< Previous page

Linda Williams, The N&O's deputy managing editor, says the paper had no choice but to report the mass DNA testing. It was the Durham police who wielded the broad brush; the paper simply reported it. I agree with that point, and The N&O deserves credit for breaking the story.

Reporting the 15 players' minor drinking and disorder citations, she said, was appropriate given the context. The assault story had thrown a spotlight on the lacrosse group, about whom there had been widespread complaints of rowdiness at their off-campus housing, Williams said. "The question became: What did the university know about the behavior of these students, and what did they do about it?"

That's a close one. It's a legitimate question whether it's fair to link students' arrest records for drinking or public peeing to criminal assault charges. Were lacrosse players' rates of infractions greater than, say, Duke football players or Duke males at large?

In the end, I would have published that story. Set aside the rape issue. If neighbors are complaining about rowdy behavior of students living off campus, it's good reporting to check the police record. "Given the allegations, I don't feel very bad for these students," said Rich Rosen, a UNC criminal law professor. "Getting named in the newspaper is not the worst thing that can happen."

But let's talk more about the anonymous interview. Williams said editors and the reporter discussed the fairness issue at length before interviewing the woman and publishing the story. The governing decision, she said, was to print only information from the interview that conformed with the police reports. "We limited for publication the statements from the woman that were in line with what she said in the police report," Williams said. Other information from the interview has not been published.

She noted that the paper tried to give the lacrosse coach, players and their lawyer the opportunity to tell their side of the story, and none would talk. (Since then, the lawyers and players have issued statements denying the allegations.)

The difference, though, is that The N&O did not offer to let the accused speak anonymously, as it did for the accuser. It's one thing to protect the identity of a sexual assault victim; it's another to let her make detailed allegations without being identified.

In my view, the interview is at odds with The N&O's own policy on anonymous sources, which discourages their use except when the information can be obtained no other way. In this case, as Williams pointed out, the story used only information from the interview that corroborated the public record, so it didn't add new facts. The added matter was the emotional content -- the crying mother of two -- that gave a human dimension to the police reports.

Maybe that qualifies as information that could be obtained in no other way. A Durham friend pointed out to me that it was the interview that really galvanized community protests and rallies. One role of a newspaper, surely, is to raise public awareness and effect change.

But we have to balance that role against the responsibility to be fair to all the parties. In the case of the interview story, I agree with Merritt that it skirted the edge of fairness.

< Previous page