Media Miscarriage

By Howard Kurtz
Washington Post Staff Writer
Thursday, April 12, 2007 7:22 AM

There's a lot going on the last couple of days--MSNBC booting Imus, McCain's big speech on the war, Fred Thompson's cancer, Larry Birkhead prancing before the cameras, and, oh yeah, the Duke sexual assault charges were dropped.

I hope that last one gets plenty of coverage, even though it's been clear for some time that the case had fallen apart. As long as we're talking about how the Rutgers women were unfairly disparaged as "ho's," consider the nightmare that the three Duke lacrosse players have lived through.

But in all the coverage you read and see about the clearing of these young men, very little of it will be devoted to the media's role in ruining their lives. I didn't hear a single television analyst mention it yesterday, even though two of the players' lawyers took shots at the press.

It was an awful performance, no question about it. News organizations took one woman's shaky allegations and turned them into a national soap opera, pillorying the reputations of the players. Reade Seligmann, Colin Finnerty and David Evans were presumed innocent in a legal sense, but not in the court of media opinion.

We will now read 100 stories about how an obsessive prosecutor overreached in bringing the indictments in the first place, and that's fine. But keep in mind that the Duke case was all over the network newscasts, the morning shows, the cable channels and the front pages. Newsweek put two of the defendants' mug shots on the cover. "I'm so glad they didn't miss a lacrosse game over a little thing like gang rape," Nancy Grace said on Headline News.

The North Carolina AG spoke of "a tragic rush to accuse," and he just as easily could have been talking about journalists as Mike Nifong. Commentators have been chattering about whether Nifong will be disbarred, but no one gets to disbar the media.

What made this a case of aggravated media assault is that news outlets weren't content to focus on the three defendants. Attorney General Roy Cooper said there was a "rush to condemn a community and a state." Remember all the "trend" stories about "pampered" and "privileged" student athletes being "out of control"? Remember how the lacrosse players' homes were shown on TV? How the coach lost his job? How this case was depicted as being about the contrast between a white elite institution and a poor black community? All of that was built on what turned out to be lies.

Once discrepancies surfaced in the account of the accuser--who has still not been identified by the MSM, even though she's now been exposed as a liar--some news organizations did a good job of pursuing them. But just about everyone joined in the original frenzy over race and sports. And given the media's track record going back to Richard Jewell, I have zero confidence that this won't happen again.

By the way, Drudge and other Web sites are running the accuser's name and picture. I'm not sure how I feel about this, since she is now a certified liar who put three innocent men and their families through hell, but it still feels cheesy.

"North Carolina's attorney general declared three former Duke University lacrosse players accused of sexually assaulting a stripper innocent of all charges on Wednesday, ending a prosecution that provoked bitter debate over race, class and the tactics of the Durham County district attorney," says the New York Times.

Power Line's Scott Johnson has been waiting for this:

"A year ago, before charges had been brought against any of the Duke lacrosse players, I wrote 'Free the Duke 46' (the Duke lacrosse team). Today ABC News reports that the charges against Reade Seligmann, David Evans and Collin Finnerty will be dismissed by the North Carolina Attorney General. At the time I predicted that Duke administrators, campus protestors, 'black leaders,' the exotic dancer making the charges and the prosecutor -- all of whom contributed to this miscarriage of justice -- would get off scotfree. We shall see."

Yesterday's decision to drop Imus from MSNBC came after a number of major advertisers bailed. CBS Radio says it's keeping the I-man, for now, after his two-week suspension.

How's Imus taking it?

"Mr. Imus did not respond to telephone messages last night. But Bo Dietl, a security expert who is a frequent guest on Mr. Imus's show, said last night that he had just talked by telephone with the host, and that his mood was "very down, very upset about what occurred with MSNBC."

" 'I said to him that they didn't even give him time to talk to the victims,' Mr. Dietl said. 'He agreed with me.' "

NBC News President Steve Capus described his decision on "Hardball":

"When I first learned of the comments, we issued an apology and we denounced the comments. They were awful. They were hateful. They were deplorable. But something also happened right after that, and that is a dialogue that's been going on inside the country, and it's been going on inside NBC News. I've received hundreds, if not thousands of emails, both internal an external, with people with very strong views about what should happen. I've listened to those people with their comments. And many of them are people who have worked at NBC News for decades, people who put their lives on the line covering wars and things like that. These comments were deeply hurtful to many, many people."

