LieStoppers: Bob Ashley

Showing posts with label Bob Ashley. Show all posts

Sunday, April 13, 2008

Snooze Room Editor Awakens After Two Years

One year after North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper declared Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and Dave Evans innocent of all charges, Durham Herald-Sun Editor Bob Ashley has finally admitted the following.

"We were, honestly, too slow to recognize that there was no case at all!" Rural Blog

Baldo, after a thorough review of the coverage of the Durham Herald-Sun, had this comment for Bob.

“ZZZZ ZZ ZZZZZZ ZZZ”

Tuesday, April 17, 2007

Herald-Sun Correction

Yesterday’s Herald-Sun featured a front-page, above-the-fold headline declaring, falsely, that NC Attorney General Roy Cooper had exonerated the victims of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, in part, because of consideration of “racial strain.” The prominent headline blared:

Racial strain factor in Cooper declaration

The article that accompanied the inflammatory headline equally misrepresented the comments made by the attorney general in his 60 Minutes interview.

"State Attorney General Roy Cooper says the strains the Duke lacrosse case inflicted on Durham's racial climate played a role in his decision last week to declare the three defendants innocent of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer.

"Cooper made the comments on Sunday night's CBS "60 Minutes" news program in response to a question from interviewer Leslie [sic] Stahl, who described Durham as a "racially roiled" city because the dancer was black and the players white."

Admittedly, in our haste to address the Snooze Room’s inflammatory distortion, we also misinterpreted Cooper’s statements.

Its difficult to understand why the Snooze Room would so egregiously misrepresent the words of AG Cooper. Anyone who viewed the airing of '60 Minutes' will know that Cooper did not state that racial strain was a factor in the exoneration. The Herald Sun, however, preys upon those who did not watch the show while providing inflammatory ammunition for those who have chosen to suggest that the exoneration of the innocent victims of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax was based on ulterior racial motives.

What the Snooze Room describes falsely as a consideration for the declaration of innocence was in reality described as a factor considered in not pursuing charges against the false accuser.
"But the attorney general also announced he would not press charges against her for filing false police reports.

"Is the decision purely about her mental state or did you also take into account what this might do to this community which was already roiled in racial tension? Were you afraid that it would exacerbate more racial tension?" Stahl asks Cooper.

"We did consider it. We did talk about it. But we think in the best interest of justice, that it was not the right thing to do," Cooper says. [60 Minutes]

Looking more closely at Cooper’s statement, it appears that he deftly sidestepped Stahl’s loaded question and addressed the decision to bring charges against the false accuser in general, while avoiding describing fear of exacerbating racial tensions as a consideration. We regret this misinterpretation of the exchange between Cooper and Stahl.

It appears that the Herald-Sun has come to the same conclusion regarding the exchange after briefly reaching the same erroneous impression we initially presented. The online edition of the Herald-Sun now features a revised article reporting on Cooper’s 60 Minutes comments.

After a short stop here:

“State Attorney General Roy Cooper says the strains the Duke lacrosse case inflicted on Durham's racial climate played a role in his decision last week to not pursue false report charges against an exotic dancer who had claimed three Duke lacrosse players sexually assaulted her at a party.

"We did consider it [filing charges against the accuser]," Cooper said. "We did talk about it. But we think in the best interest of justice, that it was not the right thing to do."

The article now begins:

State Attorney General Roy Cooper says he considered filing false-report charges against the accuser in the Duke lacrosse case but decided not to "in the interests of justice."

"We did consider it [filing charges against the accuser]," Cooper said in response to a question from "60 Minutes" interviewer Leslie [sic] Stahl, who described Durham as "racially roiled" because the accuser is black and the players she said sexually assaulted her are white.

In response to notice of the error from an industrious Blog Hooligan, Mr. Ashley apparently responded by acknowledging the mistake but, because it was a story about a brief segment on a TV program, he "didn't think it was that important." Despite its supposed unimportance, the inflammatory piece somehow made it onto the front page. It should be noted that the revised story with its drastic corrections makes no mention of the previous errors. While we assume that today’s print issue will contain a buried correction notice*, it cannot undo the damage done by the prominent placement of the inflammatory headline and article so poorly considered.

