No good deed goes unpunished: the saga of Ken Buck

Last November, Ken Buck, a prosecutor who ran for a U.S. Senate seat in Colorado, was narrowly defeated. As a Tea Party and Republican candidate, he already was the target of the media, and when it was publicized that he refused to prosecute a particular alleged rape case, you can imagine what the media reaction became.

Mother Jones, the hard-left publication, all-but-declared this refusal was "proof" that Buck was a misogynist. Declared the magazine:

On the campaign trail, Buck has called this a nonstory. But between this, his controversial "high heels" attack ad against a female primary challenger, and his view that abortion should be illegal, even in cases of rape and incest, Buck's been beset by charges of sexism in his race with incumbent Sen. Michael Bennet (D). The victim says that's at the heart of Buck's non-prosecution of her alleged attacker. "It reflects his stereotypes," she says. "It shows that he's unable to [fulfill] his professional duties without taking his personal biases and stereotypes into consideration."

Other publication, from Salon to the Huffington Post to The Atlantic also followed suit with similar accusation, and the hard-left blogs had a field day. HERE IS A GUY WHO SUPPORTS RAPE!! As these same media outlets spewed forth their rhetoric in the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, so they gave the open-and-shut opinion which one has come to expect.

Libertarian writer James Bovard once told me that in politics, no one cares about the truth, and I will say that political journalism falls into that category. None of the writers whom I contacted on this story really cared whether or not what they were saying was true. In fact, to all of them, it was true by definition. To put it another way, the facts did not matter because political ideology always trumps the truth, as it is politics and the media that determine truth, anyway.

The syllogism went like this:

• Ken Buck is running as a conservative Republican
• All conservative Republicans are misogynists who support rape
• Therefore, Ken Buck did not pursue a "slam dunk" rape case because of political ideology.

There are two things, however, that would negate this syllogism as well as the tone of the "news" coverage. First, one would have to assume, from reading these journalists and law professors, that Buck's office in Weld County never, ever prosecuted rape cases, or was ideologically reluctant to do so. Yet, there is nothing in the record to show that Weld County prosecutors refused to prosecute rape cases.

The second thing is even more telling and more important, and was unknown to the media: a key investigator in this case, someone who is not associated with the Tea Party or conservative politics and who has helped put many rapists behind bars, strongly believed these accusations to be false. This person's input into the case was not irrelevant, and in my personal dealings with the person, I find nothing but credibility and lots of it.

In other words, Buck took advice from someone who understood the situation much better than did any of the media people or law professors who were using this case to push their own partisan political agendas. The difference is that the particular adviser was looking at the facts, while the others did not care, as facts never do seem to matter to political ideologues.

There is another matter I believe that the media conveniently left out: Ken Buck played an important role in seeking justice after the railroading and wrongful conviction of Tim Masters. (Masters was convicted of the murder of Peggy Hettrick after Fort Collins Det. Jim Broderick lied during the investigation and then lied in court. The two prosecutors, Jolene Blair and Terry Gilmore, later became judges and were voted out of office after Masters' verdict was overturned and he was freed.)

It was Buck who secured the indictment against Broderick, and it is very, very rare that a prosecutor will go after a police officer for lying. Face it, most prosecutors are quite happy to have police lie if the lies can help them secure convictions. My previous post about Lee's Summit, Missouri, is more typical in American "justice." (Unfortunately, Broderick never will come to justice, as a judge has dismissed the charges, claiming that the statute of limitations already had passed.)

Because rape has become a political crime in an overly-politicized society, Ken Buck was punished for not pursuing a case that would have been questionable at best. At the same time, the same media that decided there could be no other reason than misogyny failed to look at anything else in his record to point out that at least he was a prosecutor who believed that those people who often are untouchable also needed to be brought to justice.

As I see it, people like Ken Buck are a rarity in our system, as most prosecutors really don't care if the person on trial actually committed a crime. We also see time and again outfits like Mother Jones and the New York Times feature people who have been wrongly convicted. However, when it comes down to it, these same people really don't care about guilt or innocence at all. They care for nothing but partisan politics and demand that everyone shape their reality according to their worldviews. If innocence fits their political agenda, then it is important, and if false accusations, like those in the Duke case, fit their agenda, then they promote false allegations. And those that fail to bow down will be vilified, and so it was here.

