Jameis Winston had quite a Sunday. He threw five touchdown passes in the afternoon and was convincingly accused of rape that night.
I say "convincingly" based on "The Hunting Ground," the documentary on campus rape. Despite threats from Winston's legal team, CNN showed the controversial film.
I say "controversial" based on the criticism. It's coming not only from FSU types but from Harvard types who claim "The Hunting Ground" distorted a case on their campus.
For the record, I am neither pro-rape nor pro-Winston. Though I wouldn't go as far as Hillary Clinton, who tweeted Sunday that "Every survivor of sexual assault deserves to be heard, believed and supported."
I'm also no legal scholar, though I'm pretty sure accusers don't have the right to be believed. If they did, the 2006 Duke lacrosse team, UF quarterback Treon Harris and Hillary's husband might be in jail today.
Women definitely have the right to be heard, however. So I'm glad a worldwide audience saw Erica Kinsman tell her version of events with Winston.
The problem is the filmmakers ignored the other side of every story they documented. And they're proud of it.
"I see myself as both an activist and a filmmaker," director Kirby Dick told DePaul's student newspaper.
That means standard practices of journalism and fairness don't apply. The goal is not to inform but to persuade.
Fair enough. But what if someone gave Kinsman such cinematic treatment?
Instead of suing CNN, Winston should hire a slick director to make "The Hunting Ground II" using the same techniques.
The foundation of the original film is a dubious study that found 20 percent of college women are sexually assaulted. Even the study's author said the findings are not indicative of reality.
HG II should just claim 20 percent of sexual-assault claims are false.
A producer sent Kinsman an email saying, "this is a film project very much in the corner of advocacy for victims, so there would be no insensitive questions or the need to get the perpetrator's side."
But the producer would officially ask Winston for an interview.
"I'm sure he will say no, and then I want him to have a gap of a couple of weeks to get complacent because then we will ambush him."
Imagine if HG II did that to Kinsman?
Kinsman said she was drugged. The film does not mention that two toxicology reports found no drugs in her system.
It glosses over the three investigations that cleared Winston. It doesn't note that a state attorney said Kinsman was not "a witness that we believed we could put on the stand and vouch for."
What if Willie Meggs said that about Winston and HG II left it out?
Producers asked FSU to comment after the film had been submitted to the Sundance Film Festival. They somehow kept a straight face when claiming they'd re-edit the film to get in opposing points of view.
When FSU and Winston scoffed, producers accused them of trying to cover up their incompetence and blaming the victim.
After submitting itself for Oscar consideration, HG II could seek comment from Kinsman and then say she's blaming the victim – Winston.
A person who worked on "The Hunting Ground" accessed Winston's online Wikipedia entry and deleted information that backed his claims and altered language about court decisions.
How would the Sundance crowd feel if Kinsman's Wikipedia page were sabotaged?
Then at last, "The Hunting Ground" cued the Lady Gaga soundtrack and got a prime-time spot on "The Most Trusted Name in News."
HG II could try that, though I can't really envision CNN going along.
The network would rightly say that even documentaries should have some semblance of balance when they accuse people of life-altering crimes.
Unless, of course, one of those people threw five touchdowns that day.
Then forget the right to be believed. That guy wasn't even granted the right to be heard.
dwhitley@orlandosentinel.com
