They are white, wealthy and well-connected. But none of this matters. The most important thing you need to know about Duke University lacrosse players David Evans, Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty is that they are innocent. All charges were dropped this week, with the North Carolina attorney general strongly condemning the actions of a politically motivated prosecutor intent on pushing the case to trial despite weak evidence.
In response to Durham County District Attorney Mike Nifong’s apology to the players, North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper said: “You can accept an apology from someone who knows all the facts and simply makes an error. If a person refuses to know all the facts and then makes a judgment, that’s far worse — particularly when that judgment destroys lives.”
The same can be said of the early news coverage of this case, which began unraveling almost from the start. The DNA evidence was not a match, the other stripper at the party said an assault had not occurred and the players insisted they were innocent.
Still, the rush to judgment was swift. Assumptions about race and class further sensationalized the story. The lacrosse team was assailed for bad behavior, their season canceled and their coach fired. Journalists and social commentators were quick to pit power and privilege against a black single mother who made her money as a stripper while attending college.
For whatever reason, their accuser apparently falsified the report about what happened at a March 13, 2006, team party where she was hired to perform. Her accounts have been costly for the accused, who may never live down the charge of rape.
What do members of the media now owe these young men? Prominent coverage of their innocence and serious questions to authorities about how this case was mishandled.
One reader who contacted me this week was unhappy the attorney general’s decision to drop the remaining charges didn’t make the front page of this newspaper. AJC national editor Arthur Brice said editors debated placing the story on Page 1. He argued for it to go there since the newspaper had written three Page 1 stories early on about the case. Most of the AJC’s stories appeared inside the main news section, and the newspaper decided early on not to devote a reporter to coverage of the case long term since the story didn’t have a real local connection.
Brice said editors ultimately decided that because reports had been out for 36 hours saying the charges would be dropped, it was best to display the story on Page 3 of the main news section, with a lengthy story and pictures of the young men. It was important to picture the men since the newspaper ran their photos when they were first charged.
Given the fact that the AJC never aggressively reported this story, this week’s coverage was appropriate. Newspapers such as The News & Observer in Raleigh and The New York Times, which have run many prominent stories on all aspects of the case, were right to proclaim the player’s innocence on the front page.
Some news organizations have now decided to reveal the accuser’s name. Many newspapers, including this one, have long standing policies about keeping the name of sexual assault victims out of the public record. Some journalists, women’s advocates and ethics professors now believe publishing victim’s names might help erase the negative stigma associated with being a rape victim. I’m not convinced of that, especially since such crimes rarely receive attention except in high profile cases such as the one involving Los Angeles Lakers star Kobe Bryant. Women who are legitimate victims of a sexual assault still deserve media protection. But people who make up false claims that lead to unjust prosecution should lose that protection. Perhaps then, they will think twice about making such claims.
Editors at the AJC haven’t discussed publishing the name of the accuser in the Duke case, but it’s worth careful consideration — especially if she is charged with making false statements.
In a letter to readers Thursday, The News & Observer executive editor Melanie Sill revealed her reasoning for naming the accuser for the first time this week. Sill said in her letter that editors had discussed this possibility for months and consulted with advocates for sexual assault victims, attorneys, judges, former and current journalists and ethics experts. Sill said, no consensus emerged.
The attorney general’s decision to drop the charges and the fact the accuser has been identified frequently on the Internet, led to the newspaper’s decision — which I applaud. Sill said her newspaper intends to continue aggressive coverage of the case’s fallout. Naming the woman who started this mess is the right step.
