Why won't newspaper release police report?
I am writing in response to the rather sanctimonious editorial, "Exercise in incredulity" (April 21). The writer rushes headlong to the defense of the newspaper's source of the leaked RMA report on the local police department.
The contorted excuses for Councilwoman Bellamy-Small's suspicious stance were not unexpected. Nor was the news of the EEOC complaints filed by black police officers. All of it seems predictable and planned.
The editorial characterizes the report as "about underhanded activities in the Police Department during the administration of former Chief David Wray." Neither Wray nor his attorney has been able to examine the report, thus it is impossible to rebut. The editorial calls upon the city to release the report.
Well, here's an idea: Since the editorial page calls for the release of the report, and since it rests in the hands of the editors, I recommend that the newspaper simply publish it so that readers, including the GPD employees, can scrutinize it for fairness, accuracy, objectivity and underlying motivations, perhaps some of which were not all that honorable or noble. Are you willing to do what you cravenly ask others to do?
Fred H. Gregory
Greensboro
Comments (9)
To report abuse of the comment feature on this site, please use the feedback form at the bottom of any page.
I've not been following the details, but Mr. Gregory's request sounds reasonable ...
Posted on May 1, 2006 6:59 AM
The N&R continues to parse out the information they received (possibly illegally) in the purloined RMA report.
It's not about fairness or impartiality for the N&R, it's about using something they obtained in an underhanded fashion to support their agenda instead of letting the readers see the report in it's entirety and make up our own minds.
Is this the ethical and professional journalistic demeanor we should expect from our hometown newspaper? When did their role switch from reporting the news to making it?
Release the report! You owe it to your readers to do the right thing.
Posted on May 1, 2006 9:12 AM
Fred, you already know the answer to that one.
It is a GREAT BIG NO!
Not only "NO" but with insult added in that "you don't need to know!"
Posted on May 1, 2006 9:33 AM
What is VERY interesting to me is that the newspaper would publish this LTE without making any comment. If there is good reason WHY the N&R isn't publishing the report, it would make sense to have an editor's comment published right here explaining why not.
Posted on May 1, 2006 10:12 AM
The issue of GNR releasing the report has been debated ad nauseum on John Robinson's blog.
His rationale, IMHO, boils down to:
1. We promised the leaker we would not make copies or publish to report we received.
2. We have to honor our promise to the leaker.
All of which is very sad, since the heart of their web initiatives are about the freedom of the web to spur debate and provide space for primary source documents to be published.
Also, I think they know how hot this item is and we will all tune in for months waiting this drama's final act.
Posted on May 1, 2006 10:33 AM
Yellowdog, the N&R has made several comments concering why they won't release the report. Of course none make sense but then that is par for the course. Over and over they have stated that they will not release the report but it basically boils down to the fact that "we" the readers are 1. not intelligent enough to interpret the facts within the report. 2. That we just don't need to know.
It's kinda like all the rest of the coverup's that have gone on in the city of G'Boro and the county of Guiford. We will never know and I need not state the reason.
Posted on May 1, 2006 10:37 AM
Maybe they'd have to fire the leaker ... unless he was part of the inner circle, then the policy can be spun in the name of National Security - Wink, Wink, Wink.
Posted on May 1, 2006 10:48 AM
As far as I'm concerned the N&R does not keep it's promises to it's readers.
Ever since this interactive format has existed there has been a promise at the bottom of each article that a message board would be created for readers to post comments attached to the articles but they've run into problems and it's been delayed....again............and again..........
Now it just directs you to their lame, generic, catch-all message board.
Posted on May 1, 2006 11:00 AM
It is being debated now Hugh as to how to allow the input on articles. Should it be on all, a select few, how should the input be screened, or should it be screened. Of course the N&R set of favorites want censorship of input so only those that agree with theirs will be allowed. At least that is the way it appears on the blogs in regard to this subject.
So guess it will be a bit longer Hugh. Ya reckon?
Posted on May 1, 2006 5:10 PM