Pretend You Are the Duke Lacrosse Case Judge

Correction/Clarification: The first paragraph of this blog post incorrectly reports that Durham County Superior Court Judge Kenneth Titus told lawyers "several months ago" to comply with their ethical obligations not to talk publicly about the case in a manner designed to influence potential jurors. He didn't, having only recently been appointed to preside over the case in place of Durham County Superior Court Judge Ronald L. Stephens.

The problem was caused by wire reports that indicated that Judge Titus, in July, reminded attorneys of their ethical obligations to gag themselves. He apparently reminded them in a figurative sense, and not a literal one, and it's a distinction I should have caught. I am sorry for the error and will work hard not to let it happen again (or, at least, since we all make mistakes, not to let them make it onto the site). I appreciate the effort of those of you who took the time to point out the mistake.

                                           *****

Your name is Kenneth C. Titus and you are a Durham (N.C.) County Judge. You are currently presiding over the Duke lacrosse rape case, and you no doubt feel like you've had the whole world dumped onto your lap. Several months ago, you gently told the lawyers in the case to keep their mouths shut and comply with the state's gag rule, 3.6 in the Rule Book, which states in part: "(a) A lawyer who is participating or has participated in the investigation or litigation of a matter shall not make an extrajudicial statement that the lawyer knows or reasonably should know will be disseminated by means of public communication and will have a substantial likelihood of materially prejudicing an adjudicative proceeding in the matter."

You said this to the attorneys and then you watched them go off into media orbit, the defense attorneys especially, spinning their version of events in order to sway public opinion and perhaps sow the seeds of reasonable doubt into the minds of potential jurors. So on Monday, at a hearing in the case, you a little more formally and a little more forcefully reiterate your interest in having the attorneys shut up outside of court. And what, then, do you hear from the attorneys? This.

"The rules of professional responsibility require us to be very careful of what we say," defense attorney Wade Smith told the Associated Press Monday. "We'll do that. We've been doing that. And we'll continue to do that." Defense attorney Joseph Cheshire, meanwhile, went one step further. He told the AP that the gag order: "would not have precluded us from doing a single thing that we have done so far." After months and months of defense team press conferences, and leaks to the media, and an entire concerted campaign to do precisely what Rule 3.6 prohibits, the lawyers say, presumably without shame, that they have been in compliance with the rule the whole time. So if you are Judge Titus what do you do?

If I'm Judge Titus I hit the roof. I call in the lawyers, without the public and the media present, and I read them the riot act. Their conduct has been a direct affront to the judge's authority, and the rules, and their comments Monday even worse. I have seen plenty of judges, including some of the best federal judges in the country, control wayward attorneys in high-profile cases. And I have seen plenty of judges, including, famously, the judge in the O.J. Simpson case, let the attorneys run the show. History is kind to the former crop of judges. It is not to the latter. With many months to go before the trial, and with the attorneys showing no sign of relenting with their spin, it looks like Judge Titus has another decision to make. What would you do if you were him?

By Andrew Cohen |  July 18, 2006; 9:00 AM ET
Previous: Jose Padilla Back in Court | Next: Rest in Peace, Leonard Campbell

Comments

Please email us to report offensive comments.



In this post you seem to suggest, sub silentio, that only the defense has been the source of leaks, rumor and smear. Have you been reading only half the coverage? As I read it, the prosecution and police seem also to have honed a skilled knack for leaking.

Posted by: Daniel Millstone | July 18, 2006 09:46 AM

I would say that my message has been received and that there is no further need to intervene. I would also note that the prosecution showed little restraint BEFORE they got into court. During the investigative phase of this case the prosecution particularly flammed general animosity against the entire Duke lacrosse team and led to protests outside their homes, ill treatment on campus and general scorn throughout their community.

I would say the more interesting behavior coming out of yesterdays hearings was the continued persecution of the entire Duke lacrosse team, including members not under indictment.

The prosecution yesterday asked for their personal phone numbers so that they can be called apparently whenever the jury might want to hear from them. This when trial remains at least 9 months away. Politely, of course, the prosecution says that this is not intended for use in investingating the individual lacrosse members.

