News-Record.com

Mornin', John.

Bayer's post (via a third party) on Greensboro101 about the Manlin ad was a commentary of his experiences with the N&R. (The poster even correctly categorized it as commentary when he posted it.) It wasn't balanced, to be sure, but it wasn't intended to be. It was one guy's observations and opinions about his experience in trying to get the ad published.

Frankly, that the N&R would want some confirmation that the people whose names appeared in the ad had actually signed the accompanying statement struck me as reasonable. But if you felt that there was another side to the story, you could have weighed in with a comment instead of letting it hang out there unrefuted.

Bayer didn't seek an explaination of the N&R's actions; sure. But the N&R didn't offer any either when and where they could have. If the mountain won't come to Mohammad, the wise Mohammad will go to the mountain.

Sometimes a blog post IS a request for more information, an invitation to a conversation.

The post of mine that you cite, for example, asks if any news outlet other than the BizJournal has covered a big story, the decline and bankruptcy of Bostic Construction.

Gate City asked about anonymity, Lex came and answered in the comments. Conversation occurred.

You and I once talked about a post I made concerning the N&R's lack of coverage of election returns from Forsyth County. You asked why I didn't ask the paper why that happened. But I didn't care why it happened, I cared THAT it happened -- or more precisely, as a student of my craft, I was interested in the background story, but that wasn't the disgruntled news-consumer story I was writing, so I felt no need to ask.

And of course sometimes people are going to just pop off and get stuff wrong.

Some ways to deal with these issues: your post today is a great start. Reach out to your readers, bloggers, and writers. That's part of the power this new tool gives you.

And you can keep on top of what's posted about the paper by watching for "News & Record" and "N&R" (and, sorry, "News-Record") at Technorati.

But Ed, you're demanding an awful lot here. You're basically asking John to spend all day scanning Technorati to see if someone's spinning any yarns against the N&R.

If a blog post is an invitation to future discussion, then where should that discussion take place? Can't it take place here on this site? It's not as if these guys are inaccessible.

That's not to say bloggers shouldn't have the freedom to mouth off about the local media -- of course they should. But if it's a topic that would be better served by including John's point of view, shouldn't the blogger ask him rather than let the point drift around the blogosphere until John gets back from lunch?

I'm not demanding anything. I mentioned a web tool that many people find useful as one partial solution to a complex problem.

Of course input should be sought when appropriate. But people will define appropriate in different ways. As noted in my previous post, there have been times when John and I -- both professionals -- have disagreed about the need for contact.

That's why John's post is important, it starts a dialog with other bloggers about what is appropriate. Again, it won't solve the problem, but it might help.

“Not looking for trouble but…”

You may have stumbled into it.