The false accusation case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn collapses

To the surprise of no one who has done even a smidgen of due diligence in the sexual assault case against former International Monetary Fund head Dominique Strauss-Kahn, the New York Times and other news outlets are reporting that the whole thing is falling apart because the accuser has been spinning more stories than did Crystal Mangum of Duke Lacrosse case fame. His release on his own recognizance (after originally being held on $5 million bond) is the last step before this case officially is trashed, I believe.

Shortly after Strauss-Kahn's arrest, Kerwyn and I were discussing the case and as she laid out the facts, it was pretty obvious that from the start, the police and, more important, the Manhattan district attorney's office, were telling Mike Nifongesque lies. Remember that he supposedly left the hotel immediately after the attempted rape, being in such a rush that he left his cellphone behind in an attempt to quickly get out of the country?

It turns out that he checked out of the hotel in an orderly fashion, went to the airport, and then called the hotel to see if they could deliver his cellphone to him. None of his actions seemed to be those of a man desperately trying to leave the USA, although given the state of "law enforcement" in this country, I can't blame him for wanting to get the heck out of this place.

Even those lies from the police and prosecutors aside, it gets even better, much better. However, we first must travel down a short memory lane, courtesy of our friends at the Grey Lady, who always are outraged, OUTRAGED at the mere accusation of sexual assault or sexual harassment. Let us look at the various statements coming from the DA's office right after the arrest (this is significant because of what the NYT NOW is claiming about Manhattan DA Cyrus Vance, Jr., and his underlings):

Artie McConnell, assistant district attorney, at Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s arraignment in Criminal Court on May 16:

“The victim provided very powerful details consistent with violent sexual assault committed by the defendant, which establishes all the necessary elements of the crime he is charged with.”

“She made outcries to multiple witnesses immediately after the incident, both to hotel staff and law enforcement. She was then taken to the hospital and was given a full sexual assault forensic examination. The observations and findings during that exam corroborate her accounts.”

Mr. McConnell at a bail hearing on May 19:

“The complainant in this case has offered a compelling and unwavering story about what occurred in the defendant’s room. She made immediate outcries to multiple witnesses, both to hotel staff and to police.”

“The victim was given a complete and expert forensic examination and the findings from that examination are consistent with her account. The Crime Scene Unit processed the hotel room and the scene, and while those scientific tests have not been completed, the preliminary indications are that forensic evidence that supports the victim’s version of events may be found.”

Of course, what sexual assault claim would be complete without the editorial page angst that came from the opinion folks at the NYT? Here is Maureen Dowd, who never seems to be without a stupid and poorly-informed opinion:

In the wake of the Dominique Strauss-Kahn scandal, as more Frenchwomen venture sexual harassment charges against elite men, the capital of seduction is reeling at the abrupt shift from can-can to can’t-can’t. Le Canard Enchaîné, a satirical weekly, still argues that “News always stops at the bedroom door,” but many French seem ready to bid adieu to the maxim.

As Libération editor Nicolas Demorand wrote in an editorial: “Now that voices have been freed, and the ceiling of glass and shame has been bashed in, other scandals may now arise.”

After long scorning American Puritanism and political correctness on gender issues, the French are shocked to find themselves in a very American debate about the male exploitation/seduction of women, and the nature of consent.

Just as the NYT immediately jumped to the conclusion that Reade Seligmann, Collin Finnerty, and David Evans had raped Crystal Mangum, writers at the paper quickly assumed that the Strauss-Kahn accuser was telling the unvarnished truth. The letters that the paper saw fit to publish were full of the rush to judgment. This piece by Linda Martin Alcoff, a philosophy professor in New York, was pretty typical of the mindset of the NYT crowd.

In other words, it was assume guilt first and always believe the prosecutors, especially when they are prominent Democrats like Vance who have political ambitions. But, as in the Duke case, truth has carved a bit of a wedge in the NYT's narrative:

The sexual assault case against Dominique Strauss-Kahn is on the verge of collapse as investigators have uncovered major holes in the credibility of the housekeeper who charged that he attacked her in his Manhattan hotel suite in May, according to two well-placed law enforcement officials.

Although forensic tests found unambiguous evidence of a sexual encounter between Mr. Strauss-Kahn, a French politician, and the woman, prosecutors now do not believe much of what the accuser has told them about the circumstances or about herself.

