News-Record.com

I don't think the criticism is "simplistic partisan(ship)", but simply a liberal, progressive bias that shapes the way news stories are couched. Exactly why wasn't the fact that the CWP had guns and exchanged fire with the Klan reported in the "news" story that sparked this post?

It seems to me that the N&R's idea of diversity is simple: "We already have enough white male liberals, so let's hire more female liberals, black liberals, gay liberals, etc". Singling out Charles Davenport and some other nationally syndicated columnists as proof that no bias exists is misleading. First, Davenport represents a certain type of conservatism (that I don't particularly subscribe to), and writes an opinion column. We're talking about bias in hard news.

I suggest you read this following link and ask whether it is also reflective of the N&R.
http://media.nationalreview.com/078311.asp

If you are truly progressive, you should understand that you cannot progress without the truth. Representing only viewpoint is propaganda, not a search for truth.

I don't think the criticism is "simplistic partisan(ship)", but simply a liberal, progressive bias that shapes the way news stories are couched. Exactly why wasn't the fact that the CWP had guns and exchanged fire with the Klan reported in the "news" story that sparked this post?

It seems to me that the N&R's idea of diversity is simple: "We already have enough white male liberals, so let's hire more female liberals, black liberals, gay liberals, etc". Singling out Charles Davenport and some other nationally syndicated columnists as proof that no bias exists is misleading. First, Davenport represents a certain type of conservatism (that I don't particularly subscribe to), and writes an opinion column. We're talking about bias in hard news.

I suggest you read this following link and ask whether it is also reflective of the N&R.
http://media.nationalreview.com/078311.asp

If you are truly progressive, you should understand that you cannot progress without the truth. Representing only viewpoint is propaganda, not a search for truth.

Sorry about the double post - computer glitch...

I keep hearing about "liberal bias" in newsrooms, newspapers and probably in the ink and paper factories, too. John keeps asking for specific examples (something Ed Cone does as well) and commenters rarely provide them AFAIK. It'd be great to see something like:

"On this date, you published this headline that said these words and QED the paper and its employees are liberals because this isn't the factual truth and here are my facts, cites and references to support it."

I don't think that's too much to ask, rather than to hear "ya'll are liberals" repeatedly.

Until I see that headline and those words, all this "ya'll are liberals" stuff is just rhetoric. To quote an old ad, "Where's the beef?"

Sue,
Try this last week Johnson and Clark both wrote articles on Bennents remark. Where was articles on Jessee Jackson DA remark he made on Monday. Are how about Basnight remark yesterday. When the last time you read anything in the NR about liberals screw ups in this state. Have you ever read a letter to the editor knocking our good ole boys. Some states cut gas taxes to help the people during the high gas. Tax hike Mike refused, Clark said we needed the money for roads. However he left out Basnight 5 million highway slush fund. I could go on for days,except I going to the mountains. Not Nc, I refuse to spend money in NC. Let tax hike Mike get his money somewhere else to fund his good ole boys pork projects.Sue one closing remark, how about Basnight misuse of taxpayers money and how Roy Cooper said it was alright for Basnight to misuse YOUR tax $$$. Do the NR report this?????

Sue, I've worked in newspapers for 15 years -- at mid-sized ones and at a very large metro daily.

I can tell you the bias exists. I have sat in countless budget meetings (two meetings everyday for 2 1/2 years at the very large metro -- I figure close to 500 meetings). The discussions in those meetings were typically enough to make my blood boil.

The things I heard are never outright: Bush sucks. No, they never are. They are: "Let's do a story on how this one New York City neighborhood is really against Bush. It's not that they are for Kerry, it's that they just hate Bush so much." That was VERBATIM the pitch from the features editor. (forget the fact this was not an NYC newspaper I worked for.)

I had to go to the executive editor later and try to speak with him about it. The meeting discussions were ALWAYS so slanted there was no way to speak up for "the other side."

In fact (and this speaks VOLUMES), when someone DID speak up for the "other side" they ALWAYS prefaced it with "Now, I didn't vote for the guy" or "I think he's off on this" and was followed with a lame "Devil's adovcate" position.

What I found interesting about this is that no one ever had to issue apologies before they argued a Kerry or liberal position. Obviously they didn't because everyone in the room assumes everyone else is "smart" and votes and supports the Democrats.

Those are the more overt examples. I can tell more if you don't believe me.

IT DOES EXIST!!

Journalistic "bias" is a two-way street. In Asheboro, the assumptions are that everyone that votes is anti-union, and supports Republicans. It's just as frustrating.

I read several state newspapers and generally speaking, in North Carolina, the journalistic "biases" in the larger cities (Charlotte, Raleigh, Greensboro) reflect "blue", while the more rural newspapers glow "red". This does not take a degree in rocket science to see.