However a second request contradicts this denial. The prosecution also asked for their student ID account numbers in order to trace their activities on the night in question. Presumably this broad request is so the prosecution is not blindsided by the continuing differences between actual facts and their alleging victim's memory.

Is this a broad fishing expedition in search of someone to charge who appears not to have an alibi? Or is this one tailored to "construct" the testimony of the alleging victim consistent with the facts?

Just as the racist fishing subpoena for DNA material against all white players on the team, which didn't turn up a suspect, this one is overbroad and fishy.

If I were the judge on the phone numbers: DENIED. Use your subpoena power to get them into court when you are ready for trial.

If I were the judge on the ID accounts: DENIED -- just subpoena, by name, the transaction records for the lacrosse team members who were at the PARTY and who are parties of interest; restrict the subpoena to arround and during the date and time of the alleged rape.

Posted by: Constituationalist | July 18, 2006 10:32 AM

This isn't a tit-for-tat game, "Constitutionalist," the question is who is going to supervise the trial, the judge or the lawyers. It should always be the judge. Judge Titus needs to slap the defense lawyers with sanctions and remind the prosecution that the same could happen to them.

Posted by: CowTown | July 18, 2006 12:05 PM

I don't think it matters much who says what anymore. Those guys have been indicted, tried, and found guilty in the court of public opinion to which there is no appeal. Witness the kid who tried to transfer to Syracuse.

I get the feeling that, as the saying goes, 'things are not what they seem' in Durham.

And be very careful who you invite to your party.

Posted by: cody mccall | July 18, 2006 08:32 PM

Your facts are so far off in this article that you and your paper should be embarrased. You really don't have any idea what you are talking about. Titus just got the case on Monday so he didn't issue any order months ago. More importantly, the rule he cited isn't a "gag" order and even you should know that. That rule also contains safe harbor provisions for defense to respond to prosecution statements. Why don't you mention that. What you should have reported on is the inflamatory statements made by Nifong during the hearing that the honorable judge let pass. Your reporting on this case has been some of the worst. Keep it up.

Posted by: Mark | July 20, 2006 03:57 AM

Further to my last message. You know, you really are a piece of work. The DA held over 70 press conferences and made so many inflammatory extrajudicial statements that it would be impossible to chronicle them all in less than a day. And you have the audacity to go after the defense attorneys in their attempts to level the playing field? Collin Finnerty's lawyers have said nothing, period. Selligman's lawyer Osborn has said nothing publically that I am aware of. Evans' lawyer Cheshire held a press conference when his client was indicted. Are the leaks and spin you are talking about the motions that the defense lawyers have filed in the case? Is that your idea of spin? What do you want them to do, just let their clients be convicted.
Why don't you write an article about the blatant unprofessionalism that was on display by Nifong in the courtroom on Monday and how the esteemed judge allowed it without rebuke. That is the story that the other media outlets have reported, why don't you try a new tact. Your present reporting is growing tiresome.

Posted by: Mark | July 20, 2006 04:22 AM

Cohen, heed the comments of the above posters and do some research before you open your biased, uneducated mouth next time.

Posted by: weezie | July 20, 2006 07:56 AM

I agree with the two posts above - you are just another example of someone making a premature and uninformed judgement regarding this case. It is unfortunate that the DA in the case is guilty of the same thing; his premature actions and words have irrepareably harmed the lives of so many people. And after your piece above yours have too.

Posted by: Samantha | July 20, 2006 02:42 PM

No discussion of Rules 3.6 and 3.8 is complete without mention that it is DA Mike Nifong who is currently under investigation by the State Bar for his extrajudicial statements. From the reading of your fictional account above, one might conclude that that charges had been leveled in the opposite direction. You ask what would Titus do? We ask what is the NC State Bar doing?

Posted by: Philip Wood | August 4, 2006 09:06 AM

Speaking of Rule 3.6, which of the following statements by Nifong are covered by the rule in question:

"There's a good chance if someone had spoken up and said, 'You can't do this,' it might not have happened,"

"It is a case that talks about what this community stands for,"

"The information that I have does lead me to conclude that a rape did occur. I'm making a statement to the Durham community and, as a citizen of Durham, I am making a statement for the Durham community. This is not the kind of activity we condone, and it must be dealt with quickly and harshly."

