Heelians would put a kibosh on the baseless and vendetta-driven criminal charges against Crystal Mangum (the Duke Lacrosse victim/accuser) if they only knew the truth about events of April 3, 2011, that were responsible for Mangum’s current entanglement with the law. But the masses are ignorant of the truth… in the dark, left standing amidst the shadows of a moonless night. The reason for the misguided opinions and sentiments surrounding this injustice is due to actions and inactions of the mainstream media… all acting in concert with one another and their fellow co-conspirators. Media’s main contribution to the conspiracy against Mangum is to keep the truth hidden… buried deep beneath diversions, misstatements, selective omissions, misinterpretations, and outright lies. Instead of acting as a torch of enlightenment in the Mangum case, it has been functioning as a shroud to strike the death knell for justice.
For the prosecution to be able to bring such bogus and baseless charges against Ms. Mangum, with a straight face, requires the devoted participation of four additional center-stage actors: (1) the medical examiner (to provide the fraudulent autopsy report upon which to base the prosecution); (2) extremely pliable turncoat defense attorneys (to look the other way, pull punches, and advise against Mangum’s best self-interests); (3) enablers (individuals and organizations [NAACP, ACLU, etc.] who are in a position to do or say something to positively impact the situation, but elect to remain silent… mostly out of fear, having learned their lessons from the persecution of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong); and (4) the mainstream media. Of the aforementioned four, the media is one of the crooked prosecution’s most valued allies because of the influence it has over the public… a public that for the most part places a great deal of trust in the media to provide honest and accurate reporting.
Although the mainstream media has been charged with being a public watchdog, to expose corruption in government and business that adversely affects the civilian citizens, when it comes to the Duke Lacrosse case or any of its participants, all bets are off. The driving force behind the remarkable unity of all media outlets stems from the fact that Rae Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, was an executive at CBS News for more than a decade. Afterward, she founded a highly successful Washington DC public relations firm of which she is president and CEO. In addition, her husband is an attorney in a prestigious DC law firm. As strong as her ties are to the other media outlets, there is no doubt that she possesses sway as to how stories are spun, and she has not kept her feelings hidden. During an interview with CBS’s “60 Minutes” show, Ms. Evans stated that she wanted Mr. Nifong to “pay every day for the rest of his life” (as retribution for his having the audacity to prosecute her son and the other lacrosse players). Defying journalistic codes of good standards, CBS never disclosed Ms. Evans’ ties to the station during any of its programs which featured its biased stories about the Duke Lacrosse case.
Another factor which drives the selective, skewed, and one-sided reporting of the Crystal Mangum case is the media’s desire to protect Duke University’s reputation and to mitigate the civil liability which Durham has self-inflicted upon itself with its unjust treatment of Mangum. The quandary at the root of the murder charge against Mangum is the fact that Reginald Daye’s death was not caused by the stab wound inflicted by Mangum. An unrelated botched intubation by Duke University Hospital staff, which resulted in brain death, led to Daye’s elective removal from life support… the proximate cause of his death. The media, through the prosecution’s charge against Mangum, has done its best to shift blame for Daye’s death from the Duke hospital, where it truly belongs, to Crystal Mangum.
Shortly after the stabbing of Reginald Daye by his live-in companion Mangum, the mainstream media flourished with articles about the stabbing, ABC-11 even falsely stating that Daye was repeatedly stabbed by Mangum. Lacking a lot of specifics, especially Mangum’s side of the story, the media devoted little attention to the incident itself, and focused much on the so-called “2010 arson” incident involving Mangum, and her role in the Duke Lacrosse case… never failing to misleadingly mention that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were declared “innocent.” Mangum was represented by media as emotionally unstable, mentally ill, and a perpetual prevaricator with a penchant for being physically violent with her boyfriends… none of which is true. On the other hand, the media hid from the public Reginald Daye’s criminal history (which included assault on a female), the fact that he was an alcoholic, and that he was highly intoxicated at the time of the incident. The media never bothered to mention that Mangum sustained physical injuries, including a swollen lower lip and a cut around her left eye. Nor did the media report findings at the scene of the incident which included clumps of Mangum’s hair, and a bathroom door that had been kicked in by Daye. In fact, the media, at all times, painted Mr. Daye in the most positive light.
As the media became more aware of the weaknesses in the prosecution’s case, its coverage of the case markedly diminished. On the third postoperative night, after Duke University Hospital staff intubated the esophagus rather than the trachea which resulted in Daye’s comatose state, the media went into a self-imposed news embargo on the subject. For a week, while Daye lay in a coma, the media kept the public in the dark as to the serious and significant turn of events in Daye’s medical condition. It was not until after Daye died a week later that the people were even informed about the fact that Daye had been in a weeklong coma. A suddenly apathetic media all of a sudden had no curiosity as to how Daye’s condition dramatically evolved from “expected to make a full recovery” to “irreversible brain-damaged induced coma.” Instead, the media placed the blame for Daye’s death on Mangum… never mentioning the botched intubation and, with the exception of only one media source, not mentioning that Daye was even on life support and that his elective removal from it preceded his death.