Now, if we can only get Mr. Ashley to spell [16 year 60 Minutes veteran] Lesley Stahl's name correctly we can move on to figuring out why the Herald-Sun's post-Hoax coverage focuses on meetings of the lunatic fringe and "unimportant" front page features on TV shows while the News & Observer's Joseph Neff chases a Pulitzer Prize.

Hat tip: Eric, ThinkFirstTypeLater

Update: To its credit, The Herald-Sun has printed a prominent front page correction of yesterday's story in today's print edition.

Monday, April 16, 2007

Dear Bob

Dear Bob,

As only a humble contributor to an online blog, I'm a bit intimidated at writing to a big-time, professional Editor like yourself. But your headline and article today, misrepresenting Sunday's 60 Minutes segment about the end of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax, just spurred my compassionate nature to reach out to you with some sympathy and advice.

Your article today begins:

"Racial strain factor in Cooper declaration"

"State Attorney General Roy Cooper says the strains the Duke lacrosse case inflicted on Durham's racial climate played a role in his decision last week to declare the three defendants innocent of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer.

"Cooper made the comments on Sunday night's CBS "60 Minutes" news program in response to a question from interviewer Leslie Stahl, who described Durham as a "racially roiled" city because the dancer was black and the players white."

Bob, I know you're under a tremendous strain these days, being humiliated once again before a national audience and all ... so, to refresh your memory, I'm enclosing a clip of AG Cooper's actual words from the actual broadcast to refresh your memory.

Click to view: "Innocent" - 60 Minutes

I want you take a few deep breaths, sip your frappuccino, turn the volume way up, and play this a few times.

Done? Alrighty then. Now tell Joan what you heard. Cooper said racial strains may have played a part in his decision NOT TO CHARGE THE DEMENTED CRYSTAL MANGUM. He said nothing about racial strains impacting his decision to declare Collin, Reade and Dave innocent!

There's a big difference, Bob. Fair-minded readers see it. Angry lacrosse parents see it. Curious civil attorneys see it. You need to progress beyond the "denial" stage of your grief and see it too. Wishing does not make it so. This type of flagrant misreporting begs the question of whether you, as an Editor, are derelict in duty or just stupid.

Bob, I know dreams die hard. I've read every bit of your coverage of this case every day. I have absorbed every one-sided editorial. You've championed the strange notion that an allegation without a scintilla of evidence must advance to trial at all costs. You saw two benefits in this. First, the falsely accused players would um-m-m. get "to prove their innocence" ... albeit in front of a local jury your coverage had whipped into a frenzy. Secondly, a trial would serve as sort of a healing "judicial rap session" for the community at large. "Evidence" presented for months in the media by fair-minded journalists like yourself, Nancy Grace, Wendy Murphy, Georgia Goslee, and the NC NAACP might just compensate for the true fact that there was, as Dave Evans said "no there, there."

Readers will never forget the palpable euphoria at your newspaper when one DNA cell was thought to have shown up on a press-on fingernail retrieved from an innocent victim's own overflowing trash can. This was the "hallelujah" moment that indicated that a single "one in fifty could not be eliminated" speck might prove, in the absence of everything else ... a vicious 30 minute rape and beating had taken place. Here was vindication for your DEMANDS for trial. A constant stream of pro-prosecution guest editorials. And for twice issuing a Nifong election endorsement. Bob, that's quite a track record there at the Herald-Sun under your leadership!

So, I do understand that you still may hear voices that aren't there and hear things as you'd wish them to be. My heart goes out to you. But, Bob, someone has to tell you ... it's time to STOP.

