20 YEARS LATER: The Long Shadow of a Lie: The Duke Lacrosse Rape Hoax.

Nifong had been in the job less than a year, appointed by Gov. Mike Easley to fill the job after the governor picked the previous DA to fill a vacant judicial seat on the state’s superior court. In March 2006, Nifong was a candidate for his first shot at being elected as district attorney, and the Democratic primary was just two months away. North Carolina was then, as now, a “swing” state. Although George W. Bush in his 2004 reelection had carried North Carolina by a comfortable 12-point margin statewide, Durham County went more than 2-to-1 for Bush’s Democratic opponent, John Kerry, who got 68 percent of the vote in the county. In other words, if Nifong won the Democratic primary, he was practically guaranteed to be elected district attorney in this liberal bastion, but Nifong was opposed by one of his own assistants, Freda Black, in the primary. Nifong’s job was very much at stake when the rape accusation against the Duke lacrosse players landed in his lap.

Meanwhile, word of the case had spread across town and was reported in the March 24 edition of the Raleigh News and Observer. The same day, it was announced that Duke’s lacrosse team would forfeit its next two games. University President Richard Broadhead issued a statement saying that the players were “presumed innocent until proven guilty,” but added that it was “already clear that many students acted in a manner inappropriate to a Duke team member.” The next day, despite the scheduled lacrosse game against Georgetown being canceled, some protesters showed up at the stadium waving signs that read “Real Men Don’t Protect Rapists,” and one of the protesters told a reporter for the student paper: “I am fully aware a crime was committed by someone. It is too bad the rest of the team won’t fess up.” That night, “more than 175 incensed community members gathered for a candlelight vigil” in front of the house on North Buchanan Boulevard where the incident had allegedly happened.

Already, a narrative had begun to develop — the lacrosse players were protecting their guilty teammates, and the university wasn’t doing enough.

Why should the press investigate the truth, when there’s a convenient and self-serving narrative to push?