With the release of the North Carolina AG's full report on the Duke3 case it is now irrefutable-the entire fiasco was a hoax from the get go. As DIW observes this morning, this was a hoax that was "perpetrated by a mentally unstable accusing witness, an unscrupulous district attorney, and a few other key figures willing to compromise their professional ethics to keep the fraud alive." And, of course, with the official paper of wreckage as the audience clack.
The release of the AG's report would have been the perfect time for the NY Times to finally weigh in, not only on the hoax itself, but on the mindset that led so many, including some key figures at the paper, to rush to judgement. Instead, the lead editorial in this morning Times is on-abstinence. In an ironic twist, the lamentable Duff Wilson's report in today's paper (Not prominently featured of course) is titled, "'Credibility Issues' Undid Duke Case..." As it will also undo what's left of the Times' own reputation.
The paper's continued silence, and its perverse editorial priorities, should lead any discerning reader to, "Just say No," when it comes to relying on this formerly respectable paper for reliable news and opinion. After all. when a senior Al-Qaeda leader is reported captured, and the NY Times fails to even mention that he was the mastermind behind the London bombing, as well as a former general in Saddam Hussein's army (too busy telling its readers the prison where this scum was being held), then we know that "all the news that fits," really refers to the paper's skewed ideological bias.