There was a flurry of media activity when the autopsy report was released to the public four months after it was written by Medical Examiner Clay Nichols. The media falsely proclaimed to the people that the stab wound inflicted by Mangum perforated “six” organs… the left lung, the diaphragm (not an organ, but a muscle), the left kidney, the stomach, the spleen, and the colon. As I revealed online in the operative report I procured from prosecution discovery, only the spleen and colon were damaged by the knife wound. In addition, other medical reports from prosecution discovery contradicted that Daye sustained any lesions to his left upper extremity which Dr. Nichols interpreted as being “defensive injuries.” Although the lack of credibility of the autopsy report by Nichols was brought to the attention of the mainstream media, they never attempted to question its accuracy or to set the record straight. Instead, the media chose to let their readers and viewers continue to believe that Daye’s death was due to the perforation of six organs by a single stab wound to the torso with a steak knife.
Specifically, I made contact with WRAL and its investigative team (including manager Randall Kerr), and ABC-11 at its downtown Raleigh studio, to enlighten them about the problems with the Daye autopsy report by Dr. Nichols. I even hand-delivered a letter to Jim Goodmon, the president and CEO of Capital Broadcasting Company which owns WRAL and FOX 50 among other media holdings. Per the usual response I have received from the media, I was ignored. As I was aware, the problem was not that the media did not know that what they reported regarding the autopsy report was incorrect and misleading, but that they did not want the general public to know. Such is still the case as the media continues to ignore the injustices in Mangum’s plight.
Another tactic utilized by the media is to not so subtly defile supporters of Mangum by presenting them as being lawless, unstable, and irresponsible. The headlines may blare that “Mangum supporter is being investigated by the State Bar,” but it is that which is underlying that story that is concealed. When approaching her one year anniversary of incarceration with no activity by her attorney of record, Mangum requested my assistance in drafting motions for her. I innocently drafted three motions based upon prosecution discovery that she sent me. She signed the motions and I filed them with the court. According to the State Bar, more than one journalist complained about me practicing law without a license… which propelled the Bar to investigate me. In order to conceal the identities of the journalists, the Bar itself assumed the role of the complainant in the action against me. Although the alleged wrongdoing against me was trivial and petty, the media, and the State Bar both made a mountain out of this tiny molehill. Diversion ruled the day, as the media brought attention to the alleged unauthorized practice of filing the motions (even questioning whether or not Mangum knowledge or consent for their filings), while disregarding the issues addressed by contents of the motions.
The selective and biased reporting by the media is not without severe consequences with respect to the administration of justice. Its role in the conspiracy against Mangum has helped keep a person innocent of committing a crime (and actually being a victim of crimes against her by Daye) incarcerated for 505 days as of today’s posting… and counting. The media is doing a disservice to Ms. Mangum, to Lady Justice, to the cause of “equal justice for all,” and to the public which reads its reports and views its broadcasts. In all fairness I do not fault reporters, news anchors, managers, and editors on the lower rungs of the media business, as the policies regarding how stories about Mangum are to be presented are determined by those at the top. Mr. Goodmon, as president and CEO is to be held accountable, rather than anchor David Crabtree, for example. Presidents and CEOs of ABC-11 and NBC-17 are guilty of failing in their duty to the public, as well. The media conspiracy in this Mangum criminal issue is long on fidelity and ubiquitous throughout the country.
Unfortunately, it doesn’t help persuade the mainstream media to do the right thing when enablers, such as politicians, retired judges, the governor, the Attorney General’s Office, civil rights leaders and organizations, including the North Carolina Coalition Against Domestic Violence, sit on their hands and allow their mouths to be muzzled. Only the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is speaking out against the injustice towards Crystal Mangum… and as would be expected, the media has gone out of its way to minimize the group and discredit it whenever possible.
The media’s handling of the Crystal Mangum case has been disgraceful, and its subscribers and the public at large deserve better.
Tuesday, July 6, 2010
Grading the local media coverage of Crystal Mangum’s press conference
I have always maintained that the media has been in cahoots with the Carpetbagger families of the Duke Lacrosse defendants and the state of North Carolina in meting out vendetta justice to Mike Nifong et al. True to form, the biased media reinforced my premise by the way it approached the press conference that was held by Crystal Mangum at her residence of house arrest on Wednesday, June 30, 2010. This important conference with the media was scheduled to give Ms. Mangum an opportunity to set the record straight regarding events that occurred the night of February 17, 2010 which resulted in her arrest. It was also held two days before her upcoming court appearance on Friday, July 2, 2010. Grading the local media ranged from a high grade for NBC-17 News, to a low one for Durham’s daily newspaper, The Herald Sun.
