Duke Lacrosse 30 for 30 - "Fantastic Lies" - to air Selection Sunday

[SCMatt33]

ESPN announced the next batch of 30 for 30 films today (http://espnmediazone.com/us/press-releases/2016/01/espn-films-announces-new-30-30-documentaries-first-ever-30-30-miniseries-event-oj-made-america/?ex_cid=30for30TW), including one focusing on the Duke Lacrosse case, which will air on Selection Sunday, 10 years to the day of the infamous party. Here is the excerpt from the press release relating to "Fantastic Lies":


“Fantastic Lies” will return to the night of March 13, 2006, when Duke University lacrosse players threw a team party that ended up changing lives, ruining careers, tarnishing a university’s reputation and even jeopardizing the future of the sport at the school. The film, from acclaimed director Marina Zenovich (“Roman Polanski: Wanted and Desired”), will premiere on the 10th anniversary of the party that ignited what became a national firestorm and resulted in a highly-charged legal investigation. Usually confined to the sports section, lacrosse suddenly appeared on the front pages of newspapers because of the lurid details of the case and the hot buttons that it pushed: sex, race, class, violence.

“Our first two films of the year highlight the diversity of topics that we seek with the 30 for 30 series,” says John Dahl, ESPN Films Vice President and Executive Producer. “The Bears film offers a fresh yet nostalgic look at one of the most iconic teams in NFL history while the hard-hitting “Fantastic Lies” goes far beyond the playing field with an examination of how multiple factors led to a miscarriage of justice.”

I will be very interested to see from what perspective the documentary takes place, as the subject is so broad below the surface. You have the first few months, before anyone was charged, where campus was chaotic with media and protests and the like. I was a freshman at the time and can remember altering my walking routes getting off the bus at the chapel to avoid being in camera shots. Then you get into the nitty gritty of the legal case with shoddy police work, Mike Nifong and the like.

Also of note, the first multi-episode 30 for 30 will focus on the OJ Simpson trial. Diving into these subjects shows that ESPN is starting to venture further off the field with their subject matters, which will be quite interesting to see how it works out.

[BLPOG]

They chose an appropriate title. Hopefully the episode will be unrestrained in lambasting the appropriate parties. I wonder what the campus response will be. Current students would have been fairly young during the whole fiasco.

[jv001]

I can't wait to watch ESPN's 30 for 30-"How UNC got away with cheating for over 20 years and not getting caught". Oh wait, ESPN is Pro-Carolina. I would have paid money to watch that 30 for 30 program. GoDuke!

[johnb]

I can't wait to watch ESPN's 30 for 30-"How UNC got away with cheating for over 20 years and not getting caught". Oh wait, ESPN is Pro-Carolina. I would have paid money to watch that 30 for 30 program. GoDuke!

I bet ESPN sees itself as pro-profit; Carolina solvency is part of that financial equation. When/if Carolina gets its due reward (presumably after this year's run for championships), I bet there'll be a 30 for 30 on Carolina's fiasco as long as they think the show will make money. I'd also say that the 30 for 30 producers/directors will be maianly interested in getting their own shows produced--as long as they're given a green light by senior management, they'll do whatever show is likely to bring the most eyeballs and impact.

I've really liked every 30 for 30 I've seen, by the way. I think they do a great job with it.

[Tom B.]

I can't wait to watch ESPN's 30 for 30-"How UNC got away with cheating for over 20 years and not getting caught". Oh wait, ESPN is Pro-Carolina. I would have paid money to watch that 30 for 30 program. GoDuke!

Give it 10 years or so. The story is still playing out and the end hasn't been written yet. To be an effective retrospective, some time needs to pass first. Making a documentary on the UNC scandal now would be like making a documentary on the Obama Administration.