"I am convinced that there was a rape, yes, sir."

"My reading of the report of the emergency room nurse would indicate that some type of sexual assault did in fact take place," (Statement made before the report was even printed, btw)

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

"The victim was examined at Duke University Medical Center by a nurse who was specially trained in sexual assault cases. And the investigation at that time was certainly consistent with a sexual assault having taken place, as was the victim's demeanor at the time of the examination." (Statements contradict the reports he refers to.)

"The racial slurs involved are relevant to show the mindset ... involved in this particular attack. And, obviously, it made what is already an extremely reprehensible act even more reprehensible."

"There's been a feeling in the past that Duke students are treated differently by the court system. There was a feeling that Duke students' daddies could buy them expensive lawyers and that they knew the right people."

"Obviously, any delay would give an opportunity for somebody to clean up if they were inclined to do so, or felt there was something they didn't want left behind,"

"The circumstances of the rape indicated a deep racial motivation for some of the things that were done. It makes a crime that is by its nature one of the most offensive and invasive even more so."

"I would not be surprised if condoms were used. Probably an exotic dancer would not be your first choice for unprotected sex." (Complaining witness states in SANE exam no condoms were used)

"The reason that I took this case is because this case says something about Durham that I'm not going to let be said. I'm not going to allow Durham's view in the minds of the world to be a bunch of lacrosse players at Duke raping a black girl from Durham."

"My conviction that a sexual assault actually took place is based on the examination that was done at Duke hospital,"

"What does it mean that she was intoxicated? Just as an example--speaking hypothetically--if I had a witness who saw her right before this and she was not intoxicated, and then I had a witness who said that she was given a drink at the party and after taking a few sips of that drink acted in a particular way, that could be evidence of something other than intoxication, or at least other than voluntary intoxication, There are many explanations for someone appearing to be intoxicated,"

"It's not me that's trying this case in the media,"

Posted by: | August 4, 2006 09:25 AM

On the warrant for the non-testimonial identification Order which called for photos & DNA tests 3/23/06 we see this;

"Medical records and interviews that were obtained by a subpoena revealed the victim had signs, symptoms, and injuries consistent with being raped and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. Furthermore, the SANE nurse stated the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience"

Yet we know that the SANE Exam was not printed out until 31 March and was not picked up until 5 April. They could not have had any medical reports from the hospital when this Order was submitted to Judge Stephens!

SANE Nurses are trained not to make statements like that. As part of their training is about evidence gathering and performing the exam according to medical and legal standards. According to this Order the SANE nurse stated, "the injuries and her behavior were consistent with a traumatic experience",over the phone no less!

If we are to believe those portions of the SANE Exam that have been stated in Defense Motions, the SANE Exam makes no conclusion about rape and finds no evidence of being raped, and sexually assaulted vaginally and anally. In fact the only DNA found in her, on her, or on her clothes in two sets of tests match her boyfriend!

We have a Order based on false statements by Police Inspector Himan & submitted by Asst DA Saacks signed by Judge Stephens.

Any Judge should have been outraged by the actions of the State and thrown out that Order long ago. Both Judge Stephens & Judge Titus have refused to hear the motions concerning this crucial matter and won't rule.

Now that's an outrage!

Posted by: Marco2006 | August 4, 2006 12:21 PM

Mr. Cohen:

I honestly missed your blog post when it came out a couple weeks ago. I saw it analyzed on the following blog:

http://www.liestoppers.blogspot.com/

I am simply dumbfounded that you are sticking to your position in support of the District Attorney and against the obviously innocent accused lacrosse players. Historian KC Johnson has speculated that your posture is driven by your failure to get information to cover the story at CBS, which stands in sharp contrast to the excellent reporting of NBC's Dan Abrams and Fox News' Megyn Kendall.

http://hnn.us/blogs/entries/28553.html

What amazes me is that you seem oblivious to how history is going to judge your comments. This is a case in which the prosecutor has maliciously railroaded innocent people for personal and political gain. Even in the extremely unlikely event that a rape occurred, the District Attorney clearly has one wrong person in Reade Seligmann. All of his activities are accounted for with electronic evidence. Yet the District Attorney continues to prosecute him and you appear to support this. Furthermore, you believe Reade Seligmann and his attorneys should be quiet about the fact that he is innocent. Apparently you believe the First Amendment only protects a criminal defendent's right to speak once the prosecution rests at trial. This notion is preposterous and truly frightening. It deeply troubles me that the Chief Legal Analyst at CBS News could hold such a view. It also deeply troubles me that the Washington Post would give someone holding this view an on-line forum to advance it.

