National Collegiate Athletic Association
NCAA News Archive - 2007
« back to 2007 | Back to NCAA News Archive Index
Opinions
The NCAA News
|
The NCAA News
Media coverage of Duke lacrosse case
The American Journalism Review published a report by Managing Editor Rachel Smolkin in its August/September 2007 issue on media coverage of sexual assault allegations against lacrosse players at Duke University. The players were declared innocent of all charges in April after a review by the North Carolina attorney general’s office of the year-long prosecution of the case. Smolkin’s report featured interviews with various participants in or critics of coverage of the case. The following opinions are gathered from Smolkin’s report (which also included research by Sally Dadisman, an editorial assistant with the magazine):
Daniel Okrent, former public editor
The New York Times
“It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That’s a package of sins that really fits the preconceptions of a lot of us.”
Ryan McCarthy, former editor
Duke Chronicle
“The outcome of this whole story is square pegs can’t be fit into round holes, and we saw the dangers of what happens when modern media attempts to do that. Hopefully this case will go down in the books as a lesson to media organizations on all levels to...second-guess themselves any time they think a story is clear cut.”
Bill Keller, executive editor
The New York Times
“I did think, and I told the columnists, that there was a tendency in a couple of places to moralize before the evidence was in, and not to give adequate weight to the presumption of innocence.... As a generalization, I’m not dismissive of the people who think that what appeared in the sports columns kind of contributed to a sense that the Times declared these guys guilty. I think that’s a false impression, but I can understand where people got it.”
Melanie Sill, executive editor
Raleigh News & Observer
“A lot of the coverage held up. There was a sense, though, that some stories were overplayed or lacked that sense of proportion. In reporting that storyline on the players’ conduct, that’s where we think that we overplayed things a bit and played to the storyline a bit.”
Stuart Taylor, columnist
National Journal
“The stunning thing about the media travesty that this story was is that as evidence began to trickle out and pour out and finally become conclusive — that this didn’t happen, that there was no rape — most of the media barely noticed.”
Dan Abrams, general manager
MSNBC
“There were some people out there who wanted to believe certain things about athletes and the university and about privilege, and some of these things may be true. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether these three young men raped a woman at a party that night.”
Evan Thomas, editor at large
Newsweek
“We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players. It’s complicated because there is a strong stereotype (that) lacrosse players can be loutish, and there’s evidence to back that up. There’s even some evidence that the Duke lacrosse players were loutish, and we were too quick to connect those dots.
“It was about race. (District Attorney Michael B.) Nifong’s motivations clearly were rooted in his need to win black votes. There were tensions between town and gown, that part was true. The narrative was properly about race, sex and class.... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place.... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
Rachel Smolkin, managing editor
American Journalism Review
“If the facts were wrong, though, why explore the narrative at all? Is it fair to use the Duke lacrosse players to tell a larger story of athletes run wild — a theme that appeared not only on sports pages but also was splashed, repeatedly, on the front pages of major newspapers and amplified on cable shoutfests?”
Columnist
USA Today
“We know there’s cheating in all sports, including the NFL. The issue is what is allowable cheating, and what is not? Taking steroids, the vast majority of us can agree, should not be allowed. But doctoring the baseball with pine tar as pitcher Kenny Rogers was accused of doing last year to win a World Series game? That was not only allowable, that was commendable cheating, even his opponents said.
“How about the baseball groundskeeper who waters the dirt around first base to slow down a speedy base stealer? Clever gamesmanship. Corking the bat? Cheating, but people will probably smile about it.
“Stealing signs from the dugout with your own eyes? Cunning and laudable.
“Stealing signs from the sidelines with a video camera? Now you’ve gone too far.”
John Sweeney, professor of sports communication
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
USA Today
“Our society has been transformed with digital recorders the size of cellphones and microphones that can pinpoint a voice hundreds of yards away. These take the game out of its traditions of human cunning and technical support — like game film the day before — and create a new kind of instantaneous ability to spy and shape strategy that really violates a sense of the game itself.... The soul of the game is at stake.”
