News-Record.com

The lack of comments on this subject seems to indicate that the only people interested in the so called "Truth" effort are a handful of communist and supporters along with the elite media and columnist types.

John,

What a weird ending. Who does want the city remembered for the Klan shootings? Not one person I know, including those working with the TRC. And what place does your personal opinion have in a discusssion about the newspaper's coverage of an issue? What are you trying to say, and was it in code?

I've got lots of things to do today, so this will be quick.

"It seems non-threatening enough. It just hasn't turned out that way."

The Commission's work has turned out to be threatening? How, and to whom? The Mayor and City Council, those who originally seemed most threatened, have softened that stance. Explain what you're talking about.

"To our critics, our choice was simple: write more deeply about the commission and its mission and we could help the city heal."

You totally mischaracterize the stance of this critic. I couldn't care less whether the newspaper participates in helping the city heal. Doesn't seem part of your job description.

I do care, however, that the newspaper frequently does harm to the truth on this issue, and has participated in creating a morass of half-truths over the years -- all of which could be prevented by some more diligent, careful, and fair reporting, all of which I have requested of you.

The inaccuracy of your coverage continues to this very hour, unfortunately. Though I appreciate your efforts of recent weeks, I think you have created a situation where opponents and supporters of the TRC now share a common complaint, that being the reporting of Margaret Moffett Banks. It was a mistake for you to give her sole reign over the story, as the team coverage was working better. Banks has had trouble getting her arms around the story. Many people she interviews, on both sides, feel misrepresented by what ends up in the paper. If you haven't heard from them yet, you will, likely this week.

Not meaning to suggest it's deliberate, or to insult her skills, but Banks has not been a good match for the story. Better to let other reporters also take a crack at it, particularly those who are eager to do so.

Until you have published as many accurate and unbiased news articles on this story as you have inaccurate and slanted articles -- and that will be some time from now -- the self-congratulation is a bit premature.

"Everything we've published about the process is online."

That statement is patently false, and it pains me because I know that you know it. Where is the article, for instance, published right before the third set of public hearings that drew so much criticism? You know, the "no new information" one?

I can think of several reasons not to post it, including damage control to the paper and the TRC, which might be the right thing to do. But in painting a pretty picture of your omniscient coverage, you need to stop short of outright falsehoods. Just say "selected articles" are online.

Lastly, how am I to put these three statements together to form some clear picture of your intent, both with this piece and with your coverage going forward:

"The depth and breadth of our coverage is not intended to express an opinion on the commission's work... We prefer our independence and diligently avoid involvement with ongoing news stories... But I'd prefer that Greensboro be remembered as a birthplace of the civil rights sit-ins, rather than the city where members of the Klan killed five people."

No real reporting = No real news = No need to produce a news paper. May as well fill it with opinions. When I'm asked "Paper or Plastic?" I automatically say "Plastic".

Chewie,

I should have said I would prefer the city to be known for the sit-ins, not the shootings. Right now, many people know us for the shootings. And I think many people do remember us because of the shootings. I wouldn't be surprised that more people know the details of the shooting than of the sit-ins.

After every story we write about the commission and its work, I hear from people who are angry about it. They want us to stop writing about it and to stop "fueling the fire." (One reader's words to me.) I interpret that as being threatened. The council has softened its stance? You think if they were asked today to endorse the commission, they would vote in favor? I don't.

I have not heard from any opponents or supporters about inaccuracy of Margaret's recent coverage. I know there were some complaints about the story you call the "no new information" one. What else? I and she welcome specifics.

You're right about that story not being online. I'll remedy that asap. You suggest it was an intentional lie, as opposed to a mistake. You're wrong about that. (And I would fix that, without you calling me a liar, which hurts me that you would presume the worst rather than simply inquiring.)

I don't understand what you're asking with the last question.

Well, to be honest, it doesn't really hurt me that you would call me a liar. But it is an insult that could have been avoided if I had a better memory or you could have inquired as to my intent before you assumed.

John,

I grow weary of this argument. You're very skilled at reframing criticisms of the newspaper into a debate about support for or opposition to the Truth & Reconciliation Commission.

It requires a close read to see that what you're actually doing, rather than engaging the criticism, is deflecting it back onto the critic, suggesting that their bias renders them incapable of knowing accuracy when they see it. Even when the critic is a fan of the paper, and someone well-versed in the who's, what's, where's, and why's of the story, you would seem to require complete neutrality in order for a critique to have merit.

