CNN's Nancy Grace & the Duke Lacrosse Case
November 27th, 2007 by Glenn Sacks, MA for Fathers & Families
Carey Roberts' interesting new column The Disgrace of CNN's Nancy Grace (MensNewsDaily.com, 11/27/07) details the way Nancy Grace beat the drums against the falsely accused Duke lacrosse players. Roberts writes:
"Shortly after the alleged March 14 assault, wild stories began to circulate about what had transpired at 610 North Buchanan. Within days Nancy Grace was claiming — falsely – that the players had refused to provide DNA samples...Grace then invited a series of guests who would take orgiastic delight in the demonization of three young lacrosse players...
"Nancy Grace even vilified those who cautioned the rush to judgment might be premature. During one interview, Stephen Miller of the Duke Conservative Union began to worry that 'two innocent people may have possibly …' But Grace quickly cut him off: 'Oh, good lord! … I assume you’ve got a mother. I mean, your first concern is that somebody is falsely accused?'”
Jon Stewart of The Daily Show also skewered Grace over her enthusiastic support of the false accuser, noting that Grace is "the person who had staked the most on this case." On April 11, 2007 North Carolina Attorney General Roy Cooper announced they were dismissing the charges and said that the accused players "are innocent." The next day Stewart asked "Put through hell for over a year--how will the media show contrition?" He then said "let's see how Nancy Grace handled it" and cut to Grace's April 11 show--and there was a substitute host!
To watch the Stewart video, click here or see below. To read Roberts' column in full, click here.
"));
19 queries. 0.331 seconds.
November 27th, 2007 at 1:30 pm
..didnt she do the same thing to innocent Richard Ricci in the Elizabeth Smart case? Consider the source here when you're talking about Nancy Grace...
November 27th, 2007 at 1:32 pm
I enjoy the fact that Boston Legal takes almost weekly shots at Nancy Grace and her brand of "journalism."
November 27th, 2007 at 1:55 pm
Although Grace was very prominent in the lacrosse crucifixion of three innocent young men, she was simply part of a national feeding frenzy that declared those boys guilty without knowing the facts. I did hear Bill O'Reilly and some others early on say the case was coming apart on the prosecution, etc. but most people wanted to believe they were guilty because they fit the "profile" -- cocky, young, white males out to brutally oppress an innocent black woman.
I don't recall hearing a single feminist rejoice in the fact that Crystal Mangum was not raped. In fact, I sensed a collective sigh of stunned disappointment across the feminist nation. I seriously think some would gladly offer up "one of their own" to be brutally raped at the hand of the evil white males than to have those "privileged white males" go free. How sick is that?
November 27th, 2007 at 3:03 pm
That is what you call a martyr Judge. If Crystal Mangnum had been raped (or wose raped and killed) every feminist gathering and website would have made a dedication to her memory for years to come. Notice that now that the case has fallen apart the feminists have stopped talking about it. Frankly I wish those three guys would raise all levels of hell over the way they were horribly treated by the prosecution and by the media, problem is the mainstream media wouldn't listen.
From Judge:
" I seriously think some would gladly offer up "one of their own" to be brutally raped at the hand of the evil white males than to have those "privileged white males" go free. How sick is that?"
^^^^^^^^^^^^^
Although white males are at the tops of nearly every feminists sh!tlist men of all skin colors are targets of their venomous hatred.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:34 pm
It really is telling how far you can in America today if you have brains and a complete lack of ethics.
Or has it always been such.
AN
November 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Danny,
I think every feminist gathering and website WAS out there pontificating.
the problem is, once they were shown to be wrong, many of them pulled the archived data, assuming they had such controls, such as the Duke groups of ??, that pulled all material on the campus server once they were shown wrong.
If not for a few websites that questioned them from day 1, and copied their pages, you might never even know who those prof's were.
November 27th, 2007 at 3:54 pm
Judge: "I seriously think some would gladly offer up "one of their own" to be brutally raped at the hand of the evil white males than to have those "privileged white males" go free. How sick is that?"
Hence why it appears more feminists I talk to are becoming disillusioned with the "mainstream" feminist movement. They are getting sick of playing the victim at every turn, and they are really sick of this "see: men are always evil" crap. I would actually call organizations such as NOW "anti-feminist" - not feminist.