I will be very curious to hear how you view comments when this fiasco is over. Until then, please at least try to support your arguments with relevant and accurate facts.

Posted by: Joel | August 4, 2006 03:42 PM

Your analysis is incomplete and inaccruate:
Judge Titus only became the prsiding judge on July 1.
No prior gag orders were issued.
You mention "months and months" of defense team press conferences and leaks without mentioning that Mr. Nifong's 70 press conferences and guest appearances on national programs outnumber by far the total of all press conferences by the entire defence, which includes three accused and tens of lawyers.
Your analysis does not appreciate that the defense has a right and an obligation to respond to Mr. Nifong's public statements including that he is confident a rape occurred. The defense has a right to say that they did not rape anyone. In your world, the defense would say nothing.
You neglect to indicate that the most damaging evidence to the prosecution known are records that are publically available since they are included as part of court motions. But wait, I'll bet you think filing a motion equals leaking.
Your article does not consider the fact that Mr. Nifong made many prejudicial statements, inaccurate statements, and inflamtory statements. He admitted that he went too far and underestimated the impact of his words. This would have been a nice opposing quote next the Mr. Cheshire's.
You don't hold Judge Titus responsible for not even reading the motions. If this case is so important and weighs so heavily "in his lap," he should have been prepared.
I'm really disappointed in the lack of depth, inaccuracies, and overall poor quality of this article.

Posted by: Post Subscriver | August 4, 2006 03:47 PM

How does it feel to be on the same level as Linwood Wilson? Nothing like fanning the flames of injustice with no facts to support your claims.

The false accuser is a mentally ill prostitute with a long history of telling outrageous lies. The perfect pawn for Nifong who needed a high profile case (by his making) to get the necessary exposure on television without having to pay for it.

Thank God for the creation of Liestoppers who will expose each and every erroneous statement made by those who defend this prostitute and Nifong.

Posted by: Wendy | August 4, 2006 04:18 PM

As amply pointed out by the above posters, Cohen you are a sadly misinformed on nearly every point.

That you have gotten nearly every fact in your article and now your blog post incorrect on the Duke case does not speak well for the rest of your work.

Did you ever practice law? Were you disbarred for malpractice?

Posted by: tapper | August 4, 2006 04:46 PM

IF I were the judge and IF those were the facts, what would I do? That's an interesting hypothetical. Of course, as you know, I'm not the judge. And as you should know, those aren't the facts either.

It appears, however, that you expect your readers to believe you've accurately portrayed the history of the case to this point and that's really disappointing. I'm sorry to say that I will have to take anything I hear from you on any case in the future with an enormous grain of salt. You have permanently damaged your credibility in my eyes and also, it seems, in the eyes of many others.

Others who have responded above have already pointed out your factual errors. I don't think there's any way you can back up your spin on this case. Most of the information we've seen from the defense (well, maybe not you, but those of us who have followed the case) has been in the form of exhibits attached to motions. For example, the driver's statement or the other dancer's statement. This isn't spin. Anyone can read those statements and draw their own conclusions about what the second dancer meant when she said the allegation of rape was "a crock".

Your hypothetical factual scenario bares so little resemblence to what has actually occurred it's laughable. Of course, you'd actually have had to follow the case and know something about it in order to know that.

Posted by: Greg | August 4, 2006 05:38 PM

I need to respond to your column even offering the remotest defense of the travesy in Durham. There is DNA all over the place, just no DNA that matches the alleged crime. Nothing from Reade or Colin or on the victim from any of the three. The testing is sensitive enough to track who lived there. There has not been one, not one, person who can explain this because it cannot be explained. It is impossible that with proper smapling and testing a thirty minute violent penetrating assualt would leave no dna anywhere. I challenge you, before you write one more column, to find one reputable expert to provide a theory that would explain this pattern. It is impossible. That is why when the prosecutor asked for DNA he said it would be conclusive.