Is it possible that the people you cite for not bothering to ask you questions might have done so because they know that you avoid answering direct questions and have in the past even refused to allow them to be asked?
That certainly has been my experience. A few years back when I came to you with questions about a serious matter that cost the paper dearly in credibility you turned me away, as you later did a lot of other area reporters.
Just a couple of days ago, I asked a question about how your new blogging initiative would affect editorial standards, but you ignored it.
You seem to recognize that one of blogging’s great defects is that so much of it is anonymous. The N&R has written policies about using anonymous sources. According to you, the stylebook says this: “We particularly dislike using anonymous sources to criticize people whose names are used.” You acknowledge that the use of anonymous sources, even when they are necessary, comes at a cost in credibility.
Yet, this week the N&R began allowing online comments to letters to the editor. Letters to the editor are required to be signed and verified. Yet anonymous people are allowed to comment on these letters. On Tuesday, there were six responses to seven letters. Five of these responders were anonymous.
Clearly this is a double standard. Aren’t double standards also a threat to credibility?
Surely there are sound reasons why opinions expressed in published letters are required to be signed and verified. Why do those reasons not apply to comments posted online?
Is it fair for the writers of signed letters to be critiqued and chastised by others who hide in anonymity? Do most of them even know that this is happening?
Will the N&R now allow unsigned letters to the editor?
Does the N&R intend to change its long-held policies about anonymous sources in order to accommodate blogging?
In this same post, you chide the N&R’s own columnist, Charles Davenport, for not coming to you with questions and for making assumptions that you say are false in a column about “setting a goal of making sure that a third of our new hires are minorities.”
Let me quote what you wrote on Nov. 27: “Beginning now, at least 33 percent of our new hires will be minorities. If an editor hires two white journalists, the next hire must be a minority.”
That’s not setting a goal. That’s a mandate that stands in clear opposition to civil rights laws.
I wrote a letter to the editor to ask questions about this, and to my immense surprise, it appeared.
My questions were: “When this rule presents that the minority hire be next in line, does the newspaper intend to violate federal law and its own policies by advertising this position for minorities only? If not, will it falsely advertise that, as required by law, the position is open to all, luring potential white candidates who will be rejected because of skin color, another violation of federal law?”
You didn’t answer these questions. I again ask you to do so.
An editor’s note was attached to my letter. It said this: “The News & Record follows all state and federal laws on hiring, including those that can allow for racial considerations where appropriate to remedy racial inequalities. In attempting to improve diversity on its news staff, the News & Record will hire only fully qualified applicants in accordance with legal hiring programs used widely by employers.”
“Remedy racial inequalities…” That’s an interesting phrase. It implies that in the past minorities either have been turned away, or weren’t actively sought, because of the color of their skin. This implication is grossly false, and it is an insult to the dozens of editors who worked at the paper over the 40 years since I first joined it. All of the editors I knew while I was there worked diligently and passionately to bring in minorities and hired many whose talents and hard work have taken them to great accomplishment.
Ask any of them why they didn’t hire more and they are apt to quickly tell you that it wasn’t out of lack of desire. It was because they couldn’t find them. And those they did find usually didn’t stay long, for the simple reason that they had so much better prospects elsewhere. Is it racial inequality when people don’t want to come to work for you, or to stay with you when they do?
It would seem that colleges and universities now would be turning out many more minorities with the knowledge, skills and talents necessary to the newsroom, and that it should be easier to find and keep them. But that must not be the case or you surely already would have increased their numbers just by hiring the person best qualified who applied for the job, without regard to skin color.
The question that arises is this: You have been editor of the N&R for six years now, plenty of time to increase minority representation, but you haven’t done so. Why? Please explain.
Not only have you not increased these numbers, but during your tenure minority representation has dropped by a third, from 12.3 percent when you took the job in 1999 to 9.3 percent in 2004. Why?
As I recall, after the first big dip, you assigned a top editor as a full-time minority recruiter, and not even that brought the numbers back up to the 1999 level.
Your mandate is to nearly quadruple the current numbers. Is that possible? Considering the record of the past 40 years, how long would it take even if you hired no more whites at all?
I’ve talked with some editors about this and the consensus seems to be that there’s only one way you actually can do it—pay a lot more money.
It seems unlikely, however, that Landmark will grant big, across-the-board pay increases for news staff, and that raises other questions.
Will you do what appears to be necessary and pay more to get and keep people who have the desirable skin colors than you do to those who don’t (i.e. whites)? Will you grant bonuses and other dividends not extended to others? Current staff, I’m sure, will be eager to know this.
If this is not your plan, exactly how are you going to attract people who clearly have shown no inclination to be there? Surely the entire newspaper industry is awaiting your solution.
When you issued your mandate, you said that it was necessary “in order to present a true mirror of who the citizens are, how they feel, what they think and how they live.” A newspaper, you said, must be “model of diversity.”
Not surprisingly, this brought more questions. In response to your column, David Wharton acknowledged the importance of racial diversity in the newsroom and congratulated you for attempting to improve it. “But ideological diversity is just as important,” he noted, then went on to inquire about the newsroom staff. “How many lean right?”
You didn’t answer.
We both know why.
The number of people in the newsroom who lean right is small indeed, and they must walk softly or risk harangue and ridicule for an offense so grave as expressing support for the President of the United States. I’d bet that the percentage is smaller than that for minorities. I doubt that the newsroom staff is much different than when I was there. It overwhelmingly leaned left then, and I was among those leaning that way.
In your column you wrote that minority journalists “bring a different energy to our reporting, simply because they see and understand stories in ways that white journalists don’t.” This is highly questionable, of course, but if it were so, wouldn’t it be just as true for conservative journalists?
For many years now, the majority of people in the N&R’s circulation area have consistently voted for Republicans and conservative causes. If the paper is to “present a true mirror of who the citizens are, how they feel, what they think and how they live,” isn’t it then necessary that a majority in the newsroom be conservative or Republican?
Will you issue a mandate that until the newsroom reflects this majority, editors must hire two conservatives or Republicans for every liberal or Democrat hired?
If not, aren’t you admitting that you are only playing racial games and have no interest in real diversity?
Since you became editor, the N&R’s credibility has dropped to its lowest point in history, and this is part of the reason why. Circulation has remained stagnant, an increase of only 10 copies weekdays, although population has increased dramatically. Minority representation in the newsroom has fallen by a large percentage.
It’s understandable that you might resort to desperate measures to distract attention from these failures but inserting racial discrimination into hiring is a dangerous and ill-considered course that is only likely to produce more racial division, if not lawsuits.
I don’t know if this blogging thing, is just another attempt to distract attention from your problems, but it does seem to have promise. (I obviously wouldn’t be able to get this directly to N&R readers if not for it, although the numbers who see it are likely to be small indeed.) I’ll withhold judgment until I see how it evolves
One thing does strike me as odd, though. In your columns and on this site you keep stressing that the N&R is local, local, local. Now we’re told that the N&R is going global. But months back, the N&R dropped most, if not all news coverage, of Randolph County. Why would a newspaper whose focus is local ignore an entire county that is only a few miles from its door step, one that it has covered for as long as I can remember? Is it mere coincidence that Randolph is the most heavily Republican and conservative county in this part of the state?
I’m told that the blogging world is a rough and tumble place, and once you enter it, you can’t get away without answering direct questions. You can’t dodge and weave, hide and dissemble without being exposed and called to task. Let’s hope that’s true.

