Duke lacrosse accuser's name

No one had any reservations about showing the accuseds' faces and printing their names, life stories, photos of their houses, etc. She should get the same treatment.

 

Does your paper put their name on the masthead or is it blank?

 

I guess. Fuck one, fuck all, right?

Maybe the best thing to do is round up all the reporters who ate right out of the DA's hands and show their mug shots.

The journalistic decision-making in all this was simply appalling. Blame the girl? Shit. All she did was lie.

 

SC, knowing how strongly you feel about this topic, I'm sure it took a lot for you to reach the conclusion that you did.

And Sxy, I hadn't heard about the rape crisis center consult, but I'm glad to hear some places took that extra step.

 

I really tire of THIS shit.

She did the crime; her mug shot can do the time. In no way, shape or form should you be defending her being protected at this point. No way, shape or form.

 

She shouldn't be considered a rape victim at this point. She lied about being raped, making her the originator of the entrire story, which then became this massive news story. That makes her news; name her.

 

And, she should no longer be termed: "the accuser." There was nothing to accuse. I think liar pretty much covers it.

Think she regrets not taking that Wal-Mart job now?

 

Without the lie, none of the journalistic BS follows.

CRYSTAL GAIL MANGUM. Name her. In the first graf of every story from here on out.

 

So is it cool to name Kobe's accuser? Those charges were dropped as well by an overreaching DA.

 

The legal system that now claims it was wrong is just as fallible today as it was a year ago. Therefore I retain just enough skepticism to feel that we will never know for sure what did or didn't happen in that house, and I would prefer to the leave the vengeful act of naming the accuser and the lionizing of the accused to people a lot more confident in their omnicience than I am in mine. There was a drunken party in which strippers were hired; this wasn't church choir practice. We ought to report the resolution of the case but spare our readers the celebration of the accused's "innocence" and the casting of stones at the supposedly discredited accuser. It is politically acceptable to maintain the system was wrong in the O.J. verdict, yet believe justice was 100 percent served in this case? Some of the headlines on this case seem overly joyous by my standards. That is not our role. Neither is our role to be punitive. As citizens we have the right to be outraged over this or anything else. As journalists we need to save expressions of outrage for those things in which we ourselves have gathered and scrutinized the evidence.

 

I don't like what Frank is saying, but, of course, I have to agree with it.

 

No you don't. Exonerated by DNA evidence and declared innocent by the Attorney General -- a pretty extraordinary move -- is pretty compelling.