One specific example of a "hard news" headline that reeked of "local" political bias was the News & Record's decision to report Democrat/"liberal" Governor Mike Easley's lottery "win" over the Katrina headline. Now, it was indeed a fact that we had a lottery, but the placement of the headline said a great deal about who and what the newspaper considered important.

Some of us are disgusted with both sides because the biases (red or blue) in a given area more often than not scream of cronyism and do not serve the public interest.

Dr. Johnson, we published the story about the lottery across the top of the page because it was a huge story for our readers, the end of a 20-year battle over the lottery, and it wasn't a story that was running 24/7 on all the national television networks or the Internet.

Interestingly, the editorial position of this newspaper, which so many consider liberal, has had a long-standing position against the lottery, which, if I read your note correctly, is a conservative's position.

Mr. Robinson, I've heard your arguments about that headline - and debated the point with you and your staff (specifically Lex) in previous threads dedicated to the subject (as I recall, you invited the commentary with a blog post). The consensus seemed to be (to me) that a number of readers/bloggers thought you made the wrong journalistic decision.

A reader not familiar with the News & Record's "conservative" stance on the lottery would not have guessed the newspaper's editorial position from that headline . . . which gave the distinct appearance of patting Mike Easley and his cronies on the back for their ingenuity.

And if I am not mistaken, your paper's editorial position WAS to vote for him.

Yes, it's an interesting thing: this newspaper's editorial board endorsed Gov. Easley, and opposed the lottery. That might suggest that the board isn't bound by a strict political ideology, as many readers believe.

As for the lottery decision, drawing a conclusion on whether the placement of the story was right or wrong based on comments on this blog would be a misunderstanding of how we make decisions.

Why then did you endorse Easley knowing that the lottery was his KEY issue? Just couldn't bring yourself to endorse someone with an (R) next to their name for the highest office in the state? Also, where is your story on Frank Ballance getting sentenced? It's not on your main website. I think Tom Delay was a few weeks ago...

The point I was trying to make about the lottery and Easley was that it is acceptable not to march in lock step with the presumed political positions of one party or another. It's acceptable to differ from the position taken by a candidate, but still support the candidate overall, which is what I believe the editorial board did.

Here's the link for the Ballance story, although I hope you aren't equating this with the Delay indictment.

http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/E/EX_CONGRESSMAN_SENTENCED?SITE=NCGRE&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT

Heavy sigh. So the News & Record's message is to vote for the candidate whose position it does not support (I'm pondering the definition of "slant" now)?

I would LOVE to understand how decisions are made about the stories you cover, Mr. Robinson. And your point about blog commentary is well taken. because for all of the noise about blogs pushing news to the forefront that wouldn't normally get attention, I don't really see that happening.

The problem is that the noble treatsies on journalism (particularly citizen journalism) posted on this blog do not always mirror what the News & Record actually does. I have some personal experience with that, and as (poorly investigated or reported) scandal/scam piles upon scandal/scam . . . because cronyism rules in Raleigh . . . it gets more and more discouraging.

It's a problem in Asheboro now too . . . what with the big push from the powers-that-be to be "progressive" (I have to wonder what city leaders thought some of us were trying to do ten years ago - when I came home).

Appearances matter. Your paper, more often than not gives the impression of a "liberal" slant . . . particularly when it comes to political endorsements. I'm neither Republican or Democrat so I'm not jumping at the partisian bones that are thrown around so much on these blogs. My beef with with your endorsements (and I am certain I am not alone) is that the leaders you have endorsed (with big D's behind their names) have been ASLEEP AT THE WHEEL when it comes to healthcare and fiscal responsiblity - especially where Medicaid is concerned. And then there is the mess going on over at BCBSNC. Not-for-profits in North Carolina have had unrestrained access to the public's checkbook . . . and have suffered very little scrutiny . . . for ALL of Mr. Easley's "reign" (as AG and Governor). NOTHING is being done about it.

The public doesn't know what it isn't told. I don't see the "liberal" big city papers in Charlotte, Raleigh and Greensboro doing what they need to do in order to demand accountability on behalf of a public ripped off. Forgive my cynicism, but it's hard-earned. Could it be that your largest advertisers (translation: monster hospital conglomerates & insurance companies . . . with the equally monster lobbies) are the biggest offenders in these sad stories? Could it be that the very guilty parties have white collars and are extensively "net-worked" to those in political power? Or perhaps fiscal accountability of those charged with the public good is a "conservative" bias that the News & Record does not share?

We shouldn't kid ourselves. It's not really about the "D" or the "R". It's about who has power and what they will do to keep it.

I believe the News & Record editorial board's position is that it doesn't agree with every single thing a candidate -- any candidate -- says or does. Other than that, I can't explain the paper's endorsements because I don't have anything to do with them.

I have explained several times how news decisions are made, and I'm sorry that it's not clear. Who advertises with us doesn't enter in. (Insurance companies and hospitals are NOT our largest advertisers, by the way.) Nor does how "powerful" or "networked" or white collared.