Whew. I'll have to respond to these in segments. First, as you know, Jerry, I have nothing to do with letters to the editor. I support the idea of the blog and allowing readers to comment on letters. You'll need to ask Allen about that.

We have no immediate plans to change our policy on anonymous sources in our news stories, though.

We will hire qualified candidates for all our jobs. I'm no lawyer, but we have some good ones and we will not violate any laws.

We have not hired more minorities in the past for the same reasons that the editors before me didn't. We didn't try hard enough to find them. The number has dropped since I've been in the job because, gee, they've been hired away from us because they were good.

I know nothing about assigning an editor as full-time minority recruiter.

We believe we can get minorities with fair pay. I don't see the need for big, across-the-board pay increases. We'll do it by being a good place to work.

I have no idea how many staffers lean left or right. I don't think it's necessary to count that way. (Guilford County, our primary circulation area, voted Democratic in the last presidential election.)

Playing racial games? I'm interested in having a racially diverse newsroom. If you want to call that playing racial games, I suppose that's your right.

You're actually suggesting that we don't have a reporter in Randolph County now because it is Republican? Wow. No, we don't have a reporter in Randolph now because we're cutting expenses and focusing our staff on Guilford County.

Ed, Beau, Roch, I'll get to you guys in the next segment.

Jerry -- I know I'm missing some reason for you to have some bitterness toward your former employer but I don't think this post is fair. I admire John for responding in diplomatic terms. That's why he's a good newspaper editor and you and I never will be.

Let's address a few points:

1. Population and circulation - A quick Web search takes me to Census figures estimating that Guilford County population increased 3.0 percent from 2000 to 2003. That's not exactly wildfire. I forget who it was several years ago who noted that Greensboro wasn't growing but was moving west, but that person nailed it.

As for circulation, I'm sure you're aware that people across the country are reading newspapers less and less for a number of reasons -- apathy toward local issues, compressed free time and the rise of new media among them. That's why it's so important for a good news organization to have a good Web presence. It's hardly fair to act as if John is some renegade driving down circulation.

2. Politics in the newsroom - I was in the N&R newsroom for four years (most of the Pat Yack administration), and I couldn't tell you the political affiliation of the most of the people in the room. Lex made his public years ago. In one colleague's case, I found out roughly two years into our tenure together -- and I was surprised. When we discussed politics on the copy desk, most of us didn't fit any sort of party line. (As I'm sure you know, copy editors are far more intelligent than politicians, so that's no surprise.)