The American Journalism Review published a report by Managing Editor Rachel Smolkin in its August/September 2007 issue on media coverage of sexual assault allegations against lacrosse players at Duke University. The players were declared innocent of all charges in April after a review by the North Carolina attorney general’s office of the year-long prosecution of the case. Smolkin’s report featured interviews with various participants in or critics of coverage of the case. The following opinions are gathered from Smolkin’s report (which also included research by Sally Dadisman, an editorial assistant with the magazine):
Daniel Okrent, former public editor
The New York Times
“It was too delicious a story. It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That’s a package of sins that really fits the preconceptions of a lot of us.”
Ryan McCarthy, former editor
Duke Chronicle
“The outcome of this whole story is square pegs can’t be fit into round holes, and we saw the dangers of what happens when modern media attempts to do that. Hopefully this case will go down in the books as a lesson to media organizations on all levels to...second-guess themselves any time they think a story is clear cut.”
Bill Keller, executive editor
The New York Times
“I did think, and I told the columnists, that there was a tendency in a couple of places to moralize before the evidence was in, and not to give adequate weight to the presumption of innocence.... As a generalization, I’m not dismissive of the people who think that what appeared in the sports columns kind of contributed to a sense that the Times declared these guys guilty. I think that’s a false impression, but I can understand where people got it.”
Melanie Sill, executive editor
Raleigh News & Observer
“A lot of the coverage held up. There was a sense, though, that some stories were overplayed or lacked that sense of proportion. In reporting that storyline on the players’ conduct, that’s where we think that we overplayed things a bit and played to the storyline a bit.”
Stuart Taylor, columnist
National Journal
“The stunning thing about the media travesty that this story was is that as evidence began to trickle out and pour out and finally become conclusive — that this didn’t happen, that there was no rape — most of the media barely noticed.”
Dan Abrams, general manager
MSNBC
“There were some people out there who wanted to believe certain things about athletes and the university and about privilege, and some of these things may be true. But that doesn’t have anything to do with whether these three young men raped a woman at a party that night.”
Evan Thomas, editor at large
Newsweek
“We fell into a stereotype of the Duke lacrosse players. It’s complicated because there is a strong stereotype (that) lacrosse players can be loutish, and there’s evidence to back that up. There’s even some evidence that the Duke lacrosse players were loutish, and we were too quick to connect those dots.
“It was about race. (District Attorney Michael B.) Nifong’s motivations clearly were rooted in his need to win black votes. There were tensions between town and gown, that part was true. The narrative was properly about race, sex and class.... We went a beat too fast in assuming that a rape took place.... We just got the facts wrong. The narrative was right, but the facts were wrong.”
Rachel Smolkin, managing editor
American Journalism Review
“If the facts were wrong, though, why explore the narrative at all? Is it fair to use the Duke lacrosse players to tell a larger story of athletes run wild — a theme that appeared not only on sports pages but also was splashed, repeatedly, on the front pages of major newspapers and amplified on cable shoutfests?”
Cheating in sports
Christine BrennanColumnist
USA Today
“We know there’s cheating in all sports, including the NFL. The issue is what is allowable cheating, and what is not? Taking steroids, the vast majority of us can agree, should not be allowed. But doctoring the baseball with pine tar as pitcher Kenny Rogers was accused of doing last year to win a World Series game? That was not only allowable, that was commendable cheating, even his opponents said.
“How about the baseball groundskeeper who waters the dirt around first base to slow down a speedy base stealer? Clever gamesmanship. Corking the bat? Cheating, but people will probably smile about it.
“Stealing signs from the dugout with your own eyes? Cunning and laudable.
“Stealing signs from the sidelines with a video camera? Now you’ve gone too far.”
John Sweeney, professor of sports communication
University of North Carolina, Chapel Hill
USA Today
“Our society has been transformed with digital recorders the size of cellphones and microphones that can pinpoint a voice hundreds of yards away. These take the game out of its traditions of human cunning and technical support — like game film the day before — and create a new kind of instantaneous ability to spy and shape strategy that really violates a sense of the game itself.... The soul of the game is at stake.”
© 2010 The National Collegiate Athletic Association
Terms and Conditions | Privacy Policy