In addition to the statement by Ms. Mangum and the question-answer interval that followed, all media in attendance received a signed written statement as well as a complete 8 page formal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Lay Advocate Sidney Harr filed the complaint two weeks ago, and in it he complained about the discriminatory and selective treatment Ms. Mangum received by police, prosecutors, and the courts.
In assessing the media coverage, content, presentation, and objectivity were taken into consideration. Broadcast, publication, and online works were evaluated when available. It should be noted that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, which arranged the press conference, was never mentioned by name in any of the media reports – in writing or video, or online. Grades were doled out, from best to worst, as follows:
Grade of B for NBC-17 News - it garnered the highest grade based mainly on its online video which includes the entire extemporaneous statement by Crystal Mangum which lasted three minutes and 47 seconds. The online text and the broadcasted segment on television also made mention of the fact that a complaint was filed with the federal government about Ms. Mangum’s treatment (although the name of the complainant was never mentioned). It is the only media outlet to mention the complaint. My main complaint with NBC-17 is that it was difficult for me to find the story by searching for it. Kendall Jones was the reporter for the event.
Grade B- for ABC-11 News. Reporter Anthony Wilson did a good job in reporting on the main points made by Ms. Mangum during its segment which lasted two minute and 17 seconds. Points were detracted from ABC-11’s grade because it dwelled too much on the Duke Lacrosse case, showing file video of the Duke Lacrosse defendants at their news conference, Ms. Mangum in a correctional jumpsuit, etc. Although the Duke Lacrosse case was the proximate impetus of the mistreatment of Ms. Mangum, it had no direct bearing on the incidents of the night of February 17, 2010.
Grade C for WRAL/Fox 50. Reporter Erin Hartness did a good covering the major points in the one minute 54 second video. Again, file video showing Ms. Mangum in the jumpsuit resulted in deductions to the final grade.
Grade D- for the News & Observer. The article by Stanley Chambers gives the police’s story of what happened the night of February 17th and not Crystal’s version of events. Although it covered a few points made by Ms. Mangum accurately, the article was obviously biased by its misleading rehashing of the Duke Lacrosse case. In particular is the false statement “State Attorney General Roy Cooper cleared the three men in 2007.” It has been brought to the media’s attention time and again that the attorney general does not have the power to clear anyone. He has the power to dismiss a case, which is what he did in Duke Lacrosse. There is also the implication that Ms. Mangum should have faced charges. The media failed to view Ms. Mangum as the victim even though she was the one who was sexually assaulted at the beer-guzzling stripper party in which Ms. Mangum was hired to perform under false pretenses by a lacrosse player who used a false name. The article failed to mention the most important point by Ms. Mangum, which is that she did not have any prior knowledge or involvement in setting clothes on fire in the bathtub or in vandalizing the car. The article is also misleading in stating that the house was on fire (which it wasn’t) and that her ex-boyfriend was the only other person in the home (again, false, because the police were in her apartment). What is extremely objectionable about the News & Observer is the fact that the article was placed on the third page of the local news section and not on the front page of that section. Instead, the front page article of the local section featured the milk-chugging contest between the senators and representatives at the General Assembly, and the color photograph showed a picture of a representative being served some ice cream.
Grade F+ for 14 News Carolina. This was truly pathetic example of journalism. The clip of the press conference, which lasted all of 33 seconds, featured no actual video from the press conference, although the reporter was there with the camera. Only file footage of Ms. Mangum wearing a jail jumpsuit and scenes of her apartment with crime scene tape sloppily strewn around were shown during the 33 seconds. The voiceover was in a monotone which sounded as though the individual making the statement was extremely bored. There was no effort put forth by 14 News Carolina. The journalist/cameraperson wasted time covering the event, as none of her efforts were utilized. Pathetic and unprofessional.
Grade F- for The Herald Sun. This newspaper is the daily local newspaper for Durham and the surrounding area, and although the assignment editor was notified well in advance of the press conference, she stated that no one would attend, because some reporters were on vacation. She requested, and was e-mailed hours after the morning press conference, a written statement by Ms. Mangum as well as the copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet nothing appeared in Thursday’s newspaper or online. One member of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was told by someone at the newspaper that the press conference would be covered along with an article about Mangum’s Friday, July 2nd hearing. Only one problem, and that is that the hearing was cancelled without notice. The public defender did not even have the common courtesy to notify Ms. Mangum of the cancellation, and she showed up at an empty courtroom along with three other members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The Herald Sun’s failure to cover this story is beyond outrageous… it is journalistic malpractice.
In conclusion, the coverage of Crystal Mangum’s press conference of June 30, 2010, solidly reinforces my premise that the media is biased against Ms. Mangum and will go to great lengths to represent her in a negative light.