Here's some friendly advice. On our little blog, we've come up with a revolutionary process. It's called screening. After any of us writes a piece, our whole team critiques it for accuracy and reliability of content. We add links where necessary and must defend our premise when pressed. No excuses. Perhaps twice in this whole process, an error has survived scrutiny. We pulled the article and apologized, because our editors have this strange predilection for credibility and integrity.

But who am I, a little blogger, to advise big-time, important newspaper Editor like yourself. And it has occurred to me that you may have some sly Machiavellian purpose in your strange reporting today.

Perhaps, having been excoriated on national TV by the universally admired attorney, Jim Cooney, you knowingly offered today's egregious factual error as confirmation of your paper's shameful coverage. Hey, Bob, is this your way of ingratiating yourself with the brilliant Cooney... by so blatantly proving his point in such a speedy and humiliating fashion?

Joan Foster

Snooze Room Strikes Again

With an unsigned report on yesterday's installment of '60 Minutes', The Herald Sun again demonstrates its willingness to distort truth in order to hype the now dead Nifong/Mangum hoax. With blatant disregard for accuracy, the Herald Sun purposefully misconstrues the words of State Attorney General Roy Cooper while suggesting that the exonerated victim's of the Hoax were declared innocent for reasons other than their factual innocence. As usual, the Snooze Room does not miss an opportunity to downplay the misconduct of rogue prosecutor Mike Nifong at the expense of its journalistic credibility.

The Herald Sun writes:

Racial strain factor in Cooper declaration

State Attorney General Roy Cooper says the strains the Duke lacrosse case inflicted on Durham's racial climate played a role in his decision last week to declare the three defendants innocent of sexually assaulting an exotic dancer.

Cooper made the comments on Sunday night's CBS "60 Minutes" news program in response to a question from interviewer Leslie Stahl, who described Durham as a "racially roiled" city because the dancer was black and the players white.

Cooper also said it was his duty to "call out" Durham District Attorney Mike Nifong for actions in pursuing the case that Cooper considered "offensive." [ 60 Minutes ]

Its difficult to understand why the Snooze Room would so egregiously misrepresent the words of AG Cooper. Anyone who viewed the airing of '60 Minutes' will know that Cooper did not state that racial strain was a factor in the exoneration. The Herald Sun, however, preys upon those who did not watch the show while providing inflammatory ammunition for those who have chosen to suggest that the exoneration of the innocent victims of the Nifong/Mangum Hoax was based on ulterior racial motives.

What the Snooze Room describes falsely as a consideration for the declaration of innocence was in reality described as a factor considered in not pursuing charges against the false accuser.

"But the attorney general also announced he would not press charges against her for filing false police reports.

"Is the decision purely about her mental state or did you also take into account what this might do to this community which was already roiled in racial tension? Were you afraid that it would exacerbate more racial tension?" Stahl asks Cooper.

"We did consider it. We did talk about it. But we think in the best interest of justice, that it was not the right thing to do," Cooper says. [ 60 Minutes ]

The Snooze Room pretends that Attorney General Roy Cooper found the case "offensive" when instead the AG described Defendant Nifong's misconduct in taking "advantage of his enormous power" and overreaching as "offensive."

"In exonerating the three young men, Attorney General Roy Cooper did something almost unheard of: he publicly and harshly rebuked a fellow law enforcement official, calling Nifong a rogue prosecutor who ignored the facts.

"In his news conference, Cooper sounded offended and outraged by this whole thing.

"When we have a prosecutor who takes advantage of his enormous power and overreaches like this, then yes, it’s offensive, and yes, it’s my duty as the chief law enforcement officer of this state to call him out on it," Cooper tells Stahl.

"Now, there's a difference between a prosecutor who makes mistakes and a prosecutor who sets out deliberately to railroad someone. So are we dealing with a situation where someone was sloppy, or someone was very deliberate and malicious?" Stahl asks.

"I do not know what his motives were. Regardless of his motives, the result was wrong. What happened was wrong," Cooper says.

