Letter from Dr. Sidney Harr to CBS correspondent Major Garrett

Duke needs its image fixed more than Vick

I found a humorous article in The News & Observer of December 4, 2010, titled “Agency will help Vick fix image: French/West/Vaughan signs NFL star/ex-con.” First and foremost, NFL quarterback Michael Vick would not need to address image problems if it were not for the media. Prime example is that the subtitle calls him an “ex-con.” The media, without regard to the influence it welds over the mindless public, has incited hatred against Michael Vick for his role in a dog-fighting venture since his involvement first became known. As a result of public backlash against the talented quarterback, the judicial system handed him a sentence which is undoubtedly more harsh than those routinely given. Despite the fact that he maintained himself in good condition and served his sentence with dignity, NFL team owners avoided him like the plague because of the venom still evident at the release of his confinement. All of the owners were intent on blacklisting Vick, even the Carolina Panthers who lacked an experience and tested player at this most critical position. At the urging of the then Philadelphia Eagle QB Donovan McNabb, the Eagles eventually signed Vick as a third string backup, behind McNabb and the second stringer Kevin Kolb. Kolb, like the Carolina QBs, had very little playing time under his belt.

When given a chance to play due to an injury to Kolb and McNabb’s earlier departure for the rival Washington Redskins, Michael Vick performed spectacularly in winning games and the starting nod. But as soon as Vick suffered an injury to his ribcage when sandwiched between two defenders on the opponent’s goal line, he was unable to perform in several subsequent games, and the sports media started declaring that a quarterback controversy existed in the City of Brotherly Love. That was so ridiculous, especially after it was evident that, if anything, Vick played smarter and better than he had prior to his incarceration. There was no doubt in my mind that he would be on the field as soon as his injuries healed enough to allow him to do so. Because of Vick’s contributions, the Eagles sit atop of it’s division, a sure bet to make the playoffs, while the Panthers, whose owners got hoodwinked by the media into passing on the chance of a lifetime to acquire one of the best quarterbacks in NFL history, languish in the cellar with their shot at making the playoffs shot.

His exciting play, community service in bringing to the fore the immorality of dog fighting, and dignified composure have drowned out his harshest critics, and the media has suspended its assaults on him, at least for the time being. It was the same sort of demonization that the media used against former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong, however, in Nifong’s case the criticism has been excessive, pervasive, unrelenting, and downright cruel. This is no doubt due to the influence of Rae Evans, the mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans. Ms. Evans was employed with CBS News as an executive for more than a decade, a fact that CBS has refused to disclose on shows such as “60 Minutes” which featured interviews with her. The media tries to keep the public ignorant of this relationship in an effort to allow the broadcasts about Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to appear to be objective and unbiased… which they most certainly aren’t. Mike Nifong, unlike former governor Mike Easley, has never been saddled with a conviction on a felony charge, so the media can’t label Nifong an ex-con like it did with Michael Vick. Instead, the deplorable action taken by the media was to brand Nifong as the “disgraced” former district attorney. The “disgraced” title conferred upon Nifong by the media, especially The News & Observer was a biased bit of editorializing which steered many of the mindless to conclude in their "minds" that Nifong conducted himself in a manner that was disgraceful… and nothing could be further from the truth.

When it comes to reporting on individuals involved in intrigue or controversy, the approach taken by the media lacks conformity. For example, the newspaper article referred to Michael Vick as an “ex-con,” but I doubt that you will ever see that reference in conjunction with an article or broadcast about former governor Mike Easley. And although the deals he made as governor enriched himself and his wife, and would be considered by the reasonable person to be more disgraceful than the criticism leveled at Mike Nifong, it is unlikely that Mike Easley will be referred to in the media as the “disgraced” former NC governor.

The N & O article by staff writer David Ranii begins by describing the contract that the Raleigh communications agency has with Vick as being high-profile and controversial, however he omits stating that it’s lucrative… to the point financial terms were not disclosed. What I find most unbelievable about the article is the contention that Rick French, founder and CEO of French/West/Vaughan had to do some serious soul searching before agreeing accept Vick as a client. I’m sure that the deliberations in his mind could not have lasted more than a fraction of a nanosecond. Why should French be wrestling with whether or not to accept Vick’s money? Believe me, he didn’t. Then the article goes on about how his employees and clients would feel about his representing Vick. Are you kidding? Of course the employees would be thrilled, if for no other reason than that lucrative contracts help ensure employment and keep layoffs at bay.