For decent coverage of Ms. Mangum's press conference of June 30, 2010, go to the following link and click on the button with the story posted for the date of July 6, 2010:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/btnnews/btnnews.htm
In addition to the statement by Ms. Mangum and the question-answer interval that followed, all media in attendance received a signed written statement as well as a complete 8 page formal complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice’s Civil Rights Division. Lay Advocate Sidney Harr filed the complaint two weeks ago, and in it he complained about the discriminatory and selective treatment Ms. Mangum received by police, prosecutors, and the courts.
In assessing the media coverage, content, presentation, and objectivity were taken into consideration. Broadcast, publication, and online works were evaluated when available. It should be noted that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong, which arranged the press conference, was never mentioned by name in any of the media reports – in writing or video, or online. Grades were doled out, from best to worst, as follows:
Grade of B for NBC-17 News - it garnered the highest grade based mainly on its online video which includes the entire extemporaneous statement by Crystal Mangum which lasted three minutes and 47 seconds. The online text and the broadcasted segment on television also made mention of the fact that a complaint was filed with the federal government about Ms. Mangum’s treatment (although the name of the complainant was never mentioned). It is the only media outlet to mention the complaint. My main complaint with NBC-17 is that it was difficult for me to find the story by searching for it. Kendall Jones was the reporter for the event.
Grade B- for ABC-11 News. Reporter Anthony Wilson did a good job in reporting on the main points made by Ms. Mangum during its segment which lasted two minute and 17 seconds. Points were detracted from ABC-11’s grade because it dwelled too much on the Duke Lacrosse case, showing file video of the Duke Lacrosse defendants at their news conference, Ms. Mangum in a correctional jumpsuit, etc. Although the Duke Lacrosse case was the proximate impetus of the mistreatment of Ms. Mangum, it had no direct bearing on the incidents of the night of February 17, 2010.
Grade C for WRAL/Fox 50. Reporter Erin Hartness did a good covering the major points in the one minute 54 second video. Again, file video showing Ms. Mangum in the jumpsuit resulted in deductions to the final grade.
Grade D- for the News & Observer. The article by Stanley Chambers gives the police’s story of what happened the night of February 17th and not Crystal’s version of events. Although it covered a few points made by Ms. Mangum accurately, the article was obviously biased by its misleading rehashing of the Duke Lacrosse case. In particular is the false statement “State Attorney General Roy Cooper cleared the three men in 2007.” It has been brought to the media’s attention time and again that the attorney general does not have the power to clear anyone. He has the power to dismiss a case, which is what he did in Duke Lacrosse. There is also the implication that Ms. Mangum should have faced charges. The media failed to view Ms. Mangum as the victim even though she was the one who was sexually assaulted at the beer-guzzling stripper party in which Ms. Mangum was hired to perform under false pretenses by a lacrosse player who used a false name. The article failed to mention the most important point by Ms. Mangum, which is that she did not have any prior knowledge or involvement in setting clothes on fire in the bathtub or in vandalizing the car. The article is also misleading in stating that the house was on fire (which it wasn’t) and that her ex-boyfriend was the only other person in the home (again, false, because the police were in her apartment). What is extremely objectionable about the News & Observer is the fact that the article was placed on the third page of the local news section and not on the front page of that section. Instead, the front page article of the local section featured the milk-chugging contest between the senators and representatives at the General Assembly, and the color photograph showed a picture of a representative being served some ice cream.
Grade F+ for 14 News Carolina. This was truly pathetic example of journalism. The clip of the press conference, which lasted all of 33 seconds, featured no actual video from the press conference, although the reporter was there with the camera. Only file footage of Ms. Mangum wearing a jail jumpsuit and scenes of her apartment with crime scene tape sloppily strewn around were shown during the 33 seconds. The voiceover was in a monotone which sounded as though the individual making the statement was extremely bored. There was no effort put forth by 14 News Carolina. The journalist/cameraperson wasted time covering the event, as none of her efforts were utilized. Pathetic and unprofessional.
Grade F- for The Herald Sun. This newspaper is the daily local newspaper for Durham and the surrounding area, and although the assignment editor was notified well in advance of the press conference, she stated that no one would attend, because some reporters were on vacation. She requested, and was e-mailed hours after the morning press conference, a written statement by Ms. Mangum as well as the copy of the complaint filed with the U.S. Department of Justice. Yet nothing appeared in Thursday’s newspaper or online. One member of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was told by someone at the newspaper that the press conference would be covered along with an article about Mangum’s Friday, July 2nd hearing. Only one problem, and that is that the hearing was cancelled without notice. The public defender did not even have the common courtesy to notify Ms. Mangum of the cancellation, and she showed up at an empty courtroom along with three other members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. The Herald Sun’s failure to cover this story is beyond outrageous… it is journalistic malpractice.
In conclusion, the coverage of Crystal Mangum’s press conference of June 30, 2010, solidly reinforces my premise that the media is biased against Ms. Mangum and will go to great lengths to represent her in a negative light.