As you know, in many of the cases where the person on death row is exonerated by DNA, the police and prosecutors are so blinded by hatred that they still think the person did it. But, you are a journalist, what is the theory you think applies.

And this is aside from the fact that the photos exonerate Reade completely and that every single independent expert has said that it is basically impossible to fake the date if you turn over the underlying device.

I will keep my e mail at this point, you can't meet the challenge.

Jeff Mayer

Duke Grad and proud of it.

Posted by: streeeetwise | August 4, 2006 06:27 PM

Mr. Cohen, this column is absolutely the stupidest thing that I have read about this case. Basically you start with a blatant lie and continue on your merry way with one lie after another. Your agenda is so transparent it is laughable.

For what it is worth Judge (and I use that term loosely in this case) Titus issued an unconstitutional order and he will get it properly handed back to him by a higher authority. That is, if he is allowed to stay on the case, which is in doubt at this point.

Posted by: Dennis | August 4, 2006 07:03 PM

You know, I was one of the first to expose Cohen's lies and spreading of misinformation way back when this foolish article of his first came out. Now I see liestoppers has jumped on board. Good thing, but it's too late.

Unbelievably, the editor of the Herald Sun, a Duke alum no less, has latched on to Cohen's misinformed and outrageously biased writings on his case, you know documents attached to motions and quotations thereof equals spin, and formed the Herald Sun's editorial position based at least in part on Cohen! A guy who doesn't even follow the case enough to know when the judge Titus took over the case!! Cohen would be laughable if not for the fact that some other equally misinformed people take his nonsense seriously.

Posted by: Mark | August 4, 2006 07:27 PM

Just as Al Sharpton lost all his credibility backing Tawana Brawley, you lose a little more credibility every time you write something in support of this hoax. Do you hear that sound? It's the laughter of people who no longer believe a word you write. How does it feel Al (oops, Andrew)?

Posted by: HiM | August 4, 2006 08:28 PM

Does this Andrew Cohen guy actually write in print in the WAPO?

Or is he just one of the WAPO's online fraudsters and liars like Ben Domenech?

Posted by: Redstate | August 4, 2006 10:50 PM

Sir, you have revealed yourself to be a liar and, if I may add, not a very good one. Shame on you.

Posted by: Cohen Lies Again | August 4, 2006 11:14 PM

You encourage Nifong to join the Witness Protection Program. Perhaps he can find a witness there.

Posted by: gc | August 5, 2006 08:27 AM

Sir, your column is made up of "fantastic lies", as indicted lacrosse player Dave Evans discribed the false accusers lies. I have read and reread your column and there is not a shred of truth in it. Your column proves that the Washington Post has declined to the point that it is below the tabloids. Tell me when to believe anything it prints.

Posted by: Dennis | August 5, 2006 08:28 AM

Mr. Cohen:

Do you have a medical reason for your blatant display of misinformation regarding the DLX case? Does "The Washington Post" no longer have any standards?? I will never again accept a media report as accurate. The WP & WSJ were the last 2 credible sources left for me.


You are an embarrassment to your profession. The good news is you have lots of company. Like Mitch Albom's made up conversation with Mich. St. players during the 1995 NCAA championship game in St. Louis. It was a good read - well for fiction presented as non-fiction goes.

Charades to all!

Posted by: Penny P. | August 5, 2006 09:15 AM

Unbelievable, another case of 'dare I say jounalism' (Nifong on DPD experts) at its worst. Is there someway to send along all these comments to Mr. Cohen's boss/publisher?

Posted by: jmoo | August 5, 2006 10:04 AM

And another thing, nobody over the age of four likes to read crap written in the third person, you lazy hack.

Posted by: Weezie | August 5, 2006 11:44 AM

Mr. Cohen,

Pretend You Are a Real Journalist.

You take the time to review the known information regarding the Duke Lacrosse case. Lets see what you would find out.