Since her initial allegation on May 14, the accuser has repeatedly lied, one of the law enforcement officials said.

Senior prosecutors met with lawyers for Mr. Strauss-Kahn on Thursday and provided details about their findings, and the parties are discussing whether to dismiss the felony charges. Among the discoveries, one of the officials said, are issues involving the asylum application of the 32-year-old housekeeper, who is Guinean, and possible links to people involved in criminal activities, including drug dealing and money laundering.

I have no doubt that the story that police and prosecutors fed the media -- that this large, naked man jumped from the bathroom and forced this poor, African immigrant to give him oral sex -- is utterly false. First, keep in mind that she is from Guinea, and is a French speaker. Second, I suspect that the encounter not only was mutual, but she planned it in advance, and most likely with some of the people with whom she is associated.

The article continues:

According to the two officials, the woman had a phone conversation with an incarcerated man within a day of her encounter with Mr. Strauss-Kahn in which she discussed the possible benefits of pursuing the charges against him. The conversation was recorded.

That man, the investigators learned, had been arrested on charges of possessing 400 pounds of marijuana. He is among a number of individuals who made multiple cash deposits, totaling around $100,000, into the woman’s bank account over the last two years. The deposits were made in Arizona, Georgia, New York and Pennsylvania.

The investigators also learned that she was paying hundreds of dollars every month in phone charges to five companies. The woman had insisted she had only one phone and said she knew nothing about the deposits except that they were made by a man she described as her fiancé and his friends.

In addition, one of the officials said, she told investigators that her application for asylum included mention of a previous rape, but there was no such account in the application. She also told them that she had been subjected to genital mutilation, but her account to the investigators differed from what was contained in the asylum application.

I smell a setup from the beginning, one that even a semi-competent investigator would have found. However, given that the original investigation was done by the New York police and the DA's office, competency really is not in the job description; however, being able to act in an ideological manner that fits with the mentality at the NYT IS part of the job.

Nonetheless, the NYT continues to protect Vance and his crew, declaring:

In recent weeks, Mr. Strauss-Kahn’s lawyers, Benjamin Brafman and William W. Taylor III, have made it clear that they would make the credibility of the woman a focus of their case. In a May 25 letter, they said they had uncovered information that would “gravely undermine the credibility” of the accuser.

Still, it was the prosecutor’s investigators who found the information about the woman. (Emphasis mine)

Right. It seems that no one at the NYT has managed to deal with what is obvious: If government investigators had found this damning evidence on their own, then why were Vance and company continuing to claim that the accuser was truthful and that they had a strong case? In other words, if their investigators found out these things, either one of two things happened, neither of which would reflect well on NY authorities.

The first would be that investigators told them what they had found, but Vance's charges continued to spout the same narrative, hoping that their rhetoric would overcome any problems. In other words, they knew the truth but lied.

The second would be that the investigators withheld information and gave it to their superiors only long after they had found out the truth, leaving Vance and the other prosecutors in the dark. This one makes no sense, which means that if what the NYT is saying is true, then Vance and those prosecutors involved with the case should be disbarred at the very least for knowingly making false statements in a very high-profile case.

There is a third possibility, and that is that the private investigators for the Strauss-Kahn defense did their own work and presented the facts to the Manhattan DA and warned them that if they did not act, the defense would make sure that the material would be leaked in a very unceremonious way. Any way one slices this material, however, it is clear that Vance and his employees have a lot of explaining to do.

Don't expect the mainstream media to ask those questions. Vance and the editorial staff at the NYT are joined at the ideological and political hip and the paper will do everything it can do to protect him. Likewise, the fact that Strauss-Kahn over the years has had the reputation of acting as, well, one might expect from someone who is known to be sexually-boorish, I doubt that too many mainstream reporters are going to invite the rage of the Maureen Dowds.

Nonetheless, we see yet another example of the Government-Media Alliance making false accusations, bringing false charges, and then ending up with egg on some collective faces. This is not the last time we will see this sorry scenario, and I only can feel for the next person who is caught in the crosshairs.

The Local Media and the Tonya Craft Coverage

[Update, Thursday May 13 10:00 AM]: The editorial pages of the Times and Free Press have weighed in on the verdict, and let me say I am underwhelmed by what I just read. Here we have seen day after day of utter prosecutorial and judicial misconduct, yet we have weak responses from both editorials.