According to the article, French would not have been willing to represent Michael Vick if he was only interested in hiring a PR firm simply to “window-dress what had transpired.” Well, that is precisely the reason that he hired French’s company. It seems to me that Rick French is more concerned about his image than his client’s. That is undoubtedly the reason he waited until now to announce that Michael Vick was his client. Because Vick’s stock was rising in boardrooms, as was stated in the article, French felt it was safe and timely to reveal that he had signed Vick as a client back in July 2010. Because of Vick’s spectacular play on the gridiron and acceptance by the public in general, French can now use Vick to help promote his PR business, which is the purpose of the article in The News & Observer and his planned public announcement. Now had Vick’s return to the football field been a bust and his detractors vocal and unforgivable, you can bet that French’s relationship with Michael Vick would be, and remain, under wraps.

Bottom line, Michael Vick is doing more in the realm of PR for French/West/Vaughan than is vice-versa.

If French wants to do some significant public relations work, then I would suggest that he approaches Duke University. The university certainly has the funds to be able to afford to retain French’s PR firm. One thing Duke has going for it is the media, which suppresses newsworthy stories that put the institution in a bad light. It’s blatant discrimination against me on April 14, 2010 because I held beliefs that did not conform to their institutional anti-Nifong sentiment was not reported although the media was alerted about it. And the media was instrumental in assisting Duke University in shoveling the appearance of all wrongdoing associated with the Duke Lacrosse case onto its prosecutor, Mike Nifong. The media kept the public in the dark about the surprise blitzkrieg-style razing of the Duke Lacrosse party house until after bulldozers had made considerable progress in bringing it down. So, if Rick French is able to secure a PR position for his firm with Duke University, he can count on unyielding assistance from the media.

Although I give The News & Observer some credit for writing an article about the inherent financial abuse at Duke University recently, it certainly did not go far enough. A December 3, 2010 article by staff writer Eric Ferreri titled “Buddy, can you spare $729,749?,” is misleading and minimizes the extent of legalized corruption at the university. To begin with, the headline, which is below the fold on the front page of the local news section, is vague and gives no hint about the story’s subject matter. The subtitle of the article, “Duke students protest bonuses,” is not quite as ambiguous as the headline but is still without direction. The article gives two examples of executives receiving bonuses… Neal Triplett, president of a management company who received $729,749 and Victor Dzau, chancellor of the Duke health system who received $983,654. Yet, the headline includes the bonus with the smaller dollar amount… minimizing the runaway avarice at Duke by the media. The other option would have been to combine the two bonuses for an amount of $1,713,403.

As is, no doubt the case, the bonuses referenced in the article, are probably on the lower spectrum of bonuses received by executives, bigwigs, and head honchos at Duke University… and there are also many in the upper echelons of the university who have contracts with bonuses that equal to or exceed the bloated salaries that the executives set for themselves to begin with. Duke’s operations are not unlike that of the failed financial institutions, such as AIG, which led the way into the recession in which we are now mired. With Bush-era tax cuts, deregulation of agencies and policies in place to protect against financial abuse, and other measures undertaken to enrich the wealthiest at the expense of the masses, individuals at Duke have made a killing… and continue to do so. The media paid a little lip service to the problem with its article, but it is not committed to helping make a positive change.

Now, I do not know what a chancellor of the Duke health system does, but I do not believe that it is deserving of an annual compensation package worth more than $2.2 million. Even a healthy financial environment does not justify unsightly salaries and bonuses that the head honchos give themselves. However, with the bad economy dropping the value of Duke’s endowment a whopping 24 percent, and as pay for the people who actually do the work at Duke is frozen and jobs are eliminated in order to meet the annual operating budgets, the bonuses of the head honchos at Duke continues to rise at a fevered pitch. People who were forced to accept buyouts or were let go while their positions were then eliminated, not only are more likely to result in a lessening of the quality of services provided, but also contribute to the swelling in the ranks of the unemployed. In addition, generating revenue to help sate the boundless greed of the Duke hierarchy has forced increases in intuition for the school’s students. As Amy Laura Hall, a professor of Christian ethics stated with regards to the bonuses given to top execs when the economy is bad and everyone else is asked to tighten their belts and make sacrifices, “I think that’s obscene.”