1 Judge Titus is the second judge involved in the case. He took over the case on the first of July.

2 He had issued no previous rulings of any kind regarding this case prior to the hearing. No reason to since he was not the judge.

3 The previous judge in the case had not broached the subject of a gag order of any kind, at least in open court. You can't find out what happened behind closed doors.

4. Research finds that the DA has made many (over 70) public statements to the media, most of which were false. Also, dozens of leaks of information from the DA's office, again most of which were false.

3. Research from the defense side reveals 3 press conferences to discuss the case. Two after release of false information regarding the DNA testing by the DA's office and one after the indictment of the third player.

4. The DA makes snide and disparaging remarks about the Defense Attorneys in open court. Defense Attorneys take high road and say little about them.

5. The DA verbally assaults an attorney representing an undicted player using vulgar language.

6. DA continues to talk to the press in public about the case even after the order is issued. Defense attorneys are silent.

None of the above touches on the subject of the total lack of evidence in this case, the total incompetence of the DA, the racist actions of the DA, the many attempts to manipulate the investigation of this case to the benefit of the prosecution or the patently unprofessional actions of the DA in refusing the view the exculpatory evidence before indicting.

So what does this reveal, Mr. Cohen? You are not a real journalist, just a hack and a lying one at that.

Posted by: Dennis | August 5, 2006 01:07 PM

Mr. Cohen - As it appears you require a refresher course in ethics, I have pasted below the entire content of the Society of Professional Journalism Code of Ethics. I suggest you start working on the code from the top down as you have proven to have no regard for even the first of these many items.

http://www.spj.org/pdf/ethicscode.pdf

Seek Truth and Report It
Journalists should be honest, fair and courageous in gathering, reporting and interpreting information.

Journalists should:

-- Test the accuracy of information from all sources and exercise care to avoid inadvertent error. Deliberate distortion is never permissible.
-- Diligently seek out subjects of news stories to give them the opportunity to respond to allegations of wrongdoing.
-- Identify sources whenever feasible. The public is entitled to as much information as possible on sources' reliability.
-- Always question sources' motives before promising anonymity. Clarify conditions attached to any promise made in exchange for information. Keep promises.
-- Make certain that headlines, news teases and promotional material, photos, video, audio, graphics, sound bites and quotations do not misrepresent. They should not oversimplify or highlight incidents out of context.
-- Never distort the content of news photos or video. Image enhancement for technical clarity is always permissible. Label montages and photo illustrations.
-- Avoid misleading re-enactments or staged news events. If re-enactment is necessary to tell a story, label it.
-- Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public. Use of such methods should be explained as part of the story
-- Never plagiarize.
-- Tell the story of the diversity and magnitude of the human experience boldly, even when it is unpopular to do so.
-- Examine their own cultural values and avoid imposing those values on others.
-- Avoid stereotyping by race, gender, age, religion, ethnicity, geography, sexual orientation, disability, physical appearance or social status.
-- Support the open exchange of views, even views they find repugnant.
-- Give voice to the voiceless; official and unofficial sources of information can be equally valid.
-- Distinguish between advocacy and news reporting. Analysis and commentary should be labeled and not misrepresent fact or context.
-- Distinguish news from advertising and shun hybrids that blur the lines between the two.
-- Recognize a special obligation to ensure that the public's business is conducted in the open and that government records are open to inspection.


Minimize Harm
Ethical journalists treat sources, subjects and colleagues as human beings deserving of respect.

Journalists should:

-- Show compassion for those who may be affected adversely by news coverage. Use special sensitivity when dealing with children and inexperienced sources or subjects.
-- Be sensitive when seeking or using interviews or photographs of those affected by tragedy or grief.
-- Recognize that gathering and reporting information may cause harm or discomfort. Pursuit of the news is not a license for arrogance.
-- Recognize that private people have a greater right to control information about themselves than do public officials and others who seek power, influence or attention. Only an overriding public need can justify intrusion into anyone's privacy.
-- Show good taste. Avoid pandering to lurid curiosity.
-- Be cautious about identifying juvenile suspects or victims of sex crimes.
-- Be judicious about naming criminal suspects before the formal filing of charges.
-- Balance a criminal suspect's fair trial rights with the public's right to be informed.


