Post a Comment        E-mail To A Friend        Join The List

Media Focus on Duke Lacrosse Case Displaces Real (Sports) News

by Christopher McIntosh
05/16/2006

They're at it again.

A third individual has been indicted in the Duke lacrosse case and the media can't get enough of it.

A quick scan of Google news reveals the following.

Number of stories covering the indictment of the third Duke student: 950

Number of stories covering the potential end to the massacre/genocide in Darfur which has already claimed the lives of 400 to 600 thousand people and displaced millions more: 281

Bush is talking about militarizing the border. Iran is making moves toward producing nuclear weapons (as well as pantsing G. W. Bush via a letter that points out the blatant hypocrisy of the United States leading the charge against nuclear weapons).

In case you've forgotten, the United States is prosecuting not one, but two wars - one on terror and one against insurgents in Iraq.

Not into political issues? LeBron James went for a triple double last night against the Detroit Pistons. LeBron only recently became old enough to legally order a drink and has zero college experience. He is transforming into the second coming of Oscar Robertson before our very eyes.

As the Nike campaign tells us, "we are all witnesses." Bron-Bron is up against a team with a player who has "guaranteed" victory" - a claim which appears fairly non-controversial. LeBron isn't blinking, despite his age and his lack of a supporting cast. He even won (shared with Steve Nash) the Sporting News' MVP award.

Oh yeah, his primary second man, Larry Hughes, is MIA. He's attending to the death of his brother, and a funeral that the rest of the Cavs will attend on their off day before facing the heavily favored Pistons again.

How about a golf story? Michelle Wie has been granted an exemption to play on the European Tour.

The European men's tour. Which isn't all that surprising given that the last men's tournament she was in, she made the cut.

Not only is she a woman, she's sixteen. At sixteen, I wasn't exactly playing anything professionally, unless you count refusing to do homework, projecting teen angst, and high school debate. And ignore the fact that I didn't get paid to do any of the three.

I'm also nearing thirty and my hopes of reaching her height of six foot are rapidly receding.

Given all of that, what's the top story in today's sports news? A third individual has graduated from Duke and moved straight into the big house. He held a press conference after being released on bail where he explained everything he had done to cooperate with the police and discredit the young woman's story.

Independent of the fascination the media - and by extension, we, the viewing public - have with this sordid affair, this raises an important point prosecutors are pointing out on TV.

Why is he doing this? Do you remember a defendant in any high profile case laying out his case in such detail prior to trial? I didn't think so. The reason, according to traditional legal reasoning, is that it does the defense no good. It's inadmissable in court, but provides more evidence/issues for the prosecutor to potentially exploit at trial; i.e., if a defendant makes a statement on TV that the prosecutor can prove is false, it impugns the character of the defendant.

So why do it? There's usually only one reason. To taint the jury pool. Get all the potential jurors to hear the defense's side before the trial even begins. Which raises the important question we seem willing to ask when it comes to Al Qaeda, but not when it comes to something simple like the possibility of a gang rape combined with a hate crime.

Why does the media air these things? Why are they complicit in this charade? Does the media have an obligation to refrain from showing these circuses? I think they might, but I'm not a constitutional scholar, nor have I really thought through all the potential precedents it might set.

But media companies are run by people like you and me, people who should remember that their actions have effects. Ethics still apply to their actions regardless of what excuse they choose to hide behind. They're not being fooled. They know the effect this could potentially have on a jury.

Where is the responsibility? I wish I could lay it all at the media's feet, but we're part of the problem. Even the fact that I'm willing to spend my time writing on this is potentially part of the problem.

I wish there was a way out.