News-Record.com

Matt Williams, it seems is too impatient to wait for the facts. And as the Editor in writing "Matt correctly thought this worth pursuing" was willing to print parts of a story rather than getting all the details for a more comprehensive and complete chronicle. It is the impulsiveness of the press to "let it(the real story) twist out in the public eye for five days without verification." Was it a good idea for the city to alert the media in their release of an upcoming public announcement? Yes. Was it worth annoying the presenter by letting the cat out of the bag? No. If you ask "why risk having an incomplete story out there", the News & Record should wait for the kickoff to get its facts for dissemination to its readers. The night crawler will not be able to report on the sunrise until the sun comes up. The bell tolls for thee after the mayor rings it on Monday. Why steal his thunder unless you just want to antagonize. I'd have to side with the mayor on any ill will. I believe it is justified.

Thanks, Sam. Unfortunately, your approach puts control of the news in the hands of, in this case, the government. We risk "annoying the presenters" every time we exercise independence, which is one reason politicians get irritated with the press: they can't control the message.

Our responsibility is to our readers, not to the mayor. When the city tells us they have information about a "unique and significant" project, our responsibility is to tell our readers about it, not do the mayor's bidding.

It piqued my curiosity, too, when the announcement of the upcoming presentation was made. I'm glad Matt pursued.

If funding for the project was to be jeopordized by publicity why risk sending such an inticing notice out to the press? Makes no sense.

Pursuing the story was proper and in the best public interest - but perhaps not in the Mayor's (or the project's) best interest.

I assume the advance notice was sent to create anticipation and buzz. That's exactly what it has accomplished. Mission successful

I think the Mayor is still sore at you for reporting all the bad news. Now he wants to keep the good stuff for himself.

Why worry about this? I am sure you don't. This is why we have a free media.

It seems to me that if you announce you are putting a gift under the tree, you are issuing an invitation to have it unwrapped before Christmas morning.

I just posted this at Lex Files but it seems to apply here as well

Maybe I'm the only one who finds this amusing, but I
couldn't help but notice a few things about the "story behind the
story" of the city's new initiative to cross racial lines that
you and John Robinson have made such a big to-do about on these
blogs.
You wrote last week about how the mayor in announcing a
press conference about the initiative without revealing details
was just throwing red meat to your starving, Pavlovian reporters.
A day later, Robinson wrote about how he had rebuffed an unnamed
organizer who called to ask him not to publish any more articles
because it might endanger the plan's funding.
Today, you offer a number of justifications for giving the
public half-baked meat, or as you call it, incomplete stories.
One of those is that publishing partial information may cause
somebody to come forward with more.
Then came the press conference on Monday and today's edition
of the paper with the presumably complete story. But it is only
in the paper's editorial that we come across this curious bit of
information: your publisher is a member of this initiative's
advisory board.
Was this a position that just fell to him out of the blue on
Monday? Or had he accepted it earlier?
If the latter is the case, which seems likely, surely he
would have inquired about what he was getting into. So the
question is this: was the red meat that your Pavlovian reporters
were chasing actually stashed just a floor below the newsroom in
the publisher's plush quarters? Was the publisher sitting on the
details while his editor was justifying incomplete stories? Was
the newspaper itself involved in a conspiracy to keep it from
publishing the full facts?
If so, it's not very good evidence for your contention that
publishing partial stories might bring forth sources with the
details. It's a pretty short elevator trip, after all, from the
first floor to the newsroom.

You all can join our discussion at Lex's blog