I thought the 30-for-30 episode on the SMU football scandal was excellent -- partly because it had been so long (20-plus years) since the scandal occurred, and I'd forgotten a lot about it, the various twists and turns that it took, and the different people involved. One angle the producers took in the SMU episode was to look at the scandal through the lens of how the local media pursued it -- basically, the producers posited that the scandal was a disaster waiting to happen because Dallas, at the time, had two good newspapers and two or three TV stations with deep writing, reporting, and investigative talent on their sports desks. Raleigh-Durham doesn't have the same number of outlets and the same depth of talent competing for eyeballs and circulation, but it would be interesting to get a perspective on the UNC scandal from Dan Kane and other people in the media who covered it, when all is said and done.

[Mike Corey]

Per The Chronicle (http://www.dukechronicle.com/article/2016/01/espn-to-air-30-for-30-on-duke-lacrosse-case-march-13):


ESPN will air a documentary centering on the Duke lacrosse case March 13—the 10-year anniversary of the party that quickly became a national story.

The film—titled "Fantastic Lies"—is part of ESPN's 30 for 30 series, and was announced by the network Tuesday along with other projects the series will pursue in 2016. It will be directed by Marina Zenovich.

"The hard-hitting 'Fantastic Lies' goes far beyond the playing field with an examination of how multiple factors led to a miscarriage of justice," ESPN Films Vice President and Executive Producer John Dahl said in a press release.

I know that ESPN interviewed The Chronicle's then-editor, Seyward Darby, as part of this piece. Seyward, whose career in journalism has taken her to Foreign Policy Mag, was a beacon of good reporting and steered what I always thought was outstanding coverage when much of the rest of the media was derelict in its duties.

[Turk]

Makes me nervous. I have found the more recent "30 for 30s" to be more uneven in quality as they have ramped up the production stream over the last year or so. For example, I thought the ones about Laettner, John DuPont, and the Pittsburgh cocaine trials all left something on the table or didn't quite get the story right. There were also a couple where I thought to myself, "Self, who wants to see a 30 for 30 about *that*"?

[BigWayne]

“The hard-hitting ‘Fantastic Lies’ goes far beyond the playing field with an examination of how multiple factors led to a miscarriage of justice,” ESPN Films Vice President John Dahl said in a press release. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article53310625.html)


John Dahl, vice president and executive producer, ESPN Films and Original Content, oversees all aspects of the Peabody and Emmy-winning 30 for 30 documentary film series, including 30 for 30 Shorts.
Dahl graduated with Honors from the University of North Carolina with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Radio, Television and Motion Pictures. (http://espnmediazone.com/us/bios/dahl_john/)

It will be interesting to see how this gets treated seeing that UNC people are in two levels of management above the team doing it.

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Makes me nervous. I have found the more recent "30 for 30s" to be more uneven in quality as they have ramped up the production stream over the last year or so. For example, I thought the ones about Laettner, John DuPont, and the Pittsburgh cocaine trials all left something on the table or didn't quite get the story right. There were also a couple where I thought to myself, "Self, who wants to see a 30 for 30 about *that*"?

Really? I loved the Laettner piece, and so did my Tar Hole "friends."

Interested to see the take on what I think is largely seen as a rush to judgment in the LAX case.

Even the Fab Five piece was interesting, as I felt it outed them as still bitter and entitled jagoffs.

[Newton_14]

They chose an appropriate title. Hopefully the episode will be unrestrained in lambasting the appropriate parties. I wonder what the campus response will be. Current students would have been fairly young during the whole fiasco.

Agree fully on the title, and on the rest of the post. Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

[killerleft]

Agree fully on the title, and on the rest of the post. Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

I can think of a certain number of folks who absolutely owe the whole lacrosse team many apologies that will never happen. But, hey, this fits my metanarrative perfectly, so I raise a hale and hearty Duck Rabbit Milk Stout toast to 'em!

[devildeac]

I can think of a certain number of folks who absolutely owe the whole lacrosse team many apologies that will never happen. But, hey, this fits my metanarrative perfectly, so I raise a hale and hearty Duck Rabbit Milk Stout toast to 'em!

At least I'm not the only one who tries to turn every thread into Ymm, Beer...

