http://subwaysquawkers.blogspot.com/2009/04/subway-squawker-scoop-duke-lacrosse.html

Just as there are old, angry, white columnists who unfairly portray young black athletes, there are also going to be women who have it out for men.

In terms of being “unfair,” I’d say that using her forum to attack men with no actual facts is grossly more unfair than me calling her an Omega Mu who has it out for men.

And yes, she also uses it as a way to make money. Making money is probably her main objective – it just doesn’t pass the smell test when she vindictively goes after guys like this without any facts.

I understand that you guys don’t want to say that gender is an issue, but it’s certainly strange that she suspends journalistic ethics so easily for people with whom she has issues.

KC Johnson puts it perfectly when he writes: “Most people would consider a former Times and current Sports Illustrated columnist accusing the lacrosse players of “misogyny and race baiting” as creating an “undue prejudicial effect of recent publicity not initiated by the lawyer or the lawyer’s client.” This safe harbor would apply even when the prejudicial remarks come from a figure who, for anyone who followed the lacrosse case closely, sacrificed her journalistic credibility in an attempt to advance a preconceived ideological agenda.”

She certainly seems to have it out for A-Rod, and she certainly had it out for the Duke lacrosse players. That she cites misogny and race-baiting only further hints at her real motives.

We can agree to disagree, but the truth remains – she suspends journalistic ethics far too easily for these well off males. Fool me once, shame on you. Fool me twice …

Sad and pathetic, isn’t it? The worst part is that you don’t even have to take my word for it…….you know it’s true.