Anyone who has taken note of the Herald Sun's repeated failures to adhere to journalistic standards throughout the duration of the Hoax will not be surprised by the continued distortions. Following '60 Minutes' October expose' of the Hoax, the Herald Sun took a similar tack with an unsigned editorial that Duke University Professor of Law James Coleman described in a letter to the editor as turning "the case into an ugly caricature."

“Your editorial about the recent "60 Minutes" report mischaracterizes both what the district attorney's role has been in the Duke lacrosse rape case and why some of us have criticized him. Like much of the media hype that has surrounded the case, your editorial turns the case into an ugly caricature by suggesting that the decision to prosecute the Duke students was made by a valiant prosecutor on a white horse who is defending a helpless black woman who "ranks near the bottom of society." That is what the prosecutor also suggested when he told a largely African-American audience that he personally would protect "this black girl" from the hooligans at Duke. I find that characterization of the case offensive and patronizing. Why do you say the accuser is "near the bottom of society?" She is an apparently talented student and mother who dances to support herself and her child. She is a woman, not a "black girl." Trying to make this case about race and class has done a great disservice to Durham. From the start, it should have been handled as just an alleged rape that had to be investigated and prosecuted if the evidence warranted it. As someone who has criticized Nifong's handling of the case, I have not called for him to dismiss it; rather, I have suggested only that a special prosecutor be appointed who can make the kind of disinterested decisions about the case that Nifong has shown himself incapable of making. If the case goes to trial, it should be based on the strength of the evidence against the defendants, rather than as a convenient way to shift responsibility for ending what now appears to be a highly questionable prosecution to a judge or jury.”

While it may be no surprise that the Snooze Room again fails to report accurately, the resulting aspersions cast upon the innocent victims of the Hoax, apology offered for the rogue prosecutor, and fuel added to the manufactured but divisive racial context of the Hoax are no less offensive and no less damaging to the community it pretends to serve and the profession it so poorly represents.

Saturday, October 21, 2006

Does Ashley Read His Own Paper?

Some time ago, Durham resident Graham Marlette referred to Mike Nifong as a human piñata.

“Night after night on cable news and blogs, he is the human piñata in this on-going drama of the rape that never was.”

While Nifong is certainly deserving of this appellation, it appears that his hip-hugger, Bob Ashley, perhaps suffering sympathy pains, is intent on wearing that label too. Daily, Mr. Ashley provides fodder for this blog, and others, to ridicule his aversion to truth, common sense, and journalistic ethics. Yesterday’s appearance at the Duke Hoax Media discussion reveals Mr. Ashley to be equally disingenuous in person as he is in print. His own paper highlights his hypocrisy:

“Bob Ashley, editor of The Herald-Sun, said racial caricatures depicting an elite university in a poor town surfaced once the national media got involved.”

"To several of the networks, that was the storyline that took hold and that was what exacerbated what went on,"

Curiously, Ashley borrows the “caricature” description from co-panelist, Professor James Coleman, in assailing the coverage of “several of the networks.” Ironically, his use of that term to describe the inaccurate and inordinate national media coverage comes on the same day that his Snooze Room printed that same word to describe his own distortions. In a letter to the editor published only hours before Ashley leveled his charges at others, Coleman wrote of Ashley:

"Like much of the media hype that has surrounded the case, your editorial turns the case into an ugly caricature by suggesting that the decision to prosecute the Duke students was made by a valiant prosecutor on a white horse who is defending a helpless black woman who "ranks near the bottom of society."

It is not surprising that the absence of truth we find so often in the words Ashley prints, shines through in the hypocrisy that he verbalizes. The national media he points his finger at has done little more than echo the caricature he initiated. In early April, Mr. Ashley appeared nationally on PBS to present this impression that he now accuses others of fostering.“I think it combines so many forces right now. It combines the question of race. It combines the question of, you know, 200 years of concern over exploitation of black women by white men of privilege. It contains the elements of an elite university and its surrounding community. It's really a perfect storm of events that have come together and causes that have come together.” Ashley interview with PBS

Further revealing himself to be void of credibility, Ashley admit’s

“the Herald Sun should have been quicker to aggressively examine the competency of the investigation.”