Rick, I think that Michael Vick can take care of himself. Now for all of the executives who are receiving obscene bonuses at Duke University amid layoffs, job eliminations, frozen salaries for the actual workers, and increased tuition paid by the students, the same cannot be said. I think that you could probably do a better job of window dressing for the university than its current spokesperson Michael Schoenfeld, who defined handing out a business card as “solicitation” in order to try and defend the premeditated, malicious, and unwarranted discrimination against me earlier this year. And with the media working with you, there should be no concerns about any negative publicity for your company.

The Nifongs are a class act… the same can’t be said for “Newsday”

According to the May 24, 2010 posted article by writers Joseph Mallia and Melanie Lefkowitz of Newsday titled “Collin Finnerty, once falsely accused, graduates college,” Cy Gurney (wife of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong) when she was told Newsday was calling about Collin Finnerty's graduation and homecoming, said, "I think that's wonderful. I can't speak for my husband, and I wasn't involved in the case, but I think that sounds like a great story. I believe that people should go forward.” This statement is typical and representative of the class, grace and style that the Nifongs have displayed throughout the horrific assault against them by the state of North Carolina and the biased mainstream media. Mike Nifong’s refusal to speak with meida is understandable when one takes into consideration the media assassination of him by media journalists and tv news producers. The launch of oppressive and spiteful attacks against Mr. Nifong was borne from Rae Evans’s (mother of Duke Lacrosse defendant Dave Evans) Carpetbagger Jihad call for action during a CBS “60 Minutes” television interview. Ms. Evans, in lashing out against the prosecutor who dared to bring charges against her son and two other Dukies, promised that Mr. Nifong would “pay, every day, for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans, who worked for more than a decade as an executive for CBS News (a fact which CBS has chosen not to disclose), is now founder and owner of a thriving Washington, D.C. consulting firm, and consequently she has the political and media connections to propel the unwarranted onslaught against a man who merely had the courage to do what was right. That man, Mike Nifong, did what he felt was the right thing to do when the alleged victim of a Duke lacrosse Spring Break beer-guzzling stripper party accused three Duke players of sexually assaulting her in March 2006. Mr. Nifong’s decision to move forward with the prosecution flew in the face of the wishes of Duke University, the North Carolina attorney general, and Governor Mike Easley. And, contrary to the rigged May 1, 2006 primary poll by SurveyUSA which was sponsored by WTVD ABC-11 News, Nifong’s pursuit of the Duke defendants severely compromised his chances of being elected to his incumbent position of Durham district attorney.

Make no mistake about it, the media is no friend of Mr. Nifong… it’s his worst nightmare. It has persistently played a Jedi mind-trick on the public with its false and misleading representations, such as the following: (1) stating that the Duke Lacrosse defendants were “exonerated”; (2) headlines falsely stating that Mr. Nifong “admitted that nothing happened”; and (3) fabricating statements, a specific example being an article by MSNBC Senior legal analyst Susan F. Filan which fictionalizes a conversation wherein Mr. Nifong asks his son to attend his disciplinary hearing.

The biased media was successful in its underhanded undertaking to destroy Mr. Nifong’s image and reputation nationwide, heaping scorn upon him and turning him into a virtual pariah. The majority of people who are aware of his unjust persecution are unwilling to show him any support for fear of being targeted themselves… the one exception being members of the Committee on Justice for Mike Nifong. This grass roots organization of supporters, formed in June 2008,has been largely ignored by the media which aims to minimize any show of support for the former embattled district attorney. Because of the anti-Nifong propaganda spewed forth by the media, many sppon-fed media subscribers have developed a visceral hatred for this honorable, gentle, decent man of integrity… Mike Nifong. So it should not come as any surprise that Mr. Nifong now refuses to talk to the media.

What I find truly disturbing is that Newsday would have the audacity to phone Mr. Nifong in order to get his opinion about Duke Lacrosse defendant Collin Finnerty’s graduation from college. Was the Newsday attempt to interview Mr. Nifong done intentionally to provoke, embarrass, rub in, flaunt, inflict emotional distress, taunt, or all of the above? I do not know what the motivation was for Newsday calling Mr. Nifong, but I know that it was uncalled for, insensitive, malicious, and demonstrated that Newsday has no class.