:o

[BigWayne]

I can think of a certain number of folks who absolutely owe the whole lacrosse team many apologies that will never happen. But, hey, this fits my metanarrative perfectly, so I raise a hale and hearty Duck Rabbit Milk Stout toast to 'em!

Would that number be close to 88?

[DevilWearsPrada]

Agree fully on the title, and on the rest of the post. Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

Love your post!!!!!!! I was thinking the same thought about Nancy Grace! I used to watch her show, but quit when she threw the Duke Team under the bus! She has NEVER apologized for being wrong!!!!

Looking forward to watch the 30 for 30 show!

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I wonder what the thread on here looked like for the whole Lax thing. I don't remember if I was lurking or posting at that point. I bet it was all pretty similar to what people are saying on here. At first outrage, then doubt, then feeling bad for rushing to judgement. I remember similar feelings towards the whole thing. Being mainly concerned about how it would hurt the basketball team. Then realizing that there is so much more at stake here than the reputation and recruiting of a basketball team, peoples lives were ruined and changed forever. Thats when I started to take sports a little less serious. So a valuable lesson was learned.

[Tom B.]

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

Seems like as good a time as any to revisit one of my all-time favorite Daily Show segments:

http://www.cc.com/video-clips/95y6wd/the-daily-show-with-jon-stewart-duke--non--rape-case

[Turk]

Really? I loved the Laettner piece, and so did my Tar Heel "friends."

Interested to see the take on what I think is largely seen as a rush to judgment in the LAX case.

Even the Fab Five piece was interesting, as I felt it outed them as still bitter and entitled jagoffs.

Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed the Laettner piece as well, but I had some quibbles with the no-name blogger "experts" and incorrect perceptions about the "Duke hate" meme, which started after Laettner.

As others have noted, there is a lot of meat to the LAX story. It may be a challenge to create a narrative that fits in the allotted timeframe, and a lot also depends on who gets the on-camera time and how well they handle it.

(P.S. - "jagoffs"!!! Now yins are talking my language!!)

[DukieInKansas]

Agree fully on the title, and on the rest of the post. Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

Has Nancy Grace ever apologized to anyone for some of the crap she has pulled?

I never thought that Nifong was working from a hate of Duke due to a rivalry. When I was first asked about this, my response was "If "they" (unnamed at the time) did it, lock them up and throw away the key. However, it only came out the way it did for political reasons." To me, Nifong saw this as a way to ensure he was elected DA. It was later that it came out that he needed a few more years in the DAs office to maximize his pension - I think it would double.

It will be interesting to see how they relate the story. I believe they interviewed Nifong's form campaign manager who left the campaign and lead the efforts to write-in Cheek for DA. I hope for a fair review of the situation and include some of the stories shared by mothers of the players.

[killerleft]

Would that number be close to 88?

You must be a mind reader!:)

[Native]

I wonder what the campus response will be. Current students would have been fairly young during the whole fiasco.

You're correct. As a Durham native and recent graduate, I was in eighth grade when the scandal broke. I'd offer that the vast majority of current students – particularly those not from the Triangle – lack the reference to fully understand the impact it had on the campus environment, the strain it placed on the Duke-Durham relationship, and the manner in which it relates to the current campus climate.

[-jk]

I wonder what the thread on here looked like for the whole Lax thing. I don't remember if I was lurking or posting at that point. I bet it was all pretty similar to what people are saying on here. At first outrage, then doubt, then feeling bad for rushing to judgement. I remember similar feelings towards the whole thing. Being mainly concerned about how it would hurt the basketball team. Then realizing that there is so much more at stake here than the reputation and recruiting of a basketball team, peoples lives were ruined and changed forever. Thats when I started to take sports a little less serious. So a valuable lesson was learned.

It was ugly.

Some folks took sides. Some got angry. Some got holidays.

It got so bad, it got a specific mention in the Posting Guidelines (http://forums.dukebasketballreport.com/forums/showthread.php?21833-Decorum-amp-Posting-Guidelines-(Please-read-before-posting!)&p=423519#post423519) sticky.