That statement implies that the Snooze Room has begun to “aggressively examine the competency of the investigation.” If such an undertaking has begun at the Herald Sun, we can only assume it has started today as no signs of any examination of this nature has yet to appear on the pages of the Herald Sun. Within the past week, Ashley’s hacks have not only continued to ignore the lack of investigative competency but also have defended both the prosecutor and the police vehemently. Yet, with a glowing hypocrisy, Mr. Ashley pretends that his snooze paper has begun to “examine the competency of the investigation.”

Within the past week, Mr. Ashley’s Herald Sun has stated:

“The players maintained an aura of sweet innocence with reporter Ed Bradley either downplaying or ignoring conflicting evidence.”

“We still haven't heard why an assault couldn't have occurred during those gaps.”

“we haven't heard compelling evidence, from "60 Minutes" or anywhere else, that the charges should be dropped.”

Exactly one week ago, the Herald Sun offered the following defense of the investigation Mr. Ashley pretends to be examining:

“Baker said he will be interested to see what new details the show brings to light, but he doesn't believe the Durham Police Department's work on the case should be second-guessed if new statements contradict previous ones.”

Ashley appears to blame the Snooze Room’s failures not on his unwillingness to report truthfully but rather on his lack of resources.

“One of my regrets on this, quite honestly, is that I’ve not had enough resources to throw at the story.” Triangle Blog at JohnLocke.org

Repeatedly over the past several months, this blog, and others, have managed, with a budget of little more than truth, willingness and compassion, to do exactly what Mr. Ashley whines his limited resources disallows.

Friday, September 22, 2006

The Exact Moment When Durham Cheerleader Ashley Turns Into The Universal Butt of The Joke

The Bob Ashley "Fan" Club appears to be growing rapidly. Over the past week the Duke Hoax blogosphere has taken aim directly at Nifong hip-hugger Ashley and his Herald Sun newspaper with pointed questions directed at his slanted approach to all things Nifong. Among the many highlights (if you’re not Ashley):

John in Carolina contrasts the News and Observer’s coverage with the Herald Sun’s:

About that Ashley H-S report that defense attorney’s “admittedly approved” the polling. Here’s how the N&O reported on that: In a motion prepared late Wednesday afternoon, attorneys for the three defendants asked a judge to deny Nifong and said they told him in August that they intended to conduct polling. The survey was scientific, the lawyers said, and limited to 300 interviews.

Why didn't Editor Bob Ashley's paper tell readers the attorneys said they told Nifong about the polling in August? Why say instead the attorneys "admittedly approved" the poll?

JinC also gives us some background on Ashley’s debut with the Herald Sun and the paper’s downward spiral from then until now:

Three years ago, The Durham Herald Sun was a respected community newspaper owned by a local family. Then in late 2004, the H-S was sold to a privately held The Paxton Media Group, based in Paducah, Ky.

Paxton sent Ashley to Durham to run the H-S. On Ashley’s first day, scores of long-time H-S employees were summarily fired and escorted by security guards from the H-S building. They weren’t given reasons for their firings, other than they were no longer needed. They weren’t even allowed to return to their desks to say good-bye to friends and colleagues, some of whom they’d worked with for more than 20 years. Ashley explained that was because of "security reasons."

When a newspaper’s circulation is declining as its region grows and its weekday “A” section advertising averages less than two full pages a day, that paper’s headed for “a crash and burn,” even if its editor was once “Duke of Paducah.”

Professor KC Johnson points out Mr. Ashley’s aversion to truth in journalism:

The "votebook" inaccuracy isn't the first time the Herald-Sun has wildly distorted news regarding the Cheek effort. In a July 30 editorial, editor Bob Ashley opined,

-On Thursday, Cheek said being district attorney would be too much of a distraction from the business of his Durham law firm, so supporters shouldn't vote for him after all.

