The Disgrace of CNN’s Nancy Grace

At the recent Democratic debate in Las Vegas, CNN’s Wolf Blitzer lobbed softball questions at Hillary Clinton. Then he allowed the audience to boo Hillary’s opponents – a callous breach of debate etiquette. And when it came time for the audience to grill the candidates, Blitzer deceptively introduced the questioners as “ordinary people, undecided voters.”

Those voters included a former staffer for Democrat senator Harry Reid, a former director of the Arkansas Democratic Party, an official in a local union, and the president of the Islamic Society of Nevada. [http://directorblue.blogspot.com/2007/11/cnn-plants-questions-to-protect-hillary.html]

Yes, ordinary and undecided folks, every one of them.

But Wolf Blitzer isn’t the only CNN commentator to make a mockery of journalistic integrity.

When special prosecutor Nancy Grace won 100 felony cases in a row, she was riding the fast-track to legal notoriety. But in 1997 the Supreme Court of Georgia charged her with “inexcusable” actions that “demonstrated her disregard of the notions of due process and fairness.” And eight years later her career came off the rails when the 11th Circuit Court of Appeals concluded Grace had “played fast and loose” with ethical canons.

So Grace left Georgia and signed on as a commentator for Court TV. In 2006 Nancy again boarded the fast train when she struck a deal with CNN to anchor her own Nancy Grace Program.

Then along came a woman named Crystal Mangum — drug abuser, exotic dancer, and serial rape accuser.

Shortly after the alleged March 14 assault, wild stories began to circulate about what had transpired at 610 North Buchanan. Within days Nancy Grace was claiming — falsely – that the players had refused to provide DNA samples. She theorized, “If there had been evidence, I’m sure it was flushed down the commode or gotten rid of, innocently or not.”

Just for good measure, Grace added this remark for her vigilante-justice viewers: “What if this girl was your girl? You know, I’d burn the place down, for Pete’s sake!”

Taking her cue from the Queen in Alice in Wonderland (“Sentence first – verdict afterwards!”), Grace then invited a series of guests who would take orgiastic delight in the demonization of three young lacrosse players.

On April 5, Grace invited Duke faculty member Houston Baker. The hate-filled professor made the over-the-top accusation that the players had “used racial slurs [and had] been given special privileges so that they could make up courses in the summer and that they showed up at these courses drunk and indifferent.”

Five days later the defense team announced the DNA did not match any of the lacrosse players. That seemingly took the wind out of Nifong’s earlier promise that “the DNA evidence requested will immediately rule out any innocent persons.”

But since when did exculpatory evidence stand in the way of a good ethnic cleansing?

So that evening Grace invited attorney Wendy Murphy to her show. Despite evidence now pointing to Mangum as an opportunistic perjurer, Murphy illogically claimed the woman was “entitled to the respect that she is a crime victim.”

On May 10 the prosecution team leaked a misleading account suggesting a partial match of the stripper’s DNA. And once again Grace resorted to an over-blown metaphor: “At the eleventh hour, suddenly, a Hail Mary pass was thrown, and it’s a touchdown for the state!” she exulted.

Five days later lacrosse captain Dave Evans stood in front of the Durham County magistrate’s office and defiantly announced, “These allegations are lies, fabricated – fabricated, and they will be proven wrong … You have all been told some fantastic lies.”

While most media commentators were struck by Evans’ sincerity, Grace sarcastically retorted, “What, were they all together, holding hands at a prayer meeting?” Then she played video clips of Richard Nixon saying, “I am not a crook.”

Nancy Grace even vilified those who cautioned the rush to judgment might be premature. During one interview Stephen Miller of the Duke Conservative Union began to worry that “two innocent people may have possibly …” But Grace quickly cut him off: “Oh, good lord! … I assume you’ve got a mother. I mean, your first concern is that somebody is falsely accused?”

Bloviating entertainment for the masses, perhaps. Informative legal commentary, definitely not.

In their must-read book Until Proven Innocent, Stuart Taylor and JC Johnson describe Nancy Grace as “CNN’s egregiously biased, wacko-feminist former prosecutor.” One of these days, Ms. Grace’s pangs of conscience may well get the best of her. Let’s hope she solemnly declares for all to hear, “I’m deeply sorry for all the hurt and pain that I’ve caused to these three innocent lacrosse players.”