For decent coverage of Ms. Mangum's press conference of June 30, 2010, go to the following link and click on the button with the story posted for the date of July 6, 2010:
http://www.justice4nifong.com/btnnews/btnnews.htm
Monday, November 2, 2009
WRAL… Prime example of the Media molding minds of the public
“Walt in Durham,” the pseudonym of a frequent commenter in this blog site, www.justice4nifong.blogspot.com, is an intelligent individual, but even he has been duped and bamboozled by the media… WRAL, in particular. If the media is capable of feeding misinformation to Walt, and having him accept it as truthful, then it is obvious why the vast majority of media subscribers, like Walt, have negative attitudes towards former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong which are unwarranted.
This observation stems from a recent blog (around October 18, 2009) in which I made the following statement, “Just because Attorney General Roy Cooper said nothing happened at the party does not make it so.” Walt replied with a comment on October 21, 2009 which stated as follows: “But, Nifong himself said so twice” (insinuating that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened at the Duke lacrosse party). When I requested the source upon which he based his comment, he told me it was from WRAL. And sure enough, I went to the WRAL website and upon searching, I found the following article posted on July 26, 2007, with the headline, “Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened.”
That headline is an outright blatantly false and purposely misleading statement, and it was extremely effective in playing a Jedi-mind trick on Walt, and many others. The first part of the statement, “Nifong Apologizes,” is true, but the second part, “Admits Nothing Happened,” is offensively false on its face and baseless. There is absolutely nothing in the web article to substantiate such a claim.
Mr. Nifong does make the following statement, as published in the article: “I agree with the Attorney General’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party.” Yes, he states that “there is no credible evidence” that the three defendants committed any crimes for which they were indicted, but that does not mean that he does not believe that they are not guilty of committing crimes against Ms. Mangum. Definitely it does not mean that Mr. Nifong believed that “nothing happened.” For the media to state that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened is wrong and grossly irresponsible.
That said, there are many cases that move forward without credible evidence. In the Brittany Willis murder/rape/kidnapping/armed robbery case, there was no credible evidence against defendant James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson heroically solved the crime for the Wilson police, he ended up spending 39 months in jail on charges which lacked credible evidence; charges that were later dropped. Notice that the media did not go after Prosecutor Bill Wolfe. In the case against 14 year old Erick Daniels, who was identified by a robbery victim due to the shape of his eyebrows in a school yearbook, there was no credible evidence that existed against him. Yet he wrongfully served seven years in jail and the media is not critical of his prosecutor, Freda Black. There was no credible evidence against Alan Gell for the murder with which he was convicted and unjustly served nine years in prison (half of it on death row). However, there was exculpatory evidence favoring Mr. Gell which the prosecutors withheld from defense attorneys in order to win a conviction. Even at that, the media went out of its way to protect and shield his prosecutor (David Hoke) from criticism. I could go on.
Bottom line is that there are many charges that are brought by prosecutors without credible evidence… but just circumstantial evidence. The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants.
Finally, the nexus between credible evidence and the occurrence of a sexual assault is non-existent, but WRAL and the media in general would like the public to believe that in this particular Duke Lacrosse case they are linked; one and the same. The folly of this argument is obvious when you consider, for example, the rape case against Ronald Cotton. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup where he was positively identified as the rapist by a rape victim. There was no credible evidence linking him to the crime, nonetheless he was convicted and served many years in prison before being cleared by DNA. Because no credible evidence against him existed does not mean that the rape for which he was charged did not happen. In the Duke Lacrosse case, Attorney General Cooper has reached far beyond his bounds by declaring that no criminal activity took place against Ms. Mangum, based on the fact that there was no “credible” evidence against those accused by Ms. Mangum. And this is the line that the media, including WRAL, pursued and propagated.
Furthermore, the media, instead of questioning the legitimacy and propriety of the attorney general’s “innocent” proclamation of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, accepted it as being legitimate and binding. This declaration is an example of overreaching and irresponsibility by the attorney general at its greatest, and the media has been content to completely ignore its lack of legal substance. This is an outrage that WRAL reported without question and as factual with its online statement: “Following North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s declaration this April that the three men were innocent, …”
A final disgracefully misleading passage in the WRAL article is: “The defense’s request to drop the motion for criminal sanctions means that Nifong will no longer be required to reimburse the defendants thousands of dollars for costs incurred in the defense’s uncovering of exculpatory DNA evidence that could have cleared the players had the case gone to trial.” First of all, the defense probably decided to drop the motion for criminal sanctions because of the absurdity of the charge, which would become apparent in a courtroom. To expect a prosecutor to pay for work performed by the defense team is absolutely ludicrous, yet the media’s take on it is matter-of-fact. But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective “exculpatory” when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance.