In any case, you know perfectly well that asking party affiliation at a job interview is a recipe for disaster. A better approach is creative recruiting -- try to get people with real-world experience, different types of degrees, different home regions, etc. But from your point on retaining minority hires, you know how difficult even that step can be.

3. Credibility at its lowest point in history - Based on what? When I last visited, I saw a bright staff, which is a rare accomplishment in an era in which we're virtually hunting journalists for sport.

4. Covering Randolph County - While I was there, the Rhino griped that the N&R was too regional and ought to be focusing on Greensboro. Some facets of that regional push didn't pay off. Now you're claiming it's political. You don't honestly believe that.

You have valid points about the difficulty in minority hiring. You have an interesting point on anonymity -- I respectfully disagree, but it's worthy of further discussion.

The rest of this ... well, I'm not sure if you're trying to follow Bernard Goldberg's career path by selling a bill of goods to a gullible public that wants to believe any negativity about the media. I'll just say there are plenty of us who are proud to have the N&R on our resumes, and we'll subject you to this level of scrutiny every time you post. Because some of us still care about the truth.

Thanks, Beau.

Roch, I'm not being critical of Greensboro101's role at all. I saw the post there and, honestly, didn't have the time to take it on. But it did start me thinking. As did a Jeff Jarvis post on "Speculation and cynicism and journalism." So I figured I'd ask the more knowledgeable people, hence the post.

To the original point, the issue rolling around in my mind is this: what is the distinction between the post that is a personal observation with an embedded question about something and the post that is attempting to provide information or insight.

For instance, there's "Sean May played a lousy game last night." And then there's "Sean May, playing with a broken bone in his foot, wasn't able to move as he needed to." Both express the idea that May played poorly but the latter adds information and, perhaps, a bit of understanding.

The questions about our policy on anonymity occurred in the comment phase. It wasn't immediately apparent in the original post, at least to me. I could have answered it pretty easily if someone would have shot me an e-mail. Fortunately, Lex came upon the discussion and addressed it. But what if he hadn't?

As JB points out, it's hard enough for me to manage the comments on my own blog, much less anyone else's.

John, I didn't think you were being critical of Greensboro101 and I apologize if I sounded defensive. I got the gist of your post and was just pointing out that in that instance, there wasn't the issue of not replying because you hadn't seen the post. You apparently did see the post and left it alone.

But, to your point: I say, welcome to the blogosphere. The challenges you cite are inherent to the medium (although Cone's suggestion will go a long way to helping you out). Just as you don't have a chance to respond to every phone conversation, email, or bar talk that raises questions about the paper, so too will some blogservations avoid your notice. The important stuff will be brought to your attention. Don’t sweat over what else may be out there. As your reputation for being willing to publicly answer questions builds, others will cover for you, replying to bloggers’ questions about the N&R with, “Why don’t you go to his blog and ask John Robinson.”

" Both questions/concerns were easy to address from the newspaper's standpoint. But no one actually asked..."

Good topic. As someone who has sinned in the past and will try to do less so in future - it's hard to shake the assumption that newspaper staff won't answer (and elsewhere, this is often the rule).
One can also get the "I answer hundreds of emails a day, I'm very busy" response, and as a result have some reluctance to bother the staff.

Tentative suggestion: have a "N&R Q&A" blog, and make it understood that that's where questions should be asked and answers will be posted? That way there's a single point of interaction, and if your question's already been answered, you won't need to bother the harried staffer.

A related topic: if a blogger sends an email to a newspaper representative about something involving the paper and gets an answer, is the email exchange fair game to post? (or does an explicit agreement need to be made?)

Anna's points are good ones. A lot of people have questions they never ask and/or concerns they never raise for a variety of reasons.

A lot of us assume things about people and institutions that we know a whole lot less about than we think we do.

We become aware of someone's actions and automatically form a judgement.

How often do we actually approach that person and ask questions that might better inform us about why the person acted that way? (Sometimes, it's probably not even possible. However, sometimes it might be possible to find out a person's motivations, but we assume it isn't possible. So we don't even bother to ask or try to ask.)

