Like I have said a few times, you have to get you investigative reporting from other sources other than ESPN, I read this article today from Jason Whitlock about Serena Roberts credibility and it hit a home run. I am not a big fan of Jason, but like I have said before, you HAVE TO give the devil his due.
Here are some highlights on the article:
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/sports/31roberts.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=
You can read a detailed analysis of Roberts' many Duke lacrosse errors at:
Durham-in-Wonderland
FOX Sports on MSN - MLB - Bio hazard: A-Rod author has credibility issues
Here are some highlights on the article:
Her sourcing for the most damaging allegations, by her own admission, is either anonymous or non-existent. She wants us to trust her, and her New York Times- and Sports Illustrated-highlighted résumé.
Unlike Bob Costas, the producers at ESPN and the steroids-obsessed baseball journalists, I don't trust Roberts or her book, and I expressed some of my reasons in a Kansas City Star column that ran on Sunday.
The Times and SI can kiss my ass. Jayson Blair worked at The Times. Mike Price won a lawsuit against SI for the lies the magazine published about him. And years ago, an SI writer wrote a profile about me for the Columbia Journalism Review and, among other journalistic crimes, lifted a quote from an old column and passed it off as something I said to him.
Never trust a publication. Hell, the more prestigious the publication, the more pressure there is for the writers to cut corners in pursuit of a good story.
Place your trust in the writer. And Roberts' reaction to the exoneration of the Duke lacrosse players calls into question her credibility. By refusing to acknowledge her mistakes in the Duke case, she creates the impression that her agenda trumps the truth.
"First of all (Jason) needs to go back and read the columns that I wrote about Duke lacrosse," she said. "It doesn't exactly jibe with what he's saying now. I have always separated what the crime was ... and what the culture was. It didn't have to rise to the level of a crime to rise to the level of a column. And I wrote about the culture at Duke, and there's no doubt about that. I stand by that today."
She later added: "What I did about Duke is I separated the criminal investigation from a culture. Now we know what is irrefutable about that night. These women had pornographic pictures taken of them and distributed on the Internet. These women had racial slurs yelled at them. That is indisputable. There were broomsticks waved at them. That is indisputable. The issues that happened that night, separate from the crime, were in my opinion — and people can disagree with this — were worth writing about."
Here's what's also indisputable: At no time in her original Duke lacrosse-bashing column did she mention anything about pornographic pictures, racial slurs or broomsticks waved at strippers. She wrote about rape, robbery, strangulation and a hate crime. You can read the column for yourself below.
http://select.nytimes.com/2006/03/31/sports/31roberts.html?_r=1&scp=6&sq=
You can read a detailed analysis of Roberts' many Duke lacrosse errors at:
Durham-in-Wonderland
FOX Sports on MSN - MLB - Bio hazard: A-Rod author has credibility issues