Nasher Museum of Art open to the public… except for Nifong supporters

In the Sunday, November 28, 2010 edition of The News & Observer, staff writer Mandy Locke wrote an article titled “Plensa Gets His Hug.” The article is about six outdoor sculptures by contemporary Spanish artist Jaume Plensa that adorn the landscape of Nasher Museum of Art on the Duke University campus. More than that, the article is more about publicity for the museum, giving its hours and price of admission. Under normal circumstances, I would be grateful for the information about the exhibit at the museum, but ever since I was maliciously kicked off the Duke University campus while attending another event which was advertised as open to the public, I have adopted a different point of view. The premeditated act of kicking me off campus took place April 14, 2010, after I attended an public interview which featured U.S. Supreme Court Justice Stephen Breyer, has made me incensed that a newspaper would give coverage to a museum located on a campus that openly discriminates against individuals who are openly known supporters of Mike Nifong.

Although Duke spokesperson Michael Schoenfeld wrote in his May 10, 2010 letter to me that I was welcomed back on campus and had not been banned from it, unless there is appropriate resolution of the incident, how can I ever feel safe setting foot on that campus again? Appropriate resolution would be for Duke to take responsibility for its spiteful offense against me, or provide me with a valid reason for the actions taken by the security guard on April 14th. The former track would be the wise one for the university to take, as its attempt at providing a credible reason for my expulsion in the May 10th letter fell far short of its mark while being the best excuse it could conjure up.

As has proven to be the case over the years, The News & Observer, like other mainstream media, is biased against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and his supporters. That is why the newspaper refuses to write stories that might put Nifong or his supporters in a positive light, and refuses to cast a shadow on Nifong detractors. The only story written about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong was the deliberate hatchet job by the newspaper’s sarcastic hit-man columnist Barry Saunders in July 2008, one month after it was founded. What the media has as its goals is to keep the public it serves ignorant about issues involving the unjust treatment of Mike Nifong, and the existence of individuals who support him. So, when Duke University discriminates against a person for no reason other than being a supporter of Mike Nifong, The News
& Observer is quick to say that that event is not “newsworthy.” In other words, the newsworthiness of an article is determined by media head honchos who weigh the impact that informing the public will have with regards to their agenda… in this case, that of the Carpetbagger Jihad against Mike Nifong.

The local Triangle Area media has no problem with carrying stories about other acts of discrimination, such as that which recently occurred at Cameron Village in which two lesbians were asked by security to leave the shopping mall because they were showing affection in public… but when it comes to discrimination by Duke University against someone… not for his/her actions… not for his/her speech… but solely based on the beliefs, thoughts and opinions carried in their head, then that story is not “newsworthy.” It was okay to write about three of Mike Nifong’s guitars being auctioned off, but it is not “newsworthy” to write about the fact that the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong gifted him a guitar similar to one which he was forced to auction off. It is okay for stories to be written about other individuals and groups who advocate on behalf of a person, policy or principle, but writing about the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong is not “newsworthy.”

The media has strongly adhered to the PAPEN (Protect All Prosecutors Except Nifong) policy, has done its best to keep the public ignorant of the fact that Mike Nifong is the only prosecutor to be disbarred since its inception in 1933, and has taken every opportunity to mislead the public into believing that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were exonerated and that Mike Nifong increased his chances to be elected as the incumbent Durham district attorney when he pursued the “black” vote by prosecuting the Duke Lacrosse case.

Because openly known supporters of Mike Nifong are subject to discrimination by Duke University, which can include being arrested without cause (like what occurred to former Duke University professor Henry Louis Gates Jr.), the media owes it to the public and masses to warn them that Duke University has zero tolerance for openly known supporters of Mike Nifong. That is the least that Mandy Locke should have done with her article, especially since the head honchos at the newspaper do not consider writing a story about the alleged discrimination by Duke against me, a Nifong supporter, to be “newsworthy.”