Mr. Robinson's regular column in the Sunday News & Record is a great tool for making the newspaper business less mysterious to those of us who only know newspapers by reading them (as opposed to being involved in creating them).

And as I've recently started paying attention to the News & Record's Blogs, I've become fascinated by the time and effort News & Record staff members are obviously taking to connect with and respond to us newspaper readers and followers.

Newspapers are all about the art of communication, at least as I view them.

And Blogs and weekly columns that explain and analyze newspaper issues take communication to higher levels.

I'm all of a sudden able to read an even greater variety of thoughts and ideas by people who obviously are passionate about what they think and believe. And there's this whole back and forth quality that is beautiful to witness and experience. It's a part of that beautiful process of humans connecting with one another with honesty, curiosity, intelligence, and sincerity.

And I think as new people start to check out what's now available, they are going to read the posts by Allen Johnson, John Robinson, Doug Clark, and all the other News & Record Bloggers, and they are going to realize that these individuals obviously want to connect with their readers, that they take readers' ideas and concerns and questions seriously. And as this realization grows and spreads, more and more people are going to become increasingly comfortable expressing themselves and asking those questions that they so want to ask but for whatever reason never would have in the past.

I don't know for a fact that it will all ultimately work like this, but it seems like the potential for it to develop in the way I've partially described is there.

Potential is a starting point.

Where it all goes, we'll have to wait and see.

I've long respected and appreciated a great many of the News & Record writers and editors. In the brief time that I've become aware of the News & Record's Blogs, and as I've started to follow them, I've become even more deeply impressed by and appreciative of the newspaper's staff members.

One thing I've even started wondering: is the News & Record creating and modeling a method of communication that other businesses might learn from and emulate?

I have not ventured out far enough to discover if Blogs are having any influence in education. Are there superintendents, principals, teachers, and other educators out there who are Blogging?

I know some politicians are exploring the medium. Our county's own Jeff Thigpen is using a Blog to communicate about a political office that is arguably more obscure than many other political offices.

Some city council members have begun to experiment with Blogging. As far as I'm aware, no county commissioners nor school board members have followed suit. But couldn't they? And maybe shouldn't they?

I've long been amazed that I don't read more letters to the editor and guest columns by local politicians in the News & Record (or even the Rhinoceros Times).

Practically unknown candidates run for office, almost certainly at an automatic disadvantage against incumbents, and they don't bother to write down their views and submit them for our local media to publish. That has always blown my mind.

Funny enough, some of these politicians and political candidates get upset at news coverage that they feel misrepresents them or paints an unfair picture. But very few seem to take the time to write down their own words for publication (unless the News & Record and other local media have received such submissions and chosen for some reason not to print them).

It seems like Blogs give a person even more control over the messages he or she wants to deliver for consumption. (You also have the opportunity to post as often as you can find time to do so, without having to wait thirty days to have your next message printed.)

The issue of controlling your own message seems a major component of Blogging.

Interaction with other Bloggers seems like another piece of the overall Blogging pie. You don't have to occupy your own universe alone. You can invite others to join you. And there seems to be a growing number of individuals who are becoming aware of Blogging as a way to explore the different universes that each of us occupy.

There are obviously some very dedicated Bloggers in this area.

My perception is that the News & Record is in the middle of an experiment (Blogging) that could lead to fascinating discoveries and developments.

There are other writers and politicians who are well in the process of seeing where Blogging might take them.

I repeat again out of curiosity and uncertainty: what about educators? Is anyone aware of educators exploring the possibilities of Blogging? Does anyone have any suggestions or ideas about how educators might use the tool?

I'm again uncertain. But very curious. Let me know what you think. I look forward to reading any responses!

Thanks, Roch.

Anna, as someone who assumes that my e-mail responses are on-the-record, I think the e-mail exchange is fair game. But that's just me. The wiser course would be to make the agreement explicit.

SHF, you're going in the same direction we are. Maybe you should blog? There are many smarter people than I who can answer your question about educators. I'd direct you to Greensboro is Talking -- link on the right column -- who has an extensive blogroll of links in the area. I suspect there are some educators there. And thanks for reading.

John,
You complained about people not coming to you with questions, so I ask some specific questions. What do I get? Meaningless generalities and flimsy evasions that no reporter would allow any politician or bureaucrat to get away with. Case closed.