If Newsday wants to conduct an interview on a topic related to the Duke Lacrosse case, I would be more than happy to oblige. Instead of talking about the graduation of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, I would suggest the subject of Crystal Mangum’s recent incarceration on trumped up charges and her excessive $1 million bail. Newsday doesn’t want to tackle the outrageousness of this fiasco, however. Trumped up charges against Ms. Mangum included: (1) felony attempted first degree murder; (2) assault and battery; and (3) felony identity theft. These charges were included at arrest for the purpose of helping to justify the ridiculously high bail of $1 million, but they were not sought on the grand jury indictment because prosecutors knew these charges were frivolous and totally lacking in merit. The charges upon which Crystal Mangum was indicted by the grand jury were just as phony: (1) felony first degree arson (initially five counts reduced to one count at indictment) in a case where Ms. Mangum obviously executed a controlled burn and there was no flame damage or intention to damage her apartment building by fire. This charge is bogus because first degree arson by definition requires the deliberate burning of an occupied building or structure; (2) three counts of contributing to the delinquency of a juvenile are dependent on the first degree arson charge being valid, which it isn’t… therefore these three counts are baseless, as well; (3) injury to personal property – there was no proof that the few clothes burned in the bathtub had a value of $200 or more, and the claims of vandalism to the car of the ex-boyfriend brings the credibility of the Durham police reports into question; and (4) obstructing the investigation of a public officer by claiming Ms. Mangum’s giving a false name to police officers is ludicrous because they knew Ms. Mangum’s true identity before asking her.

The overriding issue is that Ms. Mangum, like Mike Nifong, DNA lab director Brian Meehan, two chief investigators of the Durham Police Department, the Durham City Manager, Nifong supporters as myself, and others considered by the Powers-That-Be to be on the “wrong end” of the Duke Lacrosse case, have been victimized by the Carpetbagger Jihadist movement. Unfortunately the media has served as a pivotal cog in the ‘Bagger’s machinery of destructive retaliation against anything pro-Nifong. By so doing, the media serves the interests of the few, well-heeled privileged at the expense of the vast majority of common folk who seek from the media honest, unbiased, and objective reporting.

The article about Duke defendant Finnerty’s graduation may be accurate in its account, but the actions by its authors to secure an interview with Mike Nifong clearly shows that Newsday is no class act.

Carpetbagger families of Duke LAXers and their direct link to the mainstream media

Rae Forker Evans, the founder and president of Evans Capitol Group, has an extraordinarily impressive resume. The Evans Capitol Group had its beginning in 1995, and is a public policy firm operating in Washington, D.C. It provides strategic guidance to corporations, non-profits, and trade associations seeking to influence the political process on a broad range of public policy issues. In 1982, Ms. Evans established the National Affairs office and represented Hallmark Cards, Inc. and its 25,000 employees on Capitol Hill, at the Executive Branch, and with national and international communities in Washington. She has received numerous honors and appointments throughout her career, including serving as president and Board Member of the Business-Government Relations Council, recipient of the 1996 National Women’s Economic Alliance Director’s Choice Award, and a 1992 appointment by President George W. Bush to the President’s Commission on White House Fellowships. Ms. Evans is married to a Washington D.C. attorney, David Evans, and they have two children, David and Kristen. Her son, Dave, was a student at Duke University, and was one of three Duke lacrosse players who were indicted by a grand jury on sexual assault charges stemming from the infamous stripper and beer guzzling party on Durham’s Buchanan Street in March 2006.

I would be remiss, if I were not to mention that Ms. Evan’s stellar professional career also included a decade-long stint at CBS News. From 1971 to 1981, she held positions at CBS News, the megacorporation that produces “60 Minutes” on CBS – TV. Later she worked as Director of Government Relations for CBS, Inc. The strong and intimate relationship that Ms. Evans enjoyed with CBS News is information that neither CBS, Inc. nor the mainstream media has wanted to share with the public after the Duke Lacrosse case was brought to the fore by the media. CBS’s “60 Minutes” devoted several television programs to the Duke Lacrosse case, and featured interviews with Ms. Evans, and the parents of the two other Duke Lacrosse defendants. Never once, did CBS, Inc. disclose that Ms. Evans, mother of one of the Duke Lacrosse defendants, had worked for more than a decade with CBS, News. Likewise the biased mainstream media never bothered to bring up this relationship between Evans and CBS.