We won't let it go there again.

-jk

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

Yeah - the mods had their handsful for quite a stretch. It was ugly.

[-bdbd]

I wonder if the piece will be allowed to show how tilted the media's coverage was, especially that of ESPN.

I remember throwing things at the TV (then changing channels) as Stu Scott and company had nightly stories where they pulled out generally ridiculous "facts" to try to bend the tale to fit to their anti-Duke storylines. "Rich, spoiled white students from up north at an elitist school in a poor, black southern town where they are generally served by the local folk...." blah, blah, blah. It was like they just came out of the woodwork to take the opportunity to skewer the University. I sure hope the story really takes the lemming-like media to task. :mad:

But I doubt it. (sigh)

[sagegrouse]

Has Nancy Grace ever apologized to anyone for some of the crap she has pulled?

I never thought that Nifong was working from a hate of Duke due to a rivalry. When I was first asked about this, my response was "If "they" (unnamed at the time) did it, lock them up and throw away the key. However, it only came out the way it did for political reasons." To me, Nifong saw this as a way to ensure he was elected DA. It was later that it came out that he needed a few more years in the DAs office to maximize his pension - I think it would double.

It will be interesting to see how they relate the story. I believe they interviewed Nifong's form campaign manager who left the campaign and lead the efforts to write-in Cheek for DA. I hope for a fair review of the situation and include some of the stories shared by mothers of the players.

I believe this entire debacle was to gain $30,000 per year in pension for Nifong. He was not likely to be elected (he had assumed office due to a vacancy), and he didn't have the support of the African-American community until the lacrosse charges and prosecution, aided by his grandstanding on national TV.

Of course, as a result of his fraudulent prosecution, he was disbarred and not eligible, therefore, to serve as a DA.

[subzero02]

Nifong is a terrible person...

[Mtn.Devil.91.92.01.10.15]

I predict that of all this comes from the mere announcement of the 30 for 30, the actual documentary will create some degree of message board meltdowm with locked threads and punishments.

I hope if this premieres on Selection Sunday, we can be more focused on our team's current challenges than on the giant mess in the past.

[AIRFORCEDUKIE]

I predict that of all this comes from the mere announcement of the 30 for 30, the actual documentary will create some degree of message board meltdowm with locked threads and punishments.

I hope if this premieres on Selection Sunday, we can be more focused on our team's current challenges than on the giant mess in the past.

Well according to the sticky we can't talk about it. I don't know if the Mods are going to make an exception for the 30 for 30 show? Probably depends on how the conversation goes. I imagine this show will stir up some old feelings and anger so maybe its best to leave it alone on here.

Also its kind of a weird time to release a 30 for 30 about Lacrosse isn't it? Why release it selection Sunday, surely they could have found a basketball related 30 for 30 to air. I mean we all know why they chose selection Sunday, because Duke will be one of the major talking points all day and they want to capitalize on that Duke hate by throwing this old mess at the viewers. Perhaps it will change some minds, I don't know.

[Turk]

I predict that of all this comes from the mere announcement of the 30 for 30, the actual documentary will create some degree of message board meltdowm with locked threads and punishments.

I hope if this premieres on Selection Sunday, we can be more focused on our team's current challenges than on the giant mess in the past.

I'm more optimistic than that, but then again I'm not a mod. It's just TV and a lot of time has gone by since then. (Although if anyone is still waiting for apologies, it's probably time to give up). I'm thinking there will just be a few negative zporkz, that's all.

In addition to Duke's outlook on Selection Sunday, we can also look forward to the annual Lunardi bashing, so we have that going for us.

[MCFinARL]

Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.



As others have noted, Nifong's motivation was likely more political and financial than rivalry-based, but there's no question that a bit of Duke hatred (the kind that depicts it as the private school for entitled rich kids) must have colored his assumptions about the case (and drove the media jackals' narratives as well).