What Imus said, as he has acknowledged, was indefensible. But Michelle Malkin reprints some horrible and misogynistic rap lyrics from the most popular CDs:

"Al Sharpton, I am sure, is ready to call a press conference with the National Organization for Women to jointly protest this garbage and protest the radio stations and big pimpin' music companies behind it . . .

"One dumb radio/television shock jock's insult is a drop in the ocean of barbaric filth and anti-female hatred on the radio.

"Imus gets a two-week suspension. What kind of relief do we get from this deadening, coarsening, dehumanizing barrage from young, black rappers and their music industry enablers who have helped turn America into Tourette's Nation?"

Maybe, in the Elizabeth Edwards era, you can't be a serious candidate without owning up to an illness or one involving a family member:

"Advisers to Fred Thompson said his decision to disclose his cancer Wednesday after keeping it secret for more than two years -- and the way he let the news out -- reflects his growing seriousness about tackling a race for the White House," the Politico reports.

"Thompson, 64, went on Fox News Channel to talk to Neil Cavuto, an anchor who has waged a public battle with multiple sclerosis; posted an encouraging message on one of the largest conservative blogs; and released a note from his doctor."

And Thompson is surging--without doing anything at all:

"Sen. John McCain, once considered the front-runner for the Republican presidential nomination, has fallen to third place in a new Los Angeles Times/Bloomberg poll, and is running behind Fred Thompson, an actor and former senator who has not even entered the race.

"Former New York Mayor Rudolph W. Giuliani leads the crowded field of announced and potential contenders with support from 29% of Republican primary voters surveyed, followed by Thompson with 15% and McCain with 12%. Mitt Romney, the former Massachusetts governor and fundraising powerhouse, had 8%.

"The Arizona senator's showing in the poll is his lowest in any national survey to date, marking a new benchmark in his flagging fortunes. The surge of interest in Thompson is a sign of conservative dissatisfaction with the established field of candidates and underscores just how unsettled the Republican race remains."

The problem, says Jonah Goldberg, is not with McCain but with his (potential) voters:

"McCain plans to make his candidacy a referendum on victory in Iraq. It is a truly bold and courageous gambit. At a time when the polls advise running away from the war, McCain will embrace it. By positioning himself to the hawkish right of the Bush administration, McCain might be able to make the election a referendum on the future of Iraq, rather than a referendum on the last four years. As a war hero with two sons in the military, McCain can argue with obvious moral authority that while we may have blundered our way into Iraq, it would be an even greater blunder to get out before winning.

"There are many reasons to have reservations about McCain: his love of regulation, his animosity toward free-marketers or simply his age and temper. But conservatives who claim that the war trumps everything but won't even consider pulling the lever for McCain have some growing up to do."

But his media enablers are off the bandwagon. Ana Marie Cox gives you the flavor:

"At our regular edit meeting/wine tasting hour, there was much discussion of McCain and a theory was floated: The man is uncomfortable being anything but the underdog. Too much success and he gets to feeling guilty and uncomfortable. This hypothesis leads to two different predictions, each of which got some support last night:

"1) As he continues to flail, he will become more desperate and make increasingly stupid attempts to pander to supporters, even as he is clearly uncomfortable doing so and thus sheds credibility among both would-be supporters and the press.

"2) He will continue to slide in the polls, but as soon as it becomes clear that there is no way he can possibly win the nomination, he'll right himself and unleash a can of that Straight Talk Whoop-Ass on the rest of the field. It will be too little, too late and by then the nomination will be locked up (Thompson-Romney?), but the media will have time to fall in love again and there will be a series of quiet little cookouts at the Arizona ranch and at least one journalist will write a elegiac book."

Somebody forgot to prep Rudy, and DavidNYC at Kos is loving it:

"But when asked about more mundane matters -- like the price of some basic staples -- Giuliani had trouble with a reporter's question.

"'A gallon of milk is probably about a $1.50, a loaf of bread about a $1.25, $1.30,' he said.