November 27th, 2007 at 4:19 pm
That depends how you define feminist. If you call a feminist someone who wants sexual equality, then certainly NOW is anti-feminist, and indeed call me a feminist. However, the name implies a focus on women that can never really be the focus of equality, only in partnership with it. I focus on men's issues, as I believe they are more dire yet completely ignored, but that doesn't mean I oppose women's issues, as NOW does with men wanting equal rights.
November 27th, 2007 at 6:30 pm
Lance, that is my experience, too. The nonsense the radical feminists preach, about how oppressed women are, simply doesn't ring true to the vast majority of women who favor equality (classic equity feminists) with whom I come into contact.
If we could only win back the family law courts, that would be a huge dent in the radical feminist armor.
November 27th, 2007 at 7:23 pm
I would love to share another bloggers comment about nancy grace but . . .
b
November 27th, 2007 at 7:39 pm
Up in smoke Says:
November 27th, 2007 at 3:39 pm
Danny,
I think every feminist gathering and website WAS out there pontificating.
the problem is, once they were shown to be wrong, many of them pulled the archived data, assuming they had such controls, such as the Duke groups of ??, that pulled all material on the campus server once they were shown wrong.
If not for a few websites that questioned them from day 1, and copied their pages, you might never even know who those prof's were.
= = = =
It seems that this video in no longer avalible either . . .
b
November 27th, 2007 at 8:19 pm
Here it is:
http://www.thedailyshow.com/video/index.jhtml?videoId=85250&title=duke-non-rape-case
November 27th, 2007 at 10:02 pm
still is not working for me . . . hummmmmm, bummer
November 27th, 2007 at 10:14 pm
...I think we need a national moment on silence on march 14...The day of the Duke false rape!!
In Honor of the Duke 3...And all the other men who are just getting out of jail from now availeable DNA testing!!
False accussations ruin mens lives forever....Why??? because In America there is no way to protect youreself from a false accussation!! All the judicial warnings against Rape hysteria have been removed!!
Look at the front page of the new york times yesterday....A young mans life was ripped from him at 17 from a false rape accussation!!
We are going to be trying to deal with the effects of klan type Rape hysteria for at least a few more decades!!
November 27th, 2007 at 11:35 pm
Verdict: The Wrong Man (1986) (TV)
A look at the cases of four innocent mostly middle-class Americans who were wrongfully accused by the police, and subsequently convicted of committing major crimes, including murder, armed robbery, and rape. Each of the four individuals has now been completely exonerated; although one of them died of a heart attack at 32 years of age before he could prove his innocence, and another spent over a third of his life in prison before being released. Remarkably, following its broadcast, this documentary was instrumental in helping two of the individuals prove their innocence and win their release from prison.
December 4th, 2007 at 2:39 am
Women like Crystal Gail Mangum do grievous damage, not only to 3 innocent men who are out $1 million EACH for defending themselves & will be forever haunted by the memory of merely having been ACCUSED of a crime they never committed, but also to legitimate victims of rape, whose credibility will forever be compromised when defense attorneys use the Duke case to try & smear women who will be forever haunted by the memory of having really been raped, regardless of the verdict. Show me a prosecutor who will punish a false accuser, & I'll show you one who can truly stand up for the rights of legitimate victims.
January 14th, 2008 at 7:47 pm
did you ever notice,every white man and young man are rich and can afford their own o.j.simpson dream team!i mean,look at all the agentcies,and all these local chapters that protect the white man from serious injustice,oohh,thats right,organizations like those would be called racists by all the minorities and liberals throughout the country!name an organization like the n.a.a.c.p,the n.o.w.that protects the white mans right in this divesed country!bet you couldnt,not even on television.hipocrits all!!
April 19th, 2008 at 10:23 am
[...] Some of you may remember that Nancy Grace was one of the media's lead witch hunters during the Duke University Lacrosse "rape" case. To learn more, see my blog post CNN's Nancy Grace & the Duke Lacrosse Case. [...]
April 19th, 2008 at 8:08 pm
[...] lead witch hunters during the Duke University Lacrosse "rape" case. To learn more, see my blog post CNN's Nancy Grace & the Duke Lacrosse Case. Help for Orange County Dads--Free ConsultationFamily law attorney J. Christian Conrad in Orange [...]
April 23rd, 2008 at 6:35 pm
It is past time for this nonsense Nancy Grace show to be canceled.
December 28th, 2008 at 3:02 pm
I think the fact that Nancy had a guest host the day following the announcement that the Duke Players were innocent says all one needs to know about her.. and the subject was never mentioned on her show again.. What a pity..