I'm sorry you don't like my answers, Jerry. But answers they are, direct and honest. Differences make the world go round. Which brings us back to diversity.

As a side note, you read my original post as a complaint. It's not that. It's a query.

Dear Beau Dure

How wonderfully alliterative.

Thank you for your scrutiny. I genuinely appreciate it. As to the population increase, I acknowledge that using the adverb “dramatically” was a poor choice. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that in the N&R’s circulation area, population has grown by many thousands of people over the last six years, but the N&R’s circulation hasn’t increased. That can’t be good for the paper. And I suspect that John wouldn’t want to highlight on his resume either.

As to politics in the newsroom, it isn’t about politics per se, but about ideology and how it affects the way reporters and editors think and act. I’m guessing that you know your own ideology, and I’m guessing from your comments and your years at Duke that you lean considerably in the opposite direction from right. Perhaps you claim conservative friends, but would you really want your sister to marry one? Do you recall anybody bringing up conservative issues in the N&R newsroom during your years there? I spent 20 years there off and on, and to the best of my memory, encountered only one open Republican, my dear, wonderful friend Buck Paysour, whom I miss deeply. He kept a running tab of how many times the paper used the descriptions ”right-wing” and “left-wing,” which he considered an indicator of bias. The right-wing column was long, the left-wing blank. And that was when nobody else much was noticing or complaining about it.

On the matter of the N&R’s credibility, you got me again. I may have overstated the situation when I said “in its history.” But probably not. I have read about the paper going back to its beginnings early in the last century, but I don’t recall any great challenges to its credibility in it’s first half century, although I could be wrong, my memory is fading. It was an openly Democrat paper, but most people in the state were Democrats then. I came to the Greensboro Daily News nearly 40 years ago, and I’ve kept up with it ever since, through all its evolutions. During the time I was there I never experienced big-scale angry denunciations of the paper or people refusing to be interviewed because they didn’t trust it. That certainly hasn’t been the case in recent years. I have a file full of letters and e-mails from readers denouncing the paper, and I have more files full of examples of the biased and often distorted reporting that has brought about this loss of credibility, most of it since John became editor. When my book Death by Journalism? came out, I spoke to most of the major civic clubs in Guilford County. I wish Frank Batten could have been along with me to hear what I heard. I think he would have been astounded. During the question-and-answer sessions, scores of people, including many prominent community leaders, rose to speak negatively about the N&R, or to ask what they could do to make it more responsible and responsive. Not one person ever spoke favorably about the newspaper. Maybe that’s why, when Ann Morris was named managing editor, she began asking people in the community what the paper could do to restore its credibility, according to some who told me about it. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t made much progress. Credibility lost is always hard regained.

Now, about poor, maligned Bernard Goldberg, the journalism turncoat. I take it you don’t like him. Obviously, you don’t like the public either. Gullible, you call it. Isn’t that just a touch arrogant? The public, after all, is the only market that newspapers have. And in my ventures among the people who make up the public, I’ve discovered that the arrogance of those who consider them gullible is something they deeply resent, especially coming from those who are supposed to be honestly and fairly conveying the news. I don’t know about Goldberg’s so-called bill of goods, but if you can show that he has reported falsely, I’d like to see it, and I’m sure the public would, too.

As to your comment about the bitterness I have toward my former employer, I’m sure you’ve heard the old adage that for generations has made its way through the news business. Never assume, because assuming can make an ass of u and me. It’s widespread. I even heard it from one of the atrocious aspirants on American Idol the other night. To my knowledge I’ve never met u. I don’t think I’ve even heard of u until now. I don’t believe I’ve detected any psychic intrusions into my brain on your behalf either. The reality is that you don’t know whether I’m bitter or not. I want to address this in some detail, but that would take time and length, and the format of the N&R’s blogs won’t allow it because this will be marched off the main page into Neverland before I could get it done, thus making it an exercise in futility. Maybe I’ll have to start my own blog so I can do it at my own pace. If I do, I hope you’ll be a reader.