CBS, like other mainstream media – ABC, Fox News, and NBC – has been markedly prejudicial in its coverage of former Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case. For example, like the rest of the mainstream media, it embraces the concept that Attorney General Roy Cooper’s April 11, 2007 “Innocent Promulgation” carries legal weight and is a matter of fact. It consistently and constantly refers to the Duke Lacrosse players as being “innocent,” “falsely accused,” “cleared,” and “exonerated,” based on the attorney general’s statement. It is my belief that the news media knows that they are misrepresenting the Duke Lacrosse defendants when it refers to them as “exonerated” or “innocent,” but they believe and rely on the belief that the majority of the public will not be aware that these descriptions are misleading, and that those who do, won’t care.

All the same, I wrote to executives at major media outlets to inform them that their use of the “innocent”-like adjectives with relationship to the Duke Lacrosse defendants was incorrect and misleading. To give credence to my position, I told them that Campbell University law school professor Anthony V. Baker agreed that Attorney General Cooper’s proclamation of innocent had no legal substance or standing. Professor Baker stated, “The A.G. presents a case but does not sit as "trier of fact" -- or ultimate adjudicator -- of it. That is the sole province of the jury, or a judge sitting in lieu of a jury.” To date, the media, in general, has chosen to ignore my complaint with this aspect of the Duke Lacrosse coverage.

CBS News is also guilty of another instance of attempting to mislead the public. It arises out of the Carpetbagger Families’ obsessive and intense desire to erase from the minds of people that an attack or criminal action against the exotic dancers could have possibly taken place the night of March 13, 2006. Through attorney Joseph Cheshire’s underling, Brad Bannon, the Attorney General in his April 11, 2007 statement capitulated to Carpetbagger demands by stating that “no attack occurred.” The Carpetbaggers tried to extract a similar statement from Prosecutor Mike Nifong, using the threat of significant jail time (on trumped up contempt charges), however, despite the duress Mr. Nifong constantly maintained that he believed that something (criminal) happened. To get around Mr. Nifong’s persistent stand on this issue, CBS News put words into Mr. Nifong’s mouth with its blaring headline, “Ex-DA admits no crime in Duke case.” The headline is a blatant outright falsehood that is not substantiated within the text of the article.

As with “60 Minutes,” the online CBS News article with the false headline does not disclose the close relationship between the mother of defendant Dave Evans and CBS News. If the public were aware of the close relationship, then questions of bias and fairness would be entertained by those with open and objective minds… and that is something neither the Carpetbaggers nor the media wants. And let there be no doubt about it, that Rae Evans, with all of her relationships with CBS and other media, as well as the contacts she has made throughout the upper echelons of government in the nation’s capital, and her husband who is an attorney in a prestigious Washington law firm, carries humongous clout. And if you have any doubt that she would use this clout, let me refer to her vindictive “60 Minutes” interview in which she promises that “he (Mr. Nifong) is going pay every day for the rest of his life.”

Ms. Evans had the clout with the media, and with her attorneys and others, she did a magnificent job in orchestrating a media propaganda campaign that was so successful in defining Mr. Nifong and the Duke Lacrosse case to her liking, that former Bush architect Karl Rove would be green with envy. There’s no doubt about it… the mainstream media is not only in cahoots with Carpetbagger Jihad Movement against Mike Nifong etal., but is at the fore, actively blazing the way amongst the weak-minded populous. The link is undeniable.

There is no doubt that Ms. Evans is a brilliant and highly motivated individual, and a person of whose achievements I am in awe. However, it was her famous and insightful statement in the “60 Minutes” interview with Lesley Stahl: “Mr. Nifong, you picked on the wrong families,” that so succinctly and accurately defined the crux of the problem with the state’s criminal justice system. As I am sure that Ms. Evans would agree, the North Carolina system of justice is one that is based on a tenet of “selective justice based on Class and Color.” For this profoundly truthful admission by Ms. Evans, we, Tar Heelians who ascribe to the principle of “equal justice for all,” are extremely grateful.