NYT Ignores Own Errors in Duke 'Rape' Hoax Coverage


New York Times reporter Duff Wilson, author of the notorious front-page story from August 25, 2006 riding to the defense of rogue prosecutor Michael Nifong's rape case hoax at Duke University, picks gingerly through the case's wreckage in Saturday's "'Credibility Issues' Undid Duke Case, Report Says," while avoiding his own contribution to it.

Blogger, law professor and case expert KC Johnson has noted the Times has never corrected falsehoods in the timeline in Wilson's August 25 story. Wilson's Saturday piece hews closer to the truth, but without acknowledging his original errors.

Wilson wrote this timeline on Saturday:

"The accuser and another stripper were paid $800 to dance for two hours but stopped after five minutes when one of the men made a sexual remark while holding a broomstick. The women retreated to the bathroom and then outside, the report said. Some players felt cheated."

The women made another trip to the bathroom, then:

"The report said the second dancer then made a racial and sexual comment about the young men, who responded with racial epithets. The second dancer declined to talk with the attorney general unless she received a subpoena; the attorney general did not subpoena her."

Here's what Wilson wrote back in August 2006 (emphasis added by Johnson):

"The dancers stopped. An argument ensued. Using a racial epithet, someone yelled that they had asked for white dancers, not black ones. That much is agreed. It was 12:04 a.m. March 14."

And this is from the North Carolina Attorney General's report, released last Friday, contradicting Wilson's original timeline that he claimed everyone "agreed" with:

"Both dancers were in the car at 12:42 a.m. After the accusing witness was placed in 'Nikki's' car, [well after both Reade Seligmann and Collin Finnerty had left the premises,] 'Nikki' yelled a sexually and racially based comment at a group of party attendees standing across the street near the wall to East Campus at the university. One or more of the party responded with racial epithets. After this exchange, 'Nikki' drove away with the accusing witness in her car."

Notice that nine months later, Wilson has become far more vague about the timeline and the details of when "racial epithets" were exchanged and who yelled them first, and doesn't bother admitting that his new story contradicts his old one.

For more New York Times bias, visit Times Watch.

—Clay Waters is the director of Times Watch, an MRC project tracking the New York Times.


Comments Policy

All comments are owned by whoever posted them and are subject to our terms of use. They should not be assumed to represent the views of NewsBusters.

Viewing options

Select your preferred way to display the comments and click "Save settings" to activate your changes.

The New York Times has abso

The New York Times has absolutely no validity. The British tabloids might be a better source of news after you sift through garbage.

The NYTimes is a "leaker" outlet in which anyone can tell tall tales and get them printed, annonymously of course.

The Jason Blair days were an actual journalistic high point for them.

They consume too much energy, I rarely hear Liberals using the NYTimes as a reference because they know its a funny paper. They should put "Peanuts" on the front cover.

Jefferson

"I  read no newspaper now but Ritchie's, and in that chiefly the advertisements, for they contain the only truths to be relied on in a newspaper."

Thomas Jefferson, Letter to Nathaniel Macon, January 12, 1819

Hmmm, no change in all these years.

Duff may be vague now but I c

Duff may be vague now but I cannot imagine that he and Sarena Roberts and the NY Times will not be sued for slander by the three lacrosse players.

KC Johnson is a professor at Brooklyn College and should be heavily commended for his commitment and role in Nifong's unraveling and his oversight on the media.

Is "hoax" the best term?

Is "hoax" the best term?

Hoax: An act intended to deceive

Hoax:  An act intended to deceive or trick, either as a practical joke or as a serious fraud.

Looks pretty accurate to me.  Got a better idea?

I just think the woman didn't

I just think the woman didn't intend to deceive until after whatever happened at the party. Hoax to me implies forethought, which I don't know maybe there was in this incident. Does that make sense?

The definition says nothing a

The definition says nothing about forethought.   But even if she decided to do it later, it's still a hoax.  But do you have a better word?  Scam?

Bal,You may be correct, &quot

Bal,

You may be correct, "hoax" isn't the best word to use here.

I'd suspect something more along the lines of extortion (which implies intent).

It was a hoax on her part. Sh

It was a hoax on her part. She was looking to shake down a couple of rich white boys hoping their fathers would pay up and avoid court. She did not count on a corrupt prosecutor and national media attention.

But what spun this out of control was an incompetent school administration, corrupt members of the Duke faculty, near riot incitement by outside black activists, and the flagrant bias on the part of the media, particularly the New York Times, the Durham Herald Sun, Sports Illustrated, and ESPN.

This appears to be the NY Tim

This appears to be the NY Times' new "corrections" policy: ignore the original error and just put the correct facts in the newest version. Didn't Maureen Dowd do the same thing? I believe she distorted a quote from President Bush by using ellipses, leaving out a section that completely changed the meaning of what he said. When caught, she simply used the quote in its entirety, in a new column.
Is my recollection correct?

It is a double standard as us

It is a double standard as usual by the NYT’s. Why don’t they print this story??
http://chompchomp.us...

These are the boys of Pointe du Hoc.
Ronald Reagn- 40th Anniversary of D-Day

Hoax doesn't cut it---

How about "conspiracy to deprive one of his civil rights based on his race color and gender"?  perhaps " lynching"