By the way, I was pleased that my point on anonymity prompted you to sign your name, whereas you previously had commented only as Beau (Have you ever thought of changing that name? I mean, it’s so…Southern. Know what I mean? As a sophisticated Duke-educated journalist, aren’t you afraid that it might make you sound like one of the gullible public?) Anyway, maybe this is an indication that we don’t disagree on as much as you think. But probably not.

Dear Beau Dure

How wonderfully alliterative.

Thank you for your scrutiny. I genuinely appreciate it. As to the population increase, I acknowledge that using the adverb “dramatically” was a poor choice. That, however, doesn’t change the fact that in the N&R’s circulation area, population has grown by many thousands of people over the last six years, but the N&R’s circulation hasn’t increased. That can’t be good for the paper. And I suspect that John wouldn’t want to highlight it on his resume either.

As to politics in the newsroom, it isn’t about politics per se, but about ideology and how it affects the way reporters and editors think and act. I’m guessing that you know your own ideology, and I’m guessing from your comments and your years at Duke that you lean considerably in the opposite direction from right. Perhaps you claim conservative friends, but would you really want your sister to marry one? Do you recall anybody bringing up conservative issues in the N&R newsroom during your years there? I spent 20 years there off and, to the best of my memory, encountered only one open Republican, my dear, wonderful friend Buck Paysour, whom I miss deeply. He kept a running tab of how many times the paper used the descriptions ”right-wing” and “left-wing,” which he considered an indicator of bias. The right-wing column was long, the left-wing blank. And that was when nobody else much was noticing or complaining about it.

On the matter of the N&R’s credibility, you got me again. I may have overstated the situation when I said “in its history.” But probably not. I have read about the paper going back to its beginnings early in the last century, but I don’t recall any great challenges to its credibility in its first half century, although I could be wrong, my memory is fading. It was an openly Democrat paper, but most people in the state were Democrats then. I came to the Greensboro Daily News nearly 40 years ago, and I’ve kept up with it ever since, through all its evolutions. During the time I was there I never experienced big-scale angry denunciations of the paper or people refusing to be interviewed because they didn’t trust it. That certainly hasn’t been the case in recent years. I have a file full of letters and e-mails from readers denouncing the paper, and I have more files full of examples of the biased and often distorted reporting that has brought about this loss of credibility, most of it since John became editor. When my book Death by Journalism? came out, I spoke to most of the major civic clubs in Guilford County. I wish Frank Batten could have been along with me to hear what I heard. I think he would have been astounded. During the question-and-answer sessions, scores of people, including many prominent community leaders, rose to speak negatively about the N&R, or to ask what they could do to make it more responsible and responsive. Not one person ever spoke favorably about the newspaper. Maybe that’s why, when Ann Morris was named managing editor, she began asking people in the community what the paper could do to restore its credibility, according to some who told me about it. As far as I can tell, it hasn’t made much progress. Credibility lost is always hard regained.

Now, about poor maligned Bernard Goldberg, the journalism turncoat. I take it you don’t like him. Obviously, you don’t like the public either. Gullible, you call it. Isn’t that just a touch arrogant? The public, after all, is the only market that newspapers have. And in my ventures among the people who make up the public, I’ve discovered that the arrogance of those who consider them gullible is something they deeply resent, especially coming from those who are supposed to be honestly and fairly conveying the news. I don’t know about Goldberg’s so-called bill of goods, but if you can show that he has reported falsely, I’d like to see it, and I’m sure the public would, too.

As to your comment about the bitterness I have toward my former employer, I’m sure you’ve heard the old adage that for generations has made its way through the news business. Never assume, because assuming can make an ass of u and me. It’s widespread. I even heard it from one of the atrocious aspirants on American Idol the other night. To my knowledge I’ve never met u. I don’t think I’ve even heard of u until now. I don’t believe I’ve detected any psychic intrusions into my brain on your behalf either. The reality is that you don’t know whether I’m bitter or not. I want to address this in some detail, but that would take time and length, and the format of the N&R’s blogs won’t allow it because this will be marched off the main page into Neverland before I could get it done, thus making it an exercise in futility. Maybe I’ll have to start my own blog so I can do it at my own pace. If I do, I hope you’ll be a reader.