In reporting on the same event, John Stevenson, of The Herald Sun, makes statements similar to WRAL such as: “All remaining charges against the defendants were dismissed in April by Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared the three innocent,…”
The Herald Sun goes out of its way to generate sympathy for the Duke defendants by quoting one of their attorneys, Joseph Cheshire: “…a long journey of suffering for innocent people.” Mr. Cheshire takes advantage of Attorney General Cooper’s “innocent” declaration, and then the public is supposed to believe that the Duke Lacrosse players suffered? First, they spent no time in jail (their prosecutor – Mike Nifong – spent more time in jail than they did combined). Second, they each received $7 million from Duke University in an out of court settlement (don’t ask me why). Third, their avaricious carpetbagger families are currently trying to gouge another $10 million for each of their defendant sons from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Fourth, they were represented by high-powered attorney, not public defenders. And fifth, they were certainly not oblivious to the biased media attacks being lodged against Mike Nifong, the accuser, and the city of Durham. With consideration of the aforementioned, I doubt very seriously that the boys endured a “long journey of suffering.” James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Charles Wayne Munsey, Theodore Jerry Williams, and other innocent people who were wrongfully incarcerated for long periods of time without compensation know what it is to suffer. On the other hand, the Duke Lacrosse defendants have mainly experienced pampering and coddling by the courts, the media, and the public… privileged treatment for which they have been accustomed and to which they feel is their birthright.
As outrageous and unfair as the coverage by WRAL and The Herald Sun was, it pales in comparison to the ranting of MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan. In an online article posted June 17, 2007, titled “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropriate,” Ms. Filan claims that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse. Now, I am not making this up. She actually wrote that! I would like to know how. First of all, I doubt that he even knows anything about the sport. Another unsubstantiated claim by Ms. Filan is that Mr. Nifong damaged the reputation of Duke University. Again, I would like to know how. Her article failed to explain. Ms. Filan claims Mr. Nifong damaged three innocent men. Like the rest of the media, she gives credence to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “innocent” declaration. Now I have never attended law school, and I am certainly not the senior legal analyst of a major media network, but from my high school civics class I learned that the attorney general, or anyone else in the executive branch, does not have the authority to render judicial decisions. That authority lies clearly with the judicial branch of government, as in judges.
Finally, Ms. Filan blames Mr. Nifong for damaging the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case on behalf of a victim who was poor, disenfranchised, and of color, against three young college men from families of wealth and privilege, was following the principle of “equal justice for all.” North Carolina justice, in practice, follows the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” That is what prevailed in the Duke Lacrosse case. The powers that be, and the media (including Ms. Filan) which was in cahoots with those powers, are responsible for destroying the public’s faith in the criminal justice system of North Carolina. All one has to do is look at the cases of James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Theodore Jerry Williams, Wayne Charles Munsey, Darryl Hunt, and many others who are poor and disenfranchised, and then compare them with the Duke Lacrosse case.
I take umbrage at Ms. Filan’s baseless speculations, especially her following statement: “He used the Duke case to get re-elected, and he resigned to try to save his law license.” What proof does she have for making these claims? They are reckless, inflammatory comments that are unsubstantiated… definitely statements which I doubt that she can back up with fact.
Ms. Filan did note in her article the rarity of the disbarment of an attorney, stating that it is the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting. I would disagree when it comes to attorneys in private practice, but the statement is valid when it comes to state prosecutors. She failed to mention that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. During a 76 year period, hundreds, if not thousands of North Carolina attorneys have lost their law license, but only one prosecutor has been disbarred… Mike Nifong. This is a fact that the media has kept hidden from the public, especially in light of North Carolina cases in which there has been egregious prosecutorial misconduct… in particular the Alan Gell case. Furthermore, North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated.
This type of Journalism engaged in by WRAL, The Herald Sun, MSNBC and other media outlets is detrimental to the public which relies on the media for fair and objective reporting. The false, fraudulent, unsubstantiated statements and claims put forth by the media about Mr. Nifong are not the result of sloppiness or inattention, but they are carefully calculated statements made as propaganda intended to direct public sentiment against Mr. Nifong who has attempted to take class and color out of the equation when it comes to justice in North Carolina.
Mr. Nifong has always maintained that he felt that something criminal did happen to the accuser at the March 13, 2006 party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team. Unlike Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mr. Nifong never said “nothing happened” at the party. So, the media took it upon itself to do it for him… even though there was no truth to it. And as a result, intelligent people, like Walt in Durham, believed the lie… proving that the media has become quite adroit at using the Jedi-mind trick on the public. That is what the media did in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and its prosecutor, Mike Nifong – instead of informing the people, it was busy molding their minds.
This observation stems from a recent blog (around October 18, 2009) in which I made the following statement, “Just because Attorney General Roy Cooper said nothing happened at the party does not make it so.” Walt replied with a comment on October 21, 2009 which stated as follows: “But, Nifong himself said so twice” (insinuating that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened at the Duke lacrosse party). When I requested the source upon which he based his comment, he told me it was from WRAL. And sure enough, I went to the WRAL website and upon searching, I found the following article posted on July 26, 2007, with the headline, “Nifong Apologizes, Admits Nothing Happened.”
