Selena Roberts may have been a columnist for the NY Times and ostensibly only writing her “opinion” about the Duke lacrosse team but being a columnist doesn’t excuse you from having to get your facts right. In 2006, as the story broke, she wrote, “But why is it so hard to gather the facts? Why is any whisper of a detail akin to snitching?” She was wrong about that. There WAS no coverup, no difficulty in gathering the facts. The problem was that there was a corrupt prosecutor (since jailed) named Mike Nifong that twisted the facts to try to make a name for himself. She then went on a concentrated tirade aimed at smearing the players, who she named personally and their families, their upbringing, their school,and their entire culture.
So she screwed up. It happens, right? Did she apologize to the players and their families? No, in fact, she continues to smear Duke and the team to this day. I don’t know about you, but I have a profound distrust for anyone who ignores the facts that conflict with their own agenda and stubbornly continue to push that agenda regardless of the actuality of the situation.
I found this post, here, particularly enlightening. It is by a Brooklyn College History professor, on his blog, which has won ethics awards from the American Bar Association Journal. It’s a great read and it clearly documents the journalistic quicksand that Selena Roberts tends to tread in. Among her transgressions: she referred to incorrect information in the search warrants as being information from “court documents”. “This statement drew a rebuke from even the Times’ milquetoast then-public editor, Byron Calame, who noted that journalists do not consider search warrants to be “court documents.” She also claimed that no players came forward to give an eyewitness account, but that was patently false. Several officials from the Times have henceforth offered public apologies, yet Roberts offers none and even continues to accuse the players of misogyny and race-baiting.
Supposing I hear some rumblings about you being a child molester and I jump on it and write a column about how horrible you are, and how your horrible parents and your horrible peers and the corrupt people at your job or school all contributed to what an awful excuse for a human being you are, and covered up for your heinous crimes. Suppose it turns out that some overzealous prosecutor fabricated the charges and victimized you without grounds. Should I apologize, or should I simply say, “well, maybe those charges were found to be without merit, but that doesn’t necessarily mean that you’re not a child molester, and the police found legal non-kiddy porn on your computer, so you’re still a pervert, and one of your classmates in college said you told a racist joke once, and I’m still sticking by the allegations that the culture that produced you is corrupt and vile, and I’m not apologizing for anything, despite all the people and families that I unjustly smeared.
Would that be fair and honest journalism? Because, from what I’ve been able to tell of the case, that’s exactly what she’s done (please correct me if I have anything wrong). Just because she was a columnist, doesn’t alleviate her from all journalistic ethics, does it? How does she even still have a job? She was right about A-Rod’s steroid test, yes, but at least A-Rod admitted it when HE got caught. Did Selena?
If you enjoyed this article, please consider sharing it!
13 Responses to Selena Roberts and Duke Lacrosse
Leave a Reply
TIQ IQ
She sure seems like a woman bent on destroying the lives of privileged men. As KLAW said today – it’s pretty clear she is out to get A-Rod. Hopefully, that and using 6th grade, “I heard Sally say this about Nancy” reporting makes her happy.
Who could believe that a kid could gain between 15 and 20 pounds between his sophomore and junior years of high school? Oh, just about anyone who knows anything about puberty. She seriously uses that as evidence that he did steroids in high school. Woodward and Bernstein she is not.
I’m not sure gender has anything to do with this. I think it has to do with making a name for herself, just as Nifong tried to do. I think her mischaracterizations of evidence and unwillingness to make amends are the biggest issues. When asked on ESPN radio today about the fact that it seems there is no new info in the book, just hearsay, she cites as “irrefutable evidence” (her words) rapid increases in strength by Alex in high school and hearsay from anonymous sources. To term those things irrefutable evidence points to a disconnect between her perception of the data she has and its actual value.
It seems that the nuances of the legal system and “evidence” are mere rumors to her.
I know that this is just as much speculation as her BS book, but she isn’t winning any beauty contests and she sure seems to be targeting males who are well off. We’ve all seen, to be polite, less than beautiful women who have real bones to pick with men and would it really surprise anyone if that was the case here?
It’s nice that she’ll use A-Rod to profit from pure hearsay and speculation. You know, the MSM sure loves to get on a soapbox about the lack of journalistic ethics on blogs, but they are all defending one of their own in Roberts, without even mentioning the Duke fiasco or that there are, you know, no actual FACTS in these latest allegations. It’s also interesting that the release date keeps on changing based on A-Rod’s rehab – oh, and look, this sneak preview was released just as he was playing in his first rehab game and would be available to the press. In many ways, she seems to be violating the ethos of her profession in the same ways that she alleges A-Rod has.
Irrefutable evidence? She sounds uneducated and ignorant. How can someone who wrote for the NY Times come off as that ignorant? Has the Times really fallen THAT far?
The MSM won’t call out one of their own because it makes the already-on-life-support printed media look even worse. They’re going to defend her (or at least ignore her) in the hopes that her sensationalist and unethical practices get a few more people picking up the Times on the way to work. Calling her out would just provide the blogosphere with more ammunition, and more reasons for people to scorn the MSM.
Sad and pathetic, isn’t it? The worst part is that you don’t even have to take my word for it…….you know it’s true.
The gender thing is pure speculation on your part, and is no better than what she is doing- reaching a conclusion and then picking out “facts” to use as evidence.
I disagree. The difference is that I admit that it is speculation whereas she admits nothing of the sort.
I understand that you guys don’t want to say that gender is an issue, but it’s certainly strange that she suspends journalistic ethics so easily for people with whom she has issues.
KC Johnson puts it perfectly when he writes: “Most people would consider a former Times and current Sports Illustrated columnist accusing the lacrosse players of “misogyny and race baiting” as creating an “undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.” This safe harbor would apply even when the prejudicial remarks come from a figure who, for anyone who followed the lacrosse case closely, sacrificed her journalistic credibility in an attempt to advance a preconceived ideological agenda.”
She certainly seems to have it out for A-Rod, and she certainly had it out for the Duke lacrosse players. That she cites misogny and race-baiting only further hints at her real motives.
We can agree to disagree, but the truth remains – she suspends journalistic ethics far too easily for these well off males. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice …
Again, I find it unfair to speculate as to her motives being that we can never truly know what is going on in her head. I will say that the motive of a journalist, after the lofty goal of protecting truth, is to be read by as many people as possible. Some use shady means and unsourced stories to achieve their goals. Again, I am not specualting as to whether this was her motivation. Rather, I am posing an alternative to your making the assumption that she is a bitter woman out to bring down wealthy men.
I respect that. It’s also OK to disagree on the subject.
Just as there are old, angry, white columnists who unfairly portray young black athletes, there are also going to be women who have it out for men.
In terms of being “unfair,” I’d say that using her forum to attack men with no actual facts is grossly more unfair than me calling her an Omega Mu who has it out for men.
And yes, she also uses it as a way to make money. Making money is probably her main objective – it just doesn’t pass the smell test when she vindictively goes after guys like this without any facts.
Greetings. I interviewed Johnson today to ask him his thoughts on the latest revelations in Roberts’ book:
http://subwaysquawkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/subway-squawker-scoop-duke-lacrosse.html
Great interview. He is right on top of this stuff.
???????! ???? ?????? ???????? ?? ???? ???? ??????! :)
Does anyone read this?