By the way, I was pleased that my point on anonymity prompted you to sign your name, whereas you previously had commented only as Beau (Have you ever thought of changing that name? I mean, it’s so…Southern. Know what I mean? As a sophisticated Duke-educated journalist, aren’t you afraid that it might make you sound like one of the gullible public?) Anyway, maybe this is an indication that we don’t disagree on as much as you think. But probably not...

Good points, Jerry.
I've had the same discussions with N&R editorial staff about the minority hiring thing.
Hiring a less qualified applicant of one race over a more qualified applicant of another race in order to fill a self-imposed "quota" for representation is just plain wrong (and possibly in violation of Federal Equal Opportunity laws) regardless of which race it is that gets hired. Part of Dr. Martin Luther King's dream was that people would be judged on their ability, not the color of their skin. (Apologies for any misquote of that line.)
I think that's a just and proper way to do things.
The recent presidential election showed a 50/50 split in Guilford County, so in order to be "representative" of the populace, liberal and conservative reporters should likewise reflect a 50/50 split. I hate to use the term "fair and balanced" but that's what it should be.

Jerry -

Nice response, but the ass.u.me virus strikes you in a few places, too:

- My politics aren't adequately represented by either party. I strive to be a pragmatic centrist, though the "those who are not for us are against us" mentality of many folks often means I'm assumed (that word again) to be the opposite of the prevailing view in the room.

- Duke is a wonderful place that has sound representation of all points of view. I happened to live with a bunch of evangelicals who only got rowdy when Bush was elected in '88. (I was also lucky that my church service was earlier in the day than theirs, thereby avoiding the Sunday shower rush.) I'll say, though, that Carolina also is a wonderful place, if for no other reason than the fact that my wife went there.

- You can't simply look at use of a couple of words and detect bias, especially where "right" and "left" (or "conservative" and "liberal") are concerned. Actually, the true "left" in this country -- this will be an astounding statement, but bear with me -- are hardly represented in the media. Where are the folks who protest the World Bank? Where are the hyperenvironmentalists? Where are the people who want to rein in America's consumer culture? I'm not saying they're right, I'm just saying that their views -- which represent the views of many intelligent people -- aren't represented. Instead, we label Bill Clinton -- who rose to prominence as a centrist and balanced the budget as president -- a "liberal." That pushes everyone to the left of Clinton -- which, again, is a fairly large percentage of people who deserve to be heard -- off the page.

- "Beau" is indeed a Southern name. I grew up in Athens, Ga., as the son of a Virginia/North Carolina-bred biochemist and a wonderful woman from Maryland's Eastern Shore.

But the worst case of the "ass.u.me" virus is the result of a half-century of rising outcry against the sins of the media, who are assumed to be "liberal" in an age in which that word is utterly meaningless. In my grad-school study, I found that the split started in earnest through the work of Greensboro's own Edward R. Murrow, who decided (quite rightly) that journalists should use facts to hold McCarthy accountable. Then came Watergate, and the Republicans have been trying to "work the refs" ever since.

Sometimes their points are fair, sometimes they're not. It always amuses me when a caller or blogger assumes (that word again) a journalist's political view and gets it dead wrong.

I like the public. I like telling the public the truth. I don't like it when people like Goldberg deceive them. I didn't like it in 1994 when talk radio convinced voters that the country was still in recession even while the Fed was desperately trying to apply the brakes. (I have data on that -- it was also part of my grad-school study.)

And that's why I think the media, while using new tools like blogs to continue long-standing traditions of accountability and openness, shouldn't let themselves be punching bags. Most of the time, the media are right and the critics are wrong, simply because we work hard to get it right. That's a hard message to get across in an era in which both parties have convinced substantial numbers of their followers that the media are against them.

So that's where I'm coming from. I don't quite know where you're coming from, but I'd bet that most of your concerns about the N&R's credibility are overblown. You'll always find someone who'll complain about the local paper, especially since the death of the two-newspaper days. We're a utility now, and people don't usually jump for joy at thoughts of their local utilities. And again, in this era, people often assume (that word again) the worst about their local paper.

John Appel: I've been involved in recruitment and hiring here for the past decade or so, and we don't ask job candidates' political preferences or impose any kind of litmus test on our hires. So, please tell me: Why don't more Republicans/conservatives go into newspapering?