That headline is an outright blatantly false and purposely misleading statement, and it was extremely effective in playing a Jedi-mind trick on Walt, and many others. The first part of the statement, “Nifong Apologizes,” is true, but the second part, “Admits Nothing Happened,” is offensively false on its face and baseless. There is absolutely nothing in the web article to substantiate such a claim.
Mr. Nifong does make the following statement, as published in the article: “I agree with the Attorney General’s statement that there is no credible evidence that Mr. Seligmann, Mr. Finnerty, and Mr. Evans committed any crimes for which they were indicted – or any any other crimes against Ms. Mangum – during the party.” Yes, he states that “there is no credible evidence” that the three defendants committed any crimes for which they were indicted, but that does not mean that he does not believe that they are not guilty of committing crimes against Ms. Mangum. Definitely it does not mean that Mr. Nifong believed that “nothing happened.” For the media to state that Mr. Nifong admitted that nothing happened is wrong and grossly irresponsible.
That said, there are many cases that move forward without credible evidence. In the Brittany Willis murder/rape/kidnapping/armed robbery case, there was no credible evidence against defendant James Arthur Johnson. Although Johnson heroically solved the crime for the Wilson police, he ended up spending 39 months in jail on charges which lacked credible evidence; charges that were later dropped. Notice that the media did not go after Prosecutor Bill Wolfe. In the case against 14 year old Erick Daniels, who was identified by a robbery victim due to the shape of his eyebrows in a school yearbook, there was no credible evidence that existed against him. Yet he wrongfully served seven years in jail and the media is not critical of his prosecutor, Freda Black. There was no credible evidence against Alan Gell for the murder with which he was convicted and unjustly served nine years in prison (half of it on death row). However, there was exculpatory evidence favoring Mr. Gell which the prosecutors withheld from defense attorneys in order to win a conviction. Even at that, the media went out of its way to protect and shield his prosecutor (David Hoke) from criticism. I could go on.
Bottom line is that there are many charges that are brought by prosecutors without credible evidence… but just circumstantial evidence. The admission by Mr. Nifong that no credible evidence existed does not necessarily exclude the possibility that a credible case could be built against the defendants.
Finally, the nexus between credible evidence and the occurrence of a sexual assault is non-existent, but WRAL and the media in general would like the public to believe that in this particular Duke Lacrosse case they are linked; one and the same. The folly of this argument is obvious when you consider, for example, the rape case against Ronald Cotton. Mr. Cotton was picked up off the street and placed in a lineup where he was positively identified as the rapist by a rape victim. There was no credible evidence linking him to the crime, nonetheless he was convicted and served many years in prison before being cleared by DNA. Because no credible evidence against him existed does not mean that the rape for which he was charged did not happen. In the Duke Lacrosse case, Attorney General Cooper has reached far beyond his bounds by declaring that no criminal activity took place against Ms. Mangum, based on the fact that there was no “credible” evidence against those accused by Ms. Mangum. And this is the line that the media, including WRAL, pursued and propagated.
Furthermore, the media, instead of questioning the legitimacy and propriety of the attorney general’s “innocent” proclamation of the three Duke Lacrosse defendants, accepted it as being legitimate and binding. This declaration is an example of overreaching and irresponsibility by the attorney general at its greatest, and the media has been content to completely ignore its lack of legal substance. This is an outrage that WRAL reported without question and as factual with its online statement: “Following North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper’s declaration this April that the three men were innocent, …”
A final disgracefully misleading passage in the WRAL article is: “The defense’s request to drop the motion for criminal sanctions means that Nifong will no longer be required to reimburse the defendants thousands of dollars for costs incurred in the defense’s uncovering of exculpatory DNA evidence that could have cleared the players had the case gone to trial.” First of all, the defense probably decided to drop the motion for criminal sanctions because of the absurdity of the charge, which would become apparent in a courtroom. To expect a prosecutor to pay for work performed by the defense team is absolutely ludicrous, yet the media’s take on it is matter-of-fact. But the most egregious and disingenuous part of the statement is the use of the adjective “exculpatory” when describing DNA evidence. There is absolutely no way in which the referenced DNA evidence could be exculpatory (that is, clear the players of sexual assault), and to suggest so is a monumental disservice to the public. WRAL, along with almost all other media sources, has consistently erred on this specific issue of great importance.