The Times editorial is a bit better, although it only hints at what was obvious. We had attorneys and even prosecutors around the country following this trial, and as a prosecutor told one of my researchers, he absolutely was stunned at what he saw. Unfortunately, the same editorial pages that are willing to write hard-hitting stuff, as long as it involves something that is far away and pretty much irrelevant to our lives, but when it comes to a monstrous injustice in their backyards, well, suddenly they became very circumspect and cautious.

Give us a break, people. If you cannot recognize a travesty when it is occurring in front of you, then either you are blind or you are willfully neglectful. Take your pick.

[End Update]

Now that the trial of Tonya Craft is over, it is time to look at the performance of the local media and assess how they covered this event. There is the good, the bad, and, well, the really ugly.

The Good

If I needed to get a sense of what happened during the trial, I would read something by Dennis Norwood of The Chattanoogan. I don't know how he was able to get a near-transcript of the day's testimony, but the guy was accurate, really accurate.

Early in the trial, I had misjudged his work, thinking he was in the tank with the prosecutors, but realized I was wrong (and subsequently took down the critical post, as one has to admit mistakes). Dennis, who was at the News-Free Press in the sports department when I was working for the NFP, is a pro in every sense of the word, and was fast and reliable.

Then there was Channel 3, let by Melydia Clewell and Callie Starnes. These ladies were good, and I loved their Twitter feeds. Callie was cat-quick with her dispatches (Yeah, I know, "Tweets") and Melydia was not bad herself.

(Note to the paranoid prosecutors: Melydia was NOT my source of news during the trial. Sorry guys, but while I know her and she provided background for me before the trial began, I was not about to make her life more difficult by bugging her with questions. That Len Gregor called her out numerous times in that courtroom further made me lose respect for him, not that I really respected the guy in the first place.)

Channel 3's post-trial conviction was just outstanding. Keep in mind that they had to put this stuff together quickly, and I must admit that Melydia is a pro when it comes to something like this.

(My only complaint with 3 was the commentary by Ken Poston. There is no way that a guy whose career is dependent upon the good will of people like Brian House, Len Gregor, and Chris Arnt is going to be able to take a hard look at what happened. I'm sorry, but while he might be an able attorney and maybe he could have given good commentary on a trial elsewhere not in the geographical area, his conflict-of-interest problems clearly limited his effectiveness.)

One surprise entry in this category is the Catoosa News. The coverage was fair (and they did run an early article of mine), surprisingly so, given that it was a local paper supposedly intimidated by a "local power structure."

Instead, I found its coverage reliable and up-to-date. This was the biggest trial the paper had covered, and its staff definitely was up to the task, and Mark Andrews distinguished himself with good writing and insight.

The Times-Free Press started slowly, I thought, but by the end, I thought Joy Lukachick really grew a lot during this trial. The TFP was the main source for the blogs by Jacob Sullum at Reason (although he also used Dennis Norwoods's articles), and if Jacob, a friend of mine whom I greatly respect, believes the NFP was reliable, then who am I to disagree?

I also thought the NFP coverage post-trial was outstanding and the staff should be proud of their effort.

The Bad

I don't know about you, but I thought that the coverage from the Today Show just sucked. Bringing in Wendy Murphy, who is about as reliable and truthful an analyst as Hitler was a good artist, just was wrong. As one who has followed Murphy's career for several years, I am not sure I ever have seen her get it right, and she was perhaps the loudest media voice (which made her really high-decible) in the chorus of falsifying information about the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case.

There was absolutely no perspective at all, and all the way to the end, Today presented the story to viewers as though the children accusers had been telling the same story from the beginning, making it a "she said, she said" case. That clearly was not true, but no one at Today seemed interested in even taking a cursory glance at the evidence.

Yeah, they had Tonya, David, and Dr. Lorandos on this morning, but that does not make up for having the execrable Murphy presenting her usual psychotic lies and half-truths. Once again, Today proves that it is not fit to cover anything but the fluffiest of news.

The Ugly

Yes, Channel 9 gets the award. Here is a station that from the start never deviated from its pro-prosecution stance, and the station even tried to claim that it was the defense that first used the word "conspiracy." These were reporters that were clueless all the way through, and I suspect the leadership at the station was absolutely shocked at the "not guilty" verdict.