Your story about your reaction reminds me of another--my daughter (Duke '04) was visiting campus shortly after the story broke and came back convinced that the rape never happened. Although not an especial fan of lacrosse players (some she had known she thought were a bit full of themselves), she made a persuasive argument: the lacrosse players were as image conscious, self-protective, and future career oriented as anyone else at Duke. Committing this rape would have been a very unlikely risk for any of them to take in the first place, and if they had, there would have been some actual leaks/close-to-the-source rumors on campus of what had really happened--but there were none. She found the idea that the entire team would have chosen to protect people who had actually committed such a crime through a "wall of silence" rather than report it to absolve themselves completely implausible.


It will be interesting to see what they choose to focus on and what they don't, as well as to see whether they have come up with anything truly new in terms of either evidence or angle. At least three books have been written on the case, 60 Minutes did one or two stories on it (including the one on Pressler), and it has been endlessly blogged and analyzed.

[Tom B.]

Also its kind of a weird time to release a 30 for 30 about Lacrosse isn't it? Why release it selection Sunday, surely they could have found a basketball related 30 for 30 to air. I mean we all know why they chose selection Sunday, because Duke will be one of the major talking points all day and they want to capitalize on that Duke hate by throwing this old mess at the viewers. Perhaps it will change some minds, I don't know.

(1) It will be the 10th anniversary of the infamous lacrosse team party that started the whole debacle.

(2) Selection Sunday = lots of eyeballs already glued to TVs.

(3) It's perhaps the highest-visibility time of year for Duke.

(4) It will be during lacrosse season, so one could make a not-completely-laughable argument that it's temporally relevant.


Things I'll be interested to see:

(1) Did they get Nifong to sit down and talk on camera for the documentary? My guess is probably not, but it would be fascinating if they did.

(2) Will the documentary feature KC Johnson? My guess is that it probably will -- and honestly, I'd have mixed feelings about this. He certainly did a lot to keep the spotlight on some of the more egregious abuses, but he also definitely had his own agenda, which I think sometimes biased his commentary unfairly towards Duke. While there are justifiable criticisms that can be made about how the Duke administration and other persons of responsibility at Duke (*COUGH*Alleva*COUGH*) handled certain aspects of the mess, I think Johnson went overboard at times in his jeremiads. It often seemed like he was projecting his feelings about his own experiences with infighting and bureaucracy in the academic world (if I recall correctly, he was involved in a nasty tenure battle at his university) in his commentary about the lacrosse case.

(3) Did they interview Alleva for the documentary? (Please, Lord, I hope he had the good sense to decline any interview requests and not open his mouth about this. Ever.)

(4) Did they interview Pressler? My guess is that they probably did, and that he'll be featured prominently.

[MCFinARL]

(1)

(2) Will the documentary feature KC Johnson? My guess is that it probably will -- and honestly, I'd have mixed feelings about this. He certainly did a lot to keep the spotlight on some of the more egregious abuses, but he also definitely had his own agenda, which I think sometimes biased his commentary unfairly towards Duke. While there are justifiable criticisms that can be made about how the Duke administration and other persons of responsibility at Duke (*COUGH*Alleva*COUGH*) handled certain aspects of the mess, I think Johnson went overboard at times in his jeremiads. It often seemed like he was projecting his feelings about his own experiences with infighting and bureaucracy in the academic world (if I recall correctly, he was involved in a nasty tenure battle at his university) in his commentary about the lacrosse case.



I think this is a fair point. Johnson did as much as anyone to root out and report some of the crucial facts in the case--but he ultimately became more interested in the faculty and administration politics of the situation. While there were some genuine grounds for criticism there, he did go far beyond to critique every aspect of the work and public comments of several Duke faculty and administrators--often torturing their remarks/writing to fit his preconceived narratives. And I suspect you are right that his own experiences gave him an ax to grind.

[snowdenscold]

I wonder what the thread on here looked like for the whole Lax thing.

IIRC, we didn't have just a thread, but an entire forum (to make 5 total - Main, OT, PPB, Lacrosse, and Ticket Exch.) dedicated to the "scandal", due to the sheer number of threads.

