Will the News Media Learn from Crystal Mangum’s Delayed Candor?
12/14/24 – – Eighteen years after Crystal Mangum ignited a five-alarm crisis for Duke University and members of its men’s lacrosse team, she has admitted that her rape allegations were untrue. In a “Let’s Talk with Kat” podcast interview from prison (Mangum is serving time for an unrelated second-degree murder conviction) the former exotic dancer confessed:
I testified falsely against them by saying that they raped me when they didn’t, and that was wrong, and I betrayed the trust of a lot of other people who believed in me. I made up a story that wasn’t true because I wanted validation from people and not from God.
While her accusations were shaky from the start, she found plenty of instant validation when she made them. Duke faculty members, a politically motivated district attorney and the news media rushed to embrace a story dripping with racism, violent misogyny, white privilege and toxic masculinity.
Now that we know the truth for sure, let’s revisit the case.
A Team Party Goes Terribly Wrong
On the evening of March 13, 2006, members of the Duke lacrosse team hired two “exotic dancers” to perform at a house many of the players were living in just off campus. Things did not go as planned. One of the dancers, Crystal Mangum, charged that she had been brutally raped in the house by three team members.
Initial media coverage, which exploded internationally, unequivocally cast Ms. Mangum, an African American woman, as the victim and the lacrosse team, predominantly white men, as the villains. Even though the players denied the charges and conflicting facts were coming out by the hour, 88 Duke faculty members signed and published an advertisement in the school’s newspaper shaming the accused players. One particularly prejudicial paragraph in the ad read:
Regardless of the results of the police investigation, what is apparent everyday now is the anger and fear of many students who know themselves to be objects of racism and sexism: who see illuminated in this moment’s extraordinary spotlight what they live with every day.
Duke’s head lacrosse coach Mike Pressler was forced to resign after 16 years in the job. Duke President Richard Brodhead canceled the team’s season. Three players were charged with rape by Durham, North Carolina, District Attorney Mike Nifong. And the reputation of Duke University was widely assailed.
The villains were clear to see. The media piled on.
The problem was, it became clearer by the day that no rape had occurred. Crystal Mangum’s story was discredited. All charges against the players were dropped.
District Attorney Nifong was disbarred and spent a day in jail for criminal contempt (he had hidden critical DNA evidence supporting the players’ claims). Duke reached multi-million-dollar settlement agreements with the falsely accused players. Mike Pressler became the head lacrosse coach at Bryant University, and in 2010 coached the US men’s national lacrosse team to a gold medal.
How Could the Media Get This Story So Wrong?
As we discussed last week in relation to the UnitedHealthcare CEO murder and the New York subway death of Jordan Neely, editors want reporters to determine — quickly — who is responsible for whatever mistake, crime, disaster, war or tragedy they’re covering. It may not be fair, but reporters believe it’s their job to identify winners and losers, good guys and bad guys, oppressed and oppressors, villains and victims.
True to reporters’ propensity to typecast, the Duke lacrosse scandal was a target-rich environment for judgmental journalists. New York Times Public Editor Dan Okrent in the ESPN 30 for 30 documentary “Fantastic Lies” offered this explanation:
It was white over black, it was male over female, it was rich over poor, educated over uneducated. All the things that we know happen in the world coming together in one place and journalists, they start to quiver with a thrill when something like this happens.
As we’ve seen in just the last couple of weeks, journalists have become no less judgmental since the Duke lacrosse coverage debacle. Don’t expect any apologies from reporters now that Crystal Mangum has come clean. In fact, news outlets are insensitively repeating the names of the falsely accused players in coverage of Mangum’s confession. So much for letting them – the victims – get on with their lives.
Corporate communicators dealing with crises can be better prepared for battle by understanding the dynamics at play in this case. Ask yourself how your organization might be typecast if pulled into a reputational storm. Avoiding the “villain” label and navigating a challenging media environment are critical elements of successful crisis prevention and response.
As for Crystal Mangum, the truth may set her free. She is eligible for release from prison in February 2026.
Crisis Quotient Blog 