Shelvia Dancy Reflects on Covering the Duke Lacrosse Case and the Role of Digital Media
This episode appears to contain dynamically inserted ads. Transcript timestamps may be approximate.
We learned late last night that Crystal Mangum, the woman who falsely accused three Duke men's lacrosse players of rape in 2006, admitted she lied about the allegations and asked for the forgiveness of David Edmonds, Colin Fennerti, and Reed Seligman. There are so many facets and angles and details to the case. I wanted to speak with someone in media who covered the case as a gifted journalist. So I'm talking with Shelvia Dancy, she's the assistant professor of digital journalism at Media Law, that's the Hospital School of Journalism, welcome professor. Hi, hello again, it's so good to join me today. Great to have you on. So tell us what was it like to cover the case in Durham? I used the word chaotic, it was a local story that of course garnered national headlines. And so in addition to local media being present for press conferences and speaking interviews, as we do, then there was the additional intensity of a national spotlight on this case. Now, what are some memories that stand out to you about covering that story? One of the things I remember is the district attorney at the time, Mr. Nyfong being so willing to speak to reporters about what was happening about the allegations and how these allegations were being treated in the legal system, simply because we typically don't always have that type of access to a district attorney in many cases, in many criminal cases. So issue a statement, but not always be as accessible as journalists want them to be. And I do recall the accessibility of Mr. Nyfong and the press conferences that he had speaking about this case. How have digital media and even social media changed the way stories are covered? I think they allow stories to travel much more quickly, gone long gone, other days when people consume the needs, like sitting in front of a screen at a specific time set by the news organization. Now news is very instant, and I do believe those are people's expectations at this point. And it is ubiquitous, it's no longer something that you can access when you're driving in your car or at home watching television, it's literally in your hands, which I think from a journalistic standpoint is a wonderful thing. And from the standpoint of the public, so they instantly know things as well. I think that's also a boon. And I think social media helps in that it can guide a discussion and give news outlets and insight into what questions the public has about a particular case that you're covering in the news. And I think that's very valuable to be able to hear from people on the other side of the screen as a practitioner. I asked the question, almost like a father, what have we learned from all this with regard to forming an opinion and watching it, like you said, on social media, watching just spread like wildfire? I think it's an important reminder, as is any case involving the legal system as someone who went to law school and just deeply about the law, and as a journalist, it's important to withhold a final judgment until all the facts are in. Certainly people can have opinions as people will do, but always be mindful that at the end of the day, we are not always as informed as we think we are unless we are actually at a place when a thing happens, we are really trying to weigh the testimony from both sides. And it's important to have that awareness when watching these up this case and in the other case involving the legal system in the news. And any time we're willing to give someone different to assume innocent until proven guilty, if we're willing to do that in one case, we need to do it in every single case in which someone is accused of something.
Transcription truncated.