[77devil]

(1) It will be the 10th anniversary of the infamous lacrosse team party that started the whole debacle.

(2) Selection Sunday = lots of eyeballs already glued to TVs.

(3) It's perhaps the highest-visibility time of year for Duke.

(4) It will be during lacrosse season, so one could make a not-completely-laughable argument that it's temporally relevant.


Things I'll be interested to see:

(1) Did they get Nifong to sit down and talk on camera for the documentary? My guess is probably not, but it would be fascinating if they did.

(2) Will the documentary feature KC Johnson? My guess is that it probably will -- and honestly, I'd have mixed feelings about this. He certainly did a lot to keep the spotlight on some of the more egregious abuses, but he also definitely had his own agenda, which I think sometimes biased his commentary unfairly towards Duke. While there are justifiable criticisms that can be made about how the Duke administration and other persons of responsibility at Duke (*COUGH*Alleva*COUGH*) handled certain aspects of the mess, I think Johnson went overboard at times in his jeremiads. It often seemed like he was projecting his feelings about his own experiences with infighting and bureaucracy in the academic world (if I recall correctly, he was involved in a nasty tenure battle at his university) in his commentary about the lacrosse case.

(3) Did they interview Alleva for the documentary? (Please, Lord, I hope he had the good sense to decline any interview requests and not open his mouth about this. Ever.)

(4) Did they interview Pressler? My guess is that they probably did, and that he'll be featured prominently.

While KC Johnson may have had an agenda, I disagree that his criticisms were excessive. Let's not forget that the university paid millions in legal fees and purportedly 10s of millions in settlements, and to my knowledge, no one at Duke was ever held accountable. As for Pressler, I believe he is still bound by a confidentiality agreement in his settlement. If he's interviewed, I doubt we'll learn anything new.

[BigWayne]

(2) Will the documentary feature KC Johnson? My guess is that it probably will -- and honestly, I'd have mixed feelings about this. He certainly did a lot to keep the spotlight on some of the more egregious abuses, but he also definitely had his own agenda, which I think sometimes biased his commentary unfairly towards Duke. While there are justifiable criticisms that can be made about how the Duke administration and other persons of responsibility at Duke (*COUGH*Alleva*COUGH*) handled certain aspects of the mess, I think Johnson went overboard at times in his jeremiads. It often seemed like he was projecting his feelings about his own experiences with infighting and bureaucracy in the academic world (if I recall correctly, he was involved in a nasty tenure battle at his university) in his commentary about the lacrosse case.




I think this is a fair point. Johnson did as much as anyone to root out and report some of the crucial facts in the case--but he ultimately became more interested in the faculty and administration politics of the situation. While there were some genuine grounds for criticism there, he did go far beyond to critique every aspect of the work and public comments of several Duke faculty and administrators--often torturing their remarks/writing to fit his preconceived narratives. And I suspect you are right that his own experiences gave him an ax to grind.

Johnson, at the beginning and all through his commentary stated that his initial and fundamental reason for getting involved was the ideologically driven faculty misconduct, which peaked with the group of 88 listening statement. He made no bones about his interest in this being that he had been the victim of such faculty groups at his place of employment. Unfortunately, as he and others following the topic soon discovered, the misconduct in this case extended well beyond the faculty. We are fortunate that he and others spent so much time and energy on the investigation process to help expose the truth.

[Tom B.]

As for Pressler, I believe he is still bound by a confidentiality agreement in his settlement. If he's interviewed, I doubt we'll learn anything new.

Pressler talked to 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-duke-lacrosse-coach-on-rape-scandal-60-minutes/) last year, so to whatever extent there's a confidentiality clause in his settlement, it clearly doesn't bar him from talking about the case. It wouldn't surprise me if he's precluded from discussing the terms of the settlement itself (which is not an uncommon provision in legal settlements), but is otherwise free to talk about the events in question and his personal experiences.