These were reporters who had no clue that the behavior of the judge and prosecutors during the trial was out of line with what is supposed to be going on. I'm sure that Channel 9's reporters really believe that "He's on cross," or "He's on closing" really WAS what judges say when the other counsel objects.

I've already promised myself that when I visit the Scenic City this summer with my family, I will NEVER watch a news broadcast on Channel 9 again. If their people cannot even figure out what the heck is going on right in front of them, Lord save me from trying to interpret an event through 9's coverage.

Now, I did not follow Channel 12 at all, so I can't comment on what 12 did. This is not a criticism, but Callie and Melydia, not to mention Kevin West of WGOW-FM, kept me informed during the day, and Dennis Norwood and Joy Lukachick gave me what I needed after the day's proceedings had ended, so 12 was left out. Sorry guys.

What about future posts?

There is much to cover in the aftermath of this trial. First, I believe strongly that the rights of other people in that district have been obliterated and there are other innocent people convicted and in prison, based upon the bullying and dishonest prosecution of Arnt and Gregor, and the god-awful testimony of CAC "professionals."

We cannot forget those people, and I will do my best to open up those cases and examine them. There is nothing worse than an innocent person being convicted of a crime, and I sense that Arnt and Gregor enjoy nothing more than destroying the lives of other people. Bullies are like that.

There also will be ramifications to the conduct we have witnessed, and I will report on things as they happen, such as people filing complaints with the Georgia State Bar against the prosecutors. I will admit to having filed one formal complaint with the bar already, complete with documented irrefutable evidence of misconduct by Arnt.

So, while the trial has ended, I am not ready to pack up and leave. There is work to do.

Kevin West on Why He Believes Tonya Craft is Innocent

Kevin West of WGOW has been a heroic voice in this sorry affair, and he is not the only one there who has stayed on top of this story. (I was a guest on Jeff Styles' show last week, and I was treated very well.) While WTVC remains in the prosecutors' tank, WGOW and others in the media have been asking the pertinent questions and making good observations.

Today, I am posting what he wrote earlier on his blog, as I think his points are very well taken. In his own words:

Everybody's covering the Tonya Craft trial now in Catoosa County. But it wasn't necessarily going to be that way. Some media outlets believed it was "just another child molestation case."

But it isn't. I've never seen anything like it. I started looking into it about the first of the year. Charges were brought back in May of 2008. I remembered the story because prosecutors and law enforcement had going on two years to tell their side of it. It seemed like it was "just another child molestation case" to me.

But it wasn't. It isn't.

What makes it different in my mind?

- Adult female to female child abuse makes up only 6% of molestation cases, according to the National Center for Post Traumatic Stress Disorders.

- Ms. Craft passed two polygraph tests. They're not admissible in court, but I've seen the results and on every question it shows "no deceit." No deceit, no deceit, no deceit, etc., etc., and so on to very specific questions involving each of the alleged victims. The tests aren't admissible in court, but they were administered in Morrow, Georgia (near Atlanta) by a former US Army Criminal Investigations Command Polygraph Examiner with 20 years experience, nine years polygraph teaching experience, Master of Science degrees in Criminal Justice and Management, and a Bachelor of Science in Law Enforcement. The guy's good.

- In no child molestation case I have ever seen -- EVER -- have I seen so much support for the alleged perpetrator. It's a dicey proposition to hook your name to an accused molester. That's a crime in which as soon as the accusation is made, you're guilty and you've got to prove your innocence. Backward from the stated foundation of the American legal system, but that's the way it is. And if you associated with an accused, you're just as guilty. Yet in this case, dozens and dozens and dozens of people have publicly stood beside Ms. Craft, unafraid to show their faces, give their names, give their e-mail addresses and give their phone numbers. Let me iterate: I have NEVER seen anything like that before, no matter how "good" the defense team is.

Those three points alone give any reporter reason enough to take a hard look at the case. But then you consider:

- There are bitter feelings involving a divorce. I've been through a divorce.

- There are bitter feelings involving a child who wasn't promoted from Ms. Craft's kindergarten class. I've seen that and the resultant rage that follows when my ex-wife has had to inform parents over the years that their children weren't ready for first grade. It's truly scary.

