After my most recent post (all of twenty minutes ago), I decided to exercise my clearly befuddled brain and read the news. The front page story, not suprisingly, is about the Duke Lacrosse (alleged) rape case. Being mildly interested, I scanned
the article and found interesting, relevant information about two Duke lacrosse players arrested today and an interview given by the second dancer at the party which neither corroborated nor refuted the accuser's story. However, I was a bit annoyed to read the following near the end of the article:
"Reporters tracked the district attorney's movements in minute detail. Just after noon, Nifong emerged from his office and walked across the hallway to the bathroom.
"Reporters surrounded the bathroom door in a crowd that included five television cameras, three still photographers, sound men with boom microphones and at least a dozen print reporters. At the sound of flushing, the group tensed, raised cameras and prepared. Nifong did not emerge with news."
I realize that the DA is running for re-election and as no one from an opposing party has announced his/her candidacy, will effectively win or lose in May's primary, but seriously... Is it really necessary for the media hounds to camp outside the restroom in hopes of getting a quote??? And does this piece of information have ANY relevance to the case at hand??? And did we really need the "sound of flushing" part???
So much for journalistic integrity.