In fact, Cheek had said exactly the opposite regarding how his supporters might vote. As N&O reporter Benjamin Niolet noted after the county commissioner's press conference,

-Cheek . . . said anyone dissatisfied with Nifong could vote for him. Cheek said that he would vote for himself but would stay out of the election and the campaign.

Why would Ashley misrepresent Cheek's statement?

In another offering, Prof. Johnson directs our attention to the Herald Sun Hilarity :

Then there’s the Durham Herald-Sun, which has combined plodding pro-Nifong editorials with “news” articles whose one-sided nature borders on journalistic fraud, topped off by a pattern of simply ignoring newsworthy items that can’t be framed in pro-Nifong terms.

Talk Left poster Tony Soprano pokes fun at Ashley’s Herald Sun and others in a comment on “reaction” to the News and Observer’s upcoming, “Who is Nifong” article:

In my zeal to cover this case and leave no stone unturned, I made some phone calls to get comments, opinions, and predictions on this upcoming article on Nifong in the N&O:

…The Durham Herald Sun asked me to wait a minute and then the reporter was heard asking an assistant if Mr. Nifong was done editing their article announcing the upcoming article.

The Johnsville News opines:

The Herald-Sun is "a dead man walking" to use a phrase we've heard before in Durham.

TJN notes, in another fine article, the Herald Sun’s death spiral:

The Herald-Sun may be another casualty of the Duke rape hoax. The case has been an acid test for North Carolina journalists. It looks like the acid from this case may peel away the remaining dead flesh from the corpse of The Herald-Sun.

Crystal Mess offers combination jabs at Ashley with “More Herald Sun Hilarity” and “Nifong the Ghost Writer”

The September 16 letter of "Jimmy D. Haynes" is so full of misleading falsehoods that I must conclude one of three things:

1) His real name is Michael B. Nifong;

2) His real name is Bob Ashley, or;

3) His real name is "Liar."

In case you were not privy to the email circulating the Herald Sun’s mail server this week with the subject line of “The Exact Moment When Durham Cheerleader Ashley Turns Into The Universal Butt of The Joke” which contained a link to our entry into the Ashley “love” festival, our contribution can be found here:

Meet the Enablers: Bob Ashley

As if further evidence of Ashley’s extreme bias in favor of all things Nifong was needed, Beth Brewer of the Committee to Recall Nifong - Vote Cheek has informed LieStoppers that Mr. Ashley expressly denied her permission to reproduce any Herald Sun articles on her campaign’s website with the exception of a guest column penned by Lewis Cheek and a handful of Letters to the Editor. Not surpisingly, DA Nifong’s campaign site is lined with pro-persecutor Herald Sun articles.

Thursday, September 21, 2006

Something Taint Right

In the latest act of the long running performance by the Durham Theater of the Absurd Duke Hoax: The Drama, we see the play’s antagonist, DA Mike Nifong, submit a new motion to the court. The object of his ire, it appears, is a random telephone survey of 300 Durham residents conducted by a research firm retained by the defense attorneys. While Mr. Nifong was aware of the survey a month ago and raised no objections then, he now has decided that he dislikes the tone of the questions. Based on the impressions of his wife, Cy Gurney, Mr. Nifong contends that the telephone survey was designed to taint the Durham jury pool by quizzing 300 of Durham County’s nearly 250,000 residents.

While it appears unlikely that questions posed to 0.12% of local residents could serve to taint the jury pool regardless of how they are phrased, DA Nifong argues in his motion that the defense attorneys' efforts to assess the damage his highly-publicized extrajudicial statements inflicted on their clients is somehow an effort to influence opinions. To understand better the degree of hypocrisy that colors the filing of this motion, we propose a new survey be conducted.

Question One

Which of the following actions is more likely to influence opinions and/or taint a jury pool:

A. Telephone Survey of 300 people.
B. An appearance on prime time national TV.
C. Dozens of appearances on prime time national TV combined with dozens of other media interviews distributed world wide.

Question Two