News-Record.com

Is there no end to what those in government will do to remain in government while stealing all that is the property of the taxpayers?

There was a time when I believed we really lived in a democracy... today I'm just not sure.

I've been on both sides of the fence as a member of the media (as I am now) and as a former public information officer for a county agency here in the Triad. When I was PIO, I always worked in every possible way with the media in their requests for public records, and that included the N&R. I knew those reporters had a job to do, so why make it harder on everybody by withholding information? I tried to treat them like I would want to be treated if I was doing their job. Now, as a member of the media myself, I can't believe that state and local governments wants to run and hide behind closed doors to conduct the public's business. If this passes, this gives the public (and the media) one more reason to distrust the government. What a mess!

At the risk of being blown off the blogging stage by nurses who want me to just follow orders, and those who think that my problems with Randolph Hospital in Asheboro are a waste of electricity and server space, here goes.

I HAVE been sued for questioning the use and abuse of a federal program by a "not-for-profit".

It is, in fact, very EASY to believe that local governments want to hide behind closed doors - they've been doing it for YEARS and YEARS and YEARS. It's an art form in Raleigh. The Raleigh News & Observer printed an article on Sunday about the "Sly Fund" . . . to quote the blurb that set up the story, "Co-leaders of the N.C. House quietly (key word quietly) steered $10 million dollars to projects in districts of favored legislators." Hello? The good-ole-boys rule in this state. It's our (i.e. the taxpayers') money, but they throw it around (and put it their pockets) like it's their own.

The News & Observer had another story yesterday entitled, "Doctors woes fuel debate (Medical Board operates in secret)". The core of the story focuses how the process of Peer and Medical Board review (legally immunized from public scrutiny) has come under fire for its inadequacies - both in failing to really discipline physicians who need to be disciplined, and its potential to be abused for economic gain. It also talked about how people who sue physicians for malpractice cannot get their hands on any of those peer review & Medical Board records due to non-disclosure laws. Now this is a complicated issue - and I am not going to "hijack" John's blog to further my own agenda (I'm in the process of setting up my own), but my seven-year saga as a medical whistleblower down in Randolph County speaks to all of this.

Do any of you really thing that the whistleblowers are going to come forward if they can be maligned/destroyed/sued when they do?

Reporters (and now bloggers) are what bring whistleblowers to the stage and the public - they shine the light and turn on the fan. And I know why these governments want to turn those things off.

This is one of the most shocking things I've read in awhile. Secrecy and intimidation is a disturbing trend in all levels of our government. Government should encourage the population to be as informed as possible, not try to scare the curiosity out of people. I guess if the terrorists really "hate us for our freedom," they are hating us less and less as time goes by.

I can understand the reluctance of certain agencies such as law enforcement, courts etc. in withholding certain information from the media. It is unfortunate, but it seems that many in the media have taken information, not really pertinent to the case, but bits and pieces, and blown them totally out of proportion for the sake of sensationalism.

A recent case from the Hendersonville , NC area stands out in my mind when the local paper wanted the psychological background information on an individual arrested for allegedly molesting several teenage boys. The Sheriffs dept refused and the press went ballistic. They sued, they lost. The individual happened to be a former law enforcement officer,under the former sheriff, who the paper did not like, and the paper wanted only to enflame the public opinion against the accused and the former sheriff who was not even involved in the case.

I took the reporter involved in the daily reporting of the proceedings to task for one simple statement which they insisted in putting in each article they wrote. I could see no relationship in the statement and the articles.
Each article ended with, he is a former deputy, former employee of a local pawn shop(gave the name), is xx years of age, (and the zinger)and is single. My question was what did his being single have to do with anything except to inflame the public. I could just imagine what the reporter would have done with any small flaw in the psychological information they might have obtained.

Perhaps when the media becomes a bit more responsible in the way they handle certain information and don't just hype it up for sensationalism there will be less reluctance to release information.