Why does the New York Times condone false accusations of sexual assault?

[ealahweemah72]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/86063.html

Bill Anderson, the economics professor at a college in Maryland who played a major role in refuting the lies in the infamous Duke Lacrosse case, weighs in on the New York Times's latest editorial condoning false accusations:

"While a number of American industries shut down or move their operations overseas, one “industry” is booming and is providing much wealth for prosecutors and defense attorneys. The False Accusation Industry is responsible, I believe, for thousands of innocent people being convicted, imprisoned, and labeled sex offenders for life, and it is driven by federal law.

During the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, no media entity was more supportive of the corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong and the “victim” Crystal Mangum than the New York Times. From its endorsement of the “magic towel” theory to its fawning portrayals of Nifong, who later would be disbarred for lying in the case, the NYT helped keep a huge hoax going, but not before it cost the families of the indicted players five million dollars to help debunk the transparently-false charges.

With Mangum now indicted for murder (for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend to death a week ago), one would think that there might be some introspection at the NYT. Think again. The newspaper has endorsed a new federal regulation that will lead to even more false accusations and, ultimately, imprisonment of innocent people."

Anderson goes on to quote an egregious passage from the NYT's editorial that actually defends the new "zero tolerance" regulations from the Department of Education (which are basically "guilty until proven innocent" or even "guilty even after proven innocent"). Anderson goes on to deliver a knockout blow to the infamous left-wing newspaper:

"I’m not sure what planet the editors are on, but college campuses already inundate their students from day one about sexual assault and, more importantly, engage in the ritual male-bashing that this new regulation really is about. No matter what the NYT might tell us, this action is guaranteed to increase false accusations and ultimately false convictions.

For all of its “equal protection” terms, the regulation actually tilts the evidence chain in favor of the accuser because a mere accusation will be enough to “convict” the accused. Lest anyone disagree, look at what happened in the Duke case. Nearly every administrator at Duke acted as though Mangum’s story were true, even though the facts, even from the very beginning, spoke volumes otherwise.

This new regulation has nothing to do with keeping students from being sexually assault[ed]. It actually is yet another victory by hard-left feminists to define all male-female sexual contact as rape, and have it written into law. Not surprisingly, the ultra-Politically Correct NYT endorses it, just as it propped up Nifong five years ago."

As far as I'm concerned, the day when the College Bubble pops and the day when the New York Times finally goes bankrupt cannot come soon enough. The world will be a better place without them. That world may arrive within the next decade.

[syvwkh]

http://www.lewrockwell.com/blog/lewrw/archives/86063.html

Bill Anderson, the economics professor at a college in Maryland who played a major role in refuting the lies in the infamous Duke Lacrosse case, weighs in on the New York Times's latest editorial condoning false accusations:

"While a number of American industries shut down or move their operations overseas, one “industry” is booming and is providing much wealth for prosecutors and defense attorneys. The False Accusation Industry is responsible, I believe, for thousands of innocent people being convicted, imprisoned, and labeled sex offenders for life, and it is driven by federal law.

During the infamous Duke Lacrosse Case, no media entity was more supportive of the corrupt prosecutor Mike Nifong and the “victim” Crystal Mangum than the New York Times. From its endorsement of the “magic towel” theory to its fawning portrayals of Nifong, who later would be disbarred for lying in the case, the NYT helped keep a huge hoax going, but not before it cost the families of the indicted players five million dollars to help debunk the transparently-false charges.

With Mangum now indicted for murder (for allegedly stabbing her boyfriend to death a week ago), one would think that there might be some introspection at the NYT. Think again. The newspaper has endorsed a new federal regulation that will lead to even more false accusations and, ultimately, imprisonment of innocent people."

Anderson goes on to quote an egregious passage from the NYT's editorial that actually defends the new "zero tolerance" regulations from the Department of Education (which are basically "guilty until proven innocent" or even "guilty even after proven innocent"). Anderson goes on to deliver a knockout blow to the infamous left-wing newspaper:

"I’m not sure what planet the editors are on, but college campuses already inundate their students from day one about sexual assault and, more importantly, engage in the ritual male-bashing that this new regulation really is about. No matter what the NYT might tell us, this action is guaranteed to increase false accusations and ultimately false convictions.

For all of its “equal protection” terms, the regulation actually tilts the evidence chain in favor of the accuser because a mere accusation will be enough to “convict” the accused. Lest anyone disagree, look at what happened in the Duke case. Nearly every administrator at Duke acted as though Mangum’s story were true, even though the facts, even from the very beginning, spoke volumes otherwise.

This new regulation has nothing to do with keeping students from being sexually assault[ed]. It actually is yet another victory by hard-left feminists to define all male-female sexual contact as rape, and have it written into law. Not surprisingly, the ultra-Politically Correct NYT endorses it, just as it propped up Nifong five years ago."

As far as I'm concerned, the day when the College Bubble pops and the day when the New York Times finally goes bankrupt cannot come soon enough. The world will be a better place without them. That world may arrive within the next decade.

chuckle chortle hoot
have you ever met a reporter preapred to tell the truth when they can tell a good story?
I went to court as a result of a scum bag reporter. I won thankfully.

[link]

Compared to the faux news outlets, NYT as pure as a new born baby.

[calvert]

The new york times history includes fictional stories, whole page ads depicting General "Be-Tray-Us" as a liar even before he met with Congress to give his assessment of the war and story after story without validating the facts. I'm not surprised that their still up to their old tricks.