"A check of the Web site for D'Agostino supermarket on Manhattan's Upper East Side showed a gallon of milk priced at $4.19 and a loaf of white bread at $2.99 to $3.39. In Montgomery, Ala., a gallon of milk goes for about $3.39 and bread is about $2.

"And this isn't tucked away at the bottom of the story -- the headline is 'Republican candidate off the mark on cost of milk, bread.' Ouch . . .

"But considering how long this line of questioning has been around (at least twenty years), it seems surprising that Saint Rudy would flub it. The fact that he wasn't even briefed on supermarket receipts months ago just shows that Giuliani's surrounded by people who are very good at insulating him from the real world, but are utterly incapable of dealing with it - just like their boss."

The new CW on Barack Obama seems to be that he's putting audiences to sleep. The New Republic's Noam Scheiber says the problem may run deeper:

"Stylistic failings aside, the standard explanation for why Obama isn't exciting audiences is that he's too stingy with details. This creates the impression that he lacks the policy chops to be president. The problem is particularly evident alongside the preternatural wonkiness of a Hillary Clinton and the practiced incantations of a John Edwards . . .

"Of course, as Obama has pointed out in his own defense, his campaign is a mere two months old. In an ideal world, a candidate would have a binder full of intricate policy proposals before entering a race--collated, color-tabbed, and ready to go. But then, in an ideal world, the Democratic front-runner wouldn't have unfavorable ratings in excess of 40 percent.

"We knew Obama was going to be green just like we knew Hillary was going to be a tough sell among large chunks of voters. The bargain was that Obama's raw intellect and innate political skills would get him up to speed before long. This may not turn out to be the case, but it's much too early to conclude as much."

Josh Marshall says this WashPost report reads like a "joke piece":

"The White House wants to appoint a high-powered czar to oversee the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan with authority to issue directions to the Pentagon, the State Department and other agencies, but it has had trouble finding anyone able and willing to take the job, according to people close to the situation.

"At least three retired four-star generals approached by the White House in recent weeks have declined to be considered for the position, the sources said, underscoring the administration's difficulty in enlisting its top recruits to join the team after five years of warfare that have taxed the United States and its military.

"The article's not the problem, mind you, but the subject matter. This is truly DC-czarism, 'we can't figure out what the hell we're doing so let's appoint a new bubble on the flowchart' run amok. Instead of 'czar' maybe we can just call the person 'training wheels'? Someone to oversee wars, the Pentagon, the State Department and everything else? Don't we elect that person every four years?"

I did think this was one czar we could do without. Have you noticed how much having an intelligence czar has improved things?

With so much to accuse the media of these days, I'm not sure why anyone has to make stuff up. The Nation's John Nichols finds a strange roll of the dice in Reno:

"With all the bizarre behavior in Washington, it is easy to forget about the over-the-top antics of state officials around the country. But, sometimes, a governor outdoes himself.

"Consider the case of Nevada Governor Jim Gibbons, a former Republican congressman who was elected to his current job last November. Gibbons, who was the subject of an inquiry into whether he assaulted a woman during the gubernatorial race, is now reportedly the target of an Federal Bureau of Investigation inquiry into whether he steered federal contracts to a Nevada defense contractor who allegedly made secret payments to the then congressman.

"The newspaper that broke the story of the Gibbons scandal was The Wall Street Journal, which is generally seen as the most political conservative and Republican friendly of America's nationally-circulated newspapers. While there is no question that the Journal's editorial page bends hard to the right, it's news pages have a good reputation for reporting responsibly on national affairs -- which should come as no surprise, as titans of industry and Wall Street traders do not like to be lied to.

"But Gibbons says The Wall Street Journal is bought and paid for by the Democrats. Indeed, the governor claims 'the Democrats have paid to have these Wall Street Journal articles written.'

"Asked for more details about those payments, the governor's press secretary said, 'As far as the Wall Street Journal story goes, we don't know. We don't know who is providing it but we do hear rumors just like you do.'"

Rumors? A governor is throwing around rumors?

The Most Honest Blog Post of the Week comes from one of the Ankle Biting Pundits:

"I freely admit that I'm linking to this story from our buddy John Hawkins solely because it has some very hot pictures that Rachael Ray took for FHM Magazine a few years ago. Damn, I'd like to be a chocolate-covered spoon right now."

It's safe for work--kind of.