Act Independently
Journalists should be free of obligation to any interest other than the public's right to know.

Journalists should:

--Avoid conflicts of interest, real or perceived.
-- Remain free of associations and activities that may compromise integrity or damage credibility.
-- Refuse gifts, favors, fees, free travel and special treatment, and shun secondary employment, political involvement, public office and service in community organizations if they compromise journalistic integrity.
-- Disclose unavoidable conflicts.
-- Be vigilant and courageous about holding those with power accountable.
-- Deny favored treatment to advertisers and special interests and resist their pressure to influence news coverage.
-- Be wary of sources offering information for favors or money; avoid bidding for news.

Be Accountable
Journalists are accountable to their readers, listeners, viewers and each other.

Journalists should:

-- Clarify and explain news coverage and invite dialogue with the public over journalistic conduct.
-- Encourage the public to voice grievances against the news media.
-- Admit mistakes and correct them promptly.
-- Expose unethical practices of journalists and the news media.
-- Abide by the same high standards to which they hold others.

________________________________

Did you want to forward your offering and this thread to:

Ethics Committee Chairs
Gary Hill, chair
Director of Investigations
KSTP-TV
3415 University Avenue
Minneapolis, MN 55414
Work: 651/642-4437

or shall I?

Posted by: PJ | August 5, 2006 04:05 PM

This comes late but anyone who wonders if Mr. Cohen is right in his analysis of the defense lawyers' actions should note paragraph c of the N.C. "gag rule" Rule 3.6, on lawyer comments to the media:

"(c) Notwithstanding paragraph (a), a lawyer may make a statement that a reasonable lawyer would believe is required to protect a client from the substantial undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer's client. A statement made pursuant to this paragraph shall be limited to such information as is reasonably necessary to mitigate the recent adverse publicity. "

This is what the defense lawyers meant when they said they had acted within the rule in the past and would continue to do so.

Posted by: Rudy | August 6, 2006 01:21 PM

What would I do if you if I was judge Titus?
Easy-I would dismiss this mockery of a case for lack of evidence.

Posted by: jennifer | August 7, 2006 03:45 AM

I have 2 things to say about your article.
(1) Timing wise it is a little late. (2)It is filled with inaccuracies. Just as the defense attorneys have suggested to Mr. Nifong "read the file, as I journalist I suggest you "check your facts".

If this article is the best you have to offer, it is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: gc | August 7, 2006 01:57 PM

I have 2 things to say about your article.
(1) Timing wise it is a little late. (2)It is filled with inaccuracies. Just as the defense attorneys have suggested to Mr. Nifong "read the file, as I journalist I suggest you "check your facts".

If this article is the best you have to offer, it is pretty pathetic.

Posted by: gc | August 7, 2006 01:58 PM

Amazing. Another example of the internet enabling liars and frauds to fill the minds of millions. Mr Cohen, your posting on the Duke lacrosse situation is full of inaccuracies and ridiculous implications about what actually happened. To get the real facts, you merely needed to read the official accounts, statements and public records -- it doesn't even take heavy research, a middle school student could do it. So it begs the question why YOU, who calls himself a journalist, couldn't or wouldn't do it? Not able to read or use the 'net" Trying to stir up new racial tension like Nifong? Or just plain lazy? No matter the reason, the result is the same -- lies, lies, damn lies.

Posted by: AndrewCohen=Idiot | August 14, 2006 05:00 PM

Amazing. Another example of the internet enabling liars and frauds to fill the minds of millions. Mr Cohen, your posting on the Duke lacrosse situation is full of inaccuracies and ridiculous implications about what actually happened. To get the real facts, you merely needed to read the official accounts, statements and public records -- it doesn't even take heavy research, a middle school student could do it. So it begs the question why YOU, who calls himself a journalist, couldn't or wouldn't do it? Not able to read or use the 'net" Trying to stir up new racial tension like Nifong? Or just plain lazy? No matter the reason, the result is the same -- lies, lies, damn lies.

Posted by: AndrewCohenIsAnIdiot@truth.com | August 14, 2006 05:01 PM

The comments to this entry are closed.

 
 

© 2007 The Washington Post Company