- Ms. Craft spent all the money she had, lost her house, and her family spent their life savings to defend her. In my experience covering these kinds of cases, I've never seen anyone go that far.

- Ms. Craft traveled to Michigan at her own expense, traveled to the home of her lead defense counselor, knocked on his door at home and told him her story. And he believed it enough to devote his full resources to the case. I've never seen that before, either. An out-of-town attorney isn't going to give you the time of day if you don't have A) LOTS of money or B) a very, very good defensible case. And A) is easily ruled out.

Then you've got re-election politics which were involved at the time the charges were filed. In a rural county, there's nothing better to bolster voter support than catching a child molester.

Absolute conclusion: this is SO not "just another child molestation case."

Kevin West

Channel 9 Continues its Propaganda

I happened to look at the WTVC-TV link a few minutes ago to see a video update by John Pless. Not surprisingly, he called one of the children a "victim," not an "alleged" victim.

Don't forget that it was Channel 9 that led the rush to judgment two years ago, stoking a media frenzy that pretty much convicted Tonya Craft on the spot. While other media outlets are reporting on inconsistencies in the various testimonies, Channel 9 continues over the cliff in its efforts to convict Ms. Craft on the air.

The Local Media and Tonya Craft

As readers know, I have been especially critical of some of the local media covering the Tonya Craft trial and the events leading up to this trial. Certainly the worst offender has been Channel 9, which two years ago produced one of the most guilt-announcing and inflammatory pieces I ever have seen broadcast.

(When I called Channel 9 to speak about this story, I was dismissed as just another nut case who is ignorant about the Greater Truths that appear on the evening news. As readers who have dealt with broadcast media before, many news directors consider themselves to be impervious to any error, and Channel 9 certainly fits that description of utter arrogance.)

Other news outlets have been somewhat better in their coverage, but there is a much larger issue at hand, something I understand because I once was a reporter for the former Chattanooga News-Free Press more than 30 years ago. For the most part, local media tends to be reactive in how it covers events. People associated with these media outlets will tell you that they deal with things as they happen, and it is rare that they connect the dots or even look to see if events have a common thread elsewhere.

Another serious problem comes in the institutional nature of the modern media, which really is a creation of the Progressive Era of a century ago. The 1922 Canons of Journalism sought to create a dichotomy between a newspaper's editorial pages (where opinion was permitted) and the news pages, where reporters were supposed to be "objective" in their dispatches. (At that time, broadcast media was in its infancy and the main source of reporting "news" came from the print media.)

At the same time, there developed the "public interest" view of the media, in which it was said that journalists are supposed to be the "watchdogs of government." In other words, the press was supposed to make sure that government was not abusive toward citizens, and if it acted abusively, journalists would report on it and try to expose the malefactors.

However, things don't always work as one plans, and over time, journalists pretty much became allied with government. Part of that problem was unavoidable, as reporters would cover "beats," and most of them would deal with some governmental body. Not surprisingly, the "Capture Theory" of regulation also would apply to reporters, as they became allied with the very people they were supposed to be making sure would not abuse their power.

Furthermore, there developed the "revolving door" between journalists and government in which many reporters and writers would move into governmental positions, or people in government would move into journalism. (George Stephanopoulos and Chris Matthews are Exhibit A here. Stephanopoulos worked in the Clinton White House as the mouthpiece of the administration, while Matthews was a high-level staffer for the late Speaker of the House Tip O'Neil. On the local level, Tom Griscom of the TFP worked for former Sen. Howard Baker and served as Communications Director in the Reagan White House, the same position that Stephanopoulos later held.) In other words, the relationship between the press and the government became chummy, so in the end, the press would promote government, not scrutinize it.

This is even more true on the local level. Read the articles in the Times-Free Press or the Chattanoogan, and you will see that a lot of them deal with governmental bodies. One of the most important sources of news, of course, is the police beat, along with the courts, as they provide lots of stories of interest.

Reporters pretty much are NEVER to question the police, as the "Thin Blue Line" will retaliate, freezing out anyone who veers from the party line about the men in blue. Furthermore, every reporter wants to be able to deal with the Big Story, the one that will bring attention to the event and, of course, to the reporter as well.