[BigWayne]

Pressler talked to 60 Minutes (http://www.cbsnews.com/news/ex-duke-lacrosse-coach-on-rape-scandal-60-minutes/) last year, so to whatever extent there's a confidentiality clause in his settlement, it clearly doesn't bar him from talking about the case. It wouldn't surprise me if he's precluded from discussing the terms of the settlement itself (which is not an uncommon provision in legal settlements), but is otherwise free to talk about the events in question and his personal experiences.

Pressler sued Duke after the settlement because of comments John Burness made to the media.

Both sides had agreed to keep terms of the settlement confidential and to avoid making disparaging or defamatory comments about each other.


So Pressler can talk about the case as long as he doesn't make defamatory comments about Duke. He would have to stick to recounting actual events and leave the listener to make defamatory conclusions on their own.

[Tom B.]

Johnson, at the beginning and all through his commentary stated that his initial and fundamental reason for getting involved was the ideologically driven faculty misconduct, which peaked with the group of 88 listening statement. He made no bones about his interest in this being that he had been the victim of such faculty groups at his place of employment. Unfortunately, as he and others following the topic soon discovered, the misconduct in this case extended well beyond the faculty. We are fortunate that he and others spent so much time and energy on the investigation process to help expose the truth.

But how much did Johnson really do to expose the truth, at least as it pertains to Nifong and his misconduct? That was mostly the work of the players' defense teams and some journalists (including, notably, The Chronicle). Johnson wasn't really doing that leg work -- he just relayed information as it came out from other sources.

Like I said, my feelings about Johnson are mixed. He may not have been doing the leg work that uncovered the misconduct, but he collected and posted information from other sources, so he effectively became a pretty good resource if you wanted to find the latest news on the scandal. You didn't have to go hunting across the Internet -- you could just go to Johnson's site and click on the various links he'd aggregated from news services covering the case as it unraveled.

As for his commentary, though, I have to agree with MCFinARL -- while there were legitimate criticisms to be made against Duke faculty members and administrators, it got to the point where Johnson was reaching for anything, no matter how tangential or tenuous, that he could cite as "evidence" to back up his narrative. After a while it became less about the case and more about him. He used the case as a proxy to re-fight his own personal battles, which made his commentary tiresome and, ultimately, less informative.

[mayrer]

“The hard-hitting ‘Fantastic Lies’ goes far beyond the playing field with an examination of how multiple factors led to a miscarriage of justice,” ESPN Films Vice President John Dahl said in a press release. (http://www.newsobserver.com/sports/college/acc/duke/article53310625.html)


John Dahl, vice president and executive producer, ESPN Films and Original Content, oversees all aspects of the Peabody and Emmy-winning 30 for 30 documentary film series, including 30 for 30 Shorts.
Dahl graduated with Honors from the University of North Carolina with a Bachelor of Arts degree in Radio, Television and Motion Pictures. (http://espnmediazone.com/us/bios/dahl_john/)

It will be interesting to see how this gets treated seeing that UNC people are in two levels of management above the team doing it.

They were actually far, far too kind to the Duke administration and the professors who were the Group of 88.

[mayrer]

But how much did Johnson really do to expose the truth, at least as it pertains to Nifong and his misconduct? That was mostly the work of the players' defense teams and some journalists (including, notably, The Chronicle). Johnson wasn't really doing that leg work -- he just relayed information as it came out from other sources.

Like I said, my feelings about Johnson are mixed. He may not have been doing the leg work that uncovered the misconduct, but he collected and posted information from other sources, so he effectively became a pretty good resource if you wanted to find the latest news on the scandal. You didn't have to go hunting across the Internet -- you could just go to Johnson's site and click on the various links he'd aggregated from news services covering the case as it unraveled.

As for his commentary, though, I have to agree with MCFinARL -- while there were legitimate criticisms to be made against Duke faculty members and administrators, it got to the point where Johnson was reaching for anything, no matter how tangential or tenuous, that he could cite as "evidence" to back up his narrative. After a while it became less about the case and more about him. He used the case as a proxy to re-fight his own personal battles, which made his commentary tiresome and, ultimately, less informative.