I'm not equating the Ballance story with Delay, but surely it should merit more prominent coverage in your paper- especially considering his son (a former district court judge) is also going to prison.

I also didn't see any stories about Ronnie Earl (who is prosecuting Delay) and his movie deal, his use of multiple grand juries, and his speeches at a Democratic fundraiser vowing to get Delay in the N&R . I remember a lot of stories about Ken Starr being an evil prosecutor. What about Delay's complaint against Earl? Is that not news? Isn't the Ballance story news?

A story about Frank Ballance was in the newspaper. But he's no longer a legislator, and when he was, he represented a district a far piece from here. I don't think it merited much more than it got.

As for Earle, we had a story yesterday about DeLay's attorneys subpoenaeing Earle. Last week we had a story about DeLay filing a court document allegedly prosecutorial misconduct. If Earle is indicted as Delay is, we'll do more with that.

Okay, I'll concede your point. Perhaps the hospitals & insurance companies aren't the biggest advertisers. But I wonder. Who sits on their Boards of Directors? And please DO NOT TELL me these privileged folk are not extensively networked.

John, we're not stupid . . . no matter how many times you infer that we are (because we don't buy the excuses). Journalism is just as corporatized as healthcare. And it shows.

I did not see the Delay stories online, so I can't speak for the physical paper. In any case, we've been over this territory before. I think we all know that the N&R will continue to endorse Democrats by and large over Republicans, and will continue to slant news coverage to paint those on the Left in a more favorable light. I think the link I gave to the Washington Post story is right on the money when it comes to most news rooms.

But, we've made it this far and I don't think newspapers are nearly as influential in public opinion anyway. It's just irritating that you all refuse to admit or even see that your paper tilts to the Left. You don't see nearly as many people complaining about the right wing bias of the paper. (Notice I didn't say nobody complains about a right wing bias, just not nearly as many) Perhaps that should tell you something. But it doesn't, and that's okay. Arguing about it is not serving a useful purpose any longer.

Let me get this straight. You're accusing the paper of being biased, even though it has published the stories about Earl you asked for and even though you now admit you don't even read it? Your case about the liberal bias is getting weaker by the comment.

I do not recall seeing the story about the Lottery and Black being in the NR. Did I miss something? We do not have the damn thing yet and it already corrupt in my opinion!!!!!!!!

The story was posted on the News & Observer's site much earlier today. They have the hometown advantage.

Governor Sleasley and his cronies strike again. Brought to you courtesy of the voters that took the advice of the News & Record.

Thanks for clearing that up, Doc. By the way, did you vote for President Bush? Using your reasoning, I can blame you for rising inflation, huge national debt, thousands of dead and wounded Americans in Iraq, the hurricane relief fiasco in Louisiana and Mississippi and Karl Rove. After all, once in office, YOU are responsible for everything that happens.

Yes, JamesB (not that it's any of your business)I voted for Bush . . . on a very split ticket that included Republicans, Democrats and Libertarians (I didn't know Libertarians could even be on the ticket in Randolph County).

The likes of Rove and Delay give me the creeps, but I don't hold Dubya responsible for all of the world's ills . . . including the dubious foreign policy "legacy" of Bill Clinton, a global economy that is kicking our national tail, or the consequences of a Category 5 hurricane wiping out the Gulf Coast.

Look out, because from what I've recently seen of the (unrestrained by the Easley administration) "economic development" on the barrier islands of North Carolina, there but for the Grace of God and the next waybad storm go us.

I would remind you that Louisiana's politics . . . like North Carolina's . . . have long fallen largely under the purview of the Democratic Party . . . and have been soaked in corruption for decades. If you want to know why New Orleans became a toxic toilet bowl . . . or its citizens could not/did not get out in time, start with the politicians who diverted levee funds to casinos . . . or could not read the fine print of their own evacuation plans and find the keys to school buses.

I do agree that individuals - as voters and citizens - are responsible for their lot. If we, and our frequently blinded/biased (one way or the other) newspapers were demanding more accountability and open government, perhaps some of these problems (on both sides of the aisle) would not be so common . . .and daunting.

And YES, I do hold Mike Easley hugely responsible for all of the back-door ethical lapses behind establishing this slush fund called a lottery. Not all of us are snowed by the "it's all for education" cover. And NO, as a public service physician burned by a program Governor Mike's DHHS did not police (like so many others under his administration), I did not take the N&R's advice and vote for him.

For the same reason (i.e. the abject failure of the Senator to do the job of adequately representing his constituents), I didn't vote for the N&R's other "darling", John Edwards, either.

By the way, Iraqi men AND women are voting on a constitution today . . . the news outlets are reporting about a 60% voter turnout in the face of terrorists' threats. And I, for one, honor the American lives that were lost to get to that point.