In reporting on the same event, John Stevenson, of The Herald Sun, makes statements similar to WRAL such as: “All remaining charges against the defendants were dismissed in April by Attorney General Roy Cooper, who declared the three innocent,…”
The Herald Sun goes out of its way to generate sympathy for the Duke defendants by quoting one of their attorneys, Joseph Cheshire: “…a long journey of suffering for innocent people.” Mr. Cheshire takes advantage of Attorney General Cooper’s “innocent” declaration, and then the public is supposed to believe that the Duke Lacrosse players suffered? First, they spent no time in jail (their prosecutor – Mike Nifong – spent more time in jail than they did combined). Second, they each received $7 million from Duke University in an out of court settlement (don’t ask me why). Third, their avaricious carpetbagger families are currently trying to gouge another $10 million for each of their defendant sons from the cash-strapped city of Durham. Fourth, they were represented by high-powered attorney, not public defenders. And fifth, they were certainly not oblivious to the biased media attacks being lodged against Mike Nifong, the accuser, and the city of Durham. With consideration of the aforementioned, I doubt very seriously that the boys endured a “long journey of suffering.” James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Charles Wayne Munsey, Theodore Jerry Williams, and other innocent people who were wrongfully incarcerated for long periods of time without compensation know what it is to suffer. On the other hand, the Duke Lacrosse defendants have mainly experienced pampering and coddling by the courts, the media, and the public… privileged treatment for which they have been accustomed and to which they feel is their birthright.
As outrageous and unfair as the coverage by WRAL and The Herald Sun was, it pales in comparison to the ranting of MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan. In an online article posted June 17, 2007, titled “Nifong’s punishment is extreme, appropriate,” Ms. Filan claims that Mr. Nifong damaged the sport of lacrosse. Now, I am not making this up. She actually wrote that! I would like to know how. First of all, I doubt that he even knows anything about the sport. Another unsubstantiated claim by Ms. Filan is that Mr. Nifong damaged the reputation of Duke University. Again, I would like to know how. Her article failed to explain. Ms. Filan claims Mr. Nifong damaged three innocent men. Like the rest of the media, she gives credence to Attorney General Roy Cooper’s “innocent” declaration. Now I have never attended law school, and I am certainly not the senior legal analyst of a major media network, but from my high school civics class I learned that the attorney general, or anyone else in the executive branch, does not have the authority to render judicial decisions. That authority lies clearly with the judicial branch of government, as in judges.
Finally, Ms. Filan blames Mr. Nifong for damaging the public’s confidence in the criminal justice system. Actually, nothing could be further from the truth. Mr. Nifong, in prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case on behalf of a victim who was poor, disenfranchised, and of color, against three young college men from families of wealth and privilege, was following the principle of “equal justice for all.” North Carolina justice, in practice, follows the tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” That is what prevailed in the Duke Lacrosse case. The powers that be, and the media (including Ms. Filan) which was in cahoots with those powers, are responsible for destroying the public’s faith in the criminal justice system of North Carolina. All one has to do is look at the cases of James Arthur Johnson, Erick Daniels, Floyd Brown, Theodore Jerry Williams, Wayne Charles Munsey, Darryl Hunt, and many others who are poor and disenfranchised, and then compare them with the Duke Lacrosse case.
I take umbrage at Ms. Filan’s baseless speculations, especially her following statement: “He used the Duke case to get re-elected, and he resigned to try to save his law license.” What proof does she have for making these claims? They are reckless, inflammatory comments that are unsubstantiated… definitely statements which I doubt that she can back up with fact.
Ms. Filan did note in her article the rarity of the disbarment of an attorney, stating that it is the legal equivalent of a unicorn sighting. I would disagree when it comes to attorneys in private practice, but the statement is valid when it comes to state prosecutors. She failed to mention that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred by the North Carolina State Bar since its inception in 1933. During a 76 year period, hundreds, if not thousands of North Carolina attorneys have lost their law license, but only one prosecutor has been disbarred… Mike Nifong. This is a fact that the media has kept hidden from the public, especially in light of North Carolina cases in which there has been egregious prosecutorial misconduct… in particular the Alan Gell case. Furthermore, North Carolina follows only the states of Illinois and Louisiana in the number of death row inmates who have been exonerated.
This type of Journalism engaged in by WRAL, The Herald Sun, MSNBC and other media outlets is detrimental to the public which relies on the media for fair and objective reporting. The false, fraudulent, unsubstantiated statements and claims put forth by the media about Mr. Nifong are not the result of sloppiness or inattention, but they are carefully calculated statements made as propaganda intended to direct public sentiment against Mr. Nifong who has attempted to take class and color out of the equation when it comes to justice in North Carolina.
Mr. Nifong has always maintained that he felt that something criminal did happen to the accuser at the March 13, 2006 party hosted by the Duke Lacrosse team. Unlike Attorney General Roy Cooper, Mr. Nifong never said “nothing happened” at the party. So, the media took it upon itself to do it for him… even though there was no truth to it. And as a result, intelligent people, like Walt in Durham, believed the lie… proving that the media has become quite adroit at using the Jedi-mind trick on the public. That is what the media did in its coverage of the Duke Lacrosse case and its prosecutor, Mike Nifong – instead of informing the people, it was busy molding their minds.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