All of this is understandable at one level. Furthermore, there are categories that lend themselves to massive coverage. The Duke Case, in which wealthy, white lacrosse players were alleged to have raped and beaten a poor, black woman just trying to make enough to feed her family. In assessing the media coverage after the truth came out (that the entire thing was a fabrication), Rachel Smolkin of American Journalism Review wrote a major criticism of the media, and quoted former New York Times Ombudsman Daniel Okrent:

"It was too delicious a story," says Daniel Okrent, a former New York Times public editor, who is critical of the Times' coverage and that of many other news organizations. "It conformed too well to too many preconceived notions of too many in the press: white over black, rich over poor, athletes over non-athletes, men over women, educated over non-educated. Wow. That's a package of sins that really fit the preconceptions of a lot of us."

There are other categories and, unfortunately, the Tonya Craft case in which a kindergarten teacher is accused of child molestation is just too delicious not to kindle an explosion in the newsrooms. Thus, when the charges first were aired, there was the same sickening response by local media: run over the cliff with the story.

Thus, I can understand at one level why the early coverage was so one-sided. But one must remember something that is very, very important, and something that the media rarely will admit: prosecutors in this country, both on state and federal levels, often lie, break the law, and pursue false charges because they rarely are held accountable by the government and the press.

When was the last time any reader of this post saw a local story on television, the TFP or the Chattanoogan that was critical of a local prosecutor? When has any local news outlet scrutinized the witnesses that prosecutors put on the stand?

No, for the most part, prosecutors and the police are regarded as speaking ex cathedra when they are in a courtroom, even though it is well-known that police officers often lie on the stand. When has a local media outlet ever tried to make the police or prosecutors really accountable to anything?

Why is this? I believe that because these people are the sources for some of the juiciest stories that journalists can receive, what we are seeing is something akin to what we economists call "gains from trade." Furthermore, the very aspect of the charges of KINDERGARTEN TEACHER MOLESTS CHILDREN is so horrible that few journalists are willing to question the charges, at least publicly, for they are expected to be "objective," and treat all pronouncements from prosecutors and their witnesses as being true.

What about editorial writers? Are they not supposed to be scrutinizing government agents, and are they not permitted to write outright opinion? That is true, but, as one can see in looking at the editorials on both the Times and Free Press side of the TFP, the Tonya Craft trial and the subsequent irregularities and outright abuse of the law apparently is off-limits.

On the FP side, they are law-and-order conservatives, and never (or at least rarely) question the police and certainly not prosecutors, who are PROTECTING US FROM CRIMINALS. The Times side is run by hardcore partisan Democrats, Harry Austin and Wes Hasden, and a look at their "hard-hitting" editorials finds the usual leftist fare: We need more taxes, volcanic ash is really bad stuff, and all Republicans are evil.

What you will NEVER find on either editorial page is scrutiny of the outright travesty that has been unfolding in Catoosa County. No, Austin and Hasden "believe in government" and unless Republicans in government are doing bad things (like cutting tax rates), then you won't see them uttering a peep. Because of the law-and-order mentality on the right, the FP page will be silent as well.

The institutional makeup of modern media pretty much guarantees that when stories like this come out, there will be a huge rush to judgment. We saw it in the Duke case, as well as in ALL of the fake child molestation cases that dominated the 1980s and 1990s in this country. In fact, before the numerous charges and convictions in the Wenatchee, Washington, molestation hoax fell apart, the local paper, the Wenatchee World, wrote of the "sex ring" as though it were established fact when, in reality, it was established fantasy and utter government abuse.

Like in Wenatchee, we have seen many local media outlets do the dirty work for prosecutors Chris Arnt and Len Gregor. Yes, some reporters, like Melydia Clewell from Channel 3, have tried to scrutinize the charges (and Gregor called out Clewell in open court, subjecting her to an inquisition that Judge Brian House did not try to stop), but for the most part, we now see the attempt to be "objective," which only aids the prosecution.

So, once again we see the same sickening pattern by the local media: Rush to judgment, vilify the accused, and then when the truth begins to appear, pretend to be objective. If you wonder why we see continual injustices by government, look no farther than Channel 9. They are partners-in-crime with some of the worst criminals you ever will see: Arnt and Gregor.

[UPDATE]: As you will see in the comments section, there were news media in the area at the time the charges were levied, ringing doorbells and asking people if they knew an accused "child molester" lived in the neighborhood. Rush to judgment? Oh, not the media! Never! They are much too sophisticated for that!