I agree Johnson was a great source for news, but he also uncovered interested items, like the fraudulent academic claims (mostly about being published when they weren't) of several members of the Group of 88.

[mayrer]

Pressler sued Duke after the settlement because of comments John Burness made to the media.

Both sides had agreed to keep terms of the settlement confidential and to avoid making disparaging or defamatory comments about each other.


So Pressler can talk about the case as long as he doesn't make defamatory comments about Duke. He would have to stick to recounting actual events and leave the listener to make defamatory conclusions on their own.

Burness cost Duke (or rather its insurers) another bundle, then he got ushered out the door. He was so overmatched from the start that it was pitiful.

[mayrer]

While KC Johnson may have had an agenda, I disagree that his criticisms were excessive. Let's not forget that the university paid millions in legal fees and purportedly 10s of millions in settlements, and to my knowledge, no one at Duke was ever held accountable. As for Pressler, I believe he is still bound by a confidentiality agreement in his settlement. If he's interviewed, I doubt we'll learn anything new.

Duke's insurers paid most of the settlements, so the behavior of the administration did not have so much financial impact. Doesn't make that behavior any less acceptable, though.

[mayrer]

Agree fully on the title, and on the rest of the post. Full Disclosure: I remember very vividly my reaction when the news broke, which was, "Dang this sucks! I cannot believe these guys did this! What morons! This will be a huge black eye for the school and athletic dept, and fuel the already over the top Duke Hate! Dang, they were idiots", and then feeling like a complete arse and fool, when the "story" started falling apart and it became obvious it was all one big lie, and worse, a person in a high position (Nifong) actually allowed his hatred of Duke from a freaking sports rivalry, cloud his judgement and it led to him trying to bury three innocent kids! I felt like a total fool at that point. It taught me a huge lesson in life though, and for that at least, I am grateful.

I greatly look forward to seeing this 30-30.

Oh and Nancy Grace, we are still waiting on your public apology to those 3 young men!

Nancy Grace would apologize, if she had any integrity. Don't hold your breath.

[mayrer]

Would that number be close to 88?

Plus Broadhead, Steele and Alleva, at least.

[luvdahops]

Duke's insurers paid most of the settlements, so the behavior of the administration did not have so much financial impact. Doesn't make that behavior any less acceptable, though.

Duke's D&O insurance premiums probably went up a lot, though, as a result. And I am sure those policies had some amount of retention/deductible, so there was certainly some direct cost to the university.

[Tom B.]

Burness cost Duke (or rather its insurers) another bundle, then he got ushered out the door. He was so overmatched from the start that it was pitiful.

While I've generally been more sympathetic to the administration than many others, on this I'll wholeheartedly agree. I remember the first time I saw Burness answering questions on TV in the early days of the story, and thinking, "Wait -- this is Duke's PR guy??" He was completely not ready for prime time, and managed to come across as both weak and arrogant.

[mayrer]

While KC Johnson may have had an agenda, I disagree that his criticisms were excessive. Let's not forget that the university paid millions in legal fees and purportedly 10s of millions in settlements, and to my knowledge, no one at Duke was ever held accountable. As for Pressler, I believe he is still bound by a confidentiality agreement in his settlement. If he's interviewed, I doubt we'll learn anything new.

So true. Nor were any of the 88 professors who condemned the players early and often, and many of whom were found to have fraudulent academic credentials, ever disciplined either. Not to mention professors (most among the 88, I believe) who harrassed innocent lacrosse player / students in the classroom, none of which professors ever were made accountable in any way.

[mayrer]

Duke's D&O insurance premiums probably went up a lot, though, as a result. And I am sure those policies had some amount of retention/deductible, so there was certainly some direct cost to the university.

No doubt, that's why I said "most." It definitely cost Duke, but not as much as Duke's misconduct warranted (ex-insurance).

[-jk]

I think we've rehashed the Lax Hoax enough. We're starting to go in circles.

-jk