When I criticized your reporter's pursuit of shock-and-awe quotes from Tom Phillips and Florence Gatten, for instance, you said that I just didn't like what they had to say -- the discrediting implication being that rather than hearing from them when their input had value to a story, I would prefer never to hear from them at all. Should I even have to say it, I am generally always in favor of getting public officials' views on the record. This particular story, however, tilted towards fear- and controversy-mongering; the quotes were tangential and one-sided, and I said so. You looked right through what I said to what, had I said it, made more sense inside a constructed framework.

You seem surprised that I would question your assessment of the Commission's work as threatening -- or not non-threatening, to be more precise. You've given three examples to illustrate your sense of it.

The first is Robbie Perkins' accusation that the controversy was "manufactured by the News & Record."

The second is Yes! Weekly's article that asked, "What does the N&R have against the truth process".

The third, in your most recent post, points to the angry responses you get "after every story" you write about the Commission, telling you to stop "fueling the fire."

These three criticisms, which you would like to lay at the feet of the Truth Commission, are actually criticisms whose target is the work of the News & Record. You assume, and ask everyone to do the same, an automatic leap from one thing to the other.

It's facile to do so. It may even be valid. But it's not -- never should be -- automatic. Based on these examples, what comes across as "not
non-threatening" to people is the newspaper's capacity - tendency, even - to manufacture, fuel, and dismiss.

You state that "to our critics, our choice was simple: write more deeply about the commission and its mission and we could help the city heal. Or, write less, downplay the story and the city would be better off."

We are invited by this to believe that anyone who is not happy with the News & Record's coverage on this issue must be simply too biased to make such judgments. With one fell swoop, you disregard the input of citizens, journalists, and officials who have ample knowledge and widely ranging opinions on the Truth & Reconciliation Commission, but who share a common bond: they all believe the newspaper is not doing its job as well as it could.

Regarding softening stances: In his October 9th N&R column, Ed Cone quoted Florence Gatten as claiming "huge respect" for the Commissioners and their work. In that same column, Ed wrote that Don Vaughan believed that good can come out of the process, including "healing for the families of those involved." Same column, Mayor Holliday: "I'm pleased with what I'm hearing
on the neutrality and professionalism of the Commission." Said Mayor just paid his first visit to an official TRC event, and thanked the citizens there for their involvement in community concerns. You can read about that on my blog.

It is kind of you to offer the straw man of "would the Council vote to endorse the Commission today", but I just as kindly knock him down. I never said they would; don't believe they would. Some may wish to revisit their vote to
oppose, given the circumstances of that evening, but no; a softened stance means a window cracked open, not a complete 180.

You may not have heard from anyone regarding Banks' most recent articles; based on what I have heard out in the community, I believe that you will. The substance of it I can't speak to, but I can attest to a level of discontent regarding quotes. I hope there will be some specifics forthcoming to you, and that it will be correctable.

Now you would like for people to believe that I called you a "liar" -- not a label I apply to anyone, ever -- because you emphatically stated something that was clearly not true. I say "clearly" because, as you helpfully pointed out, the missing story in question was the only one that you recall receiving complaints about.

A mere coincidence that this story was left off your Special Projects page? If you say so, okay -- but that doesn't make it unreasonable for me or anyone else to wonder whether something else was in play. I pointed it out to you so that you could explain or correct it, and even gave you advance props for potentially having good reasons for that decision, ones that were in even the Commission's best interests. I never said you lied, never thought you lied. I felt like you left it off, didn't say so, and didn't say why, knowingly. An editor's prerogative, perhaps.

This "hurt feelings" thing seems a cheap ploy for empathy. These are not personal criticisms; I haven't even maligned your dog. There was no insult intended, and no name-calling present, when I brought these things to your attention in my first post. As someone who has been very involved in observing and reporting on this story for years, I would rather hope you might appreciate the value in the information and perspective I bring to the discussion, both on my blog and here at yours. If I did not wish for the newspaper to do and be better, I would not take the considerable time that I take to come here and lay out what I see as inconsistencies and problems in both the newspaper's work and your characterizations of it. I don't expect your undying gratitute, and would expect to find you occasionally playing defense, but -- as long as we're sharing -- I do hope you take me equally seriously when I bring critique as when I bring flattery.

Lastly. If, as part of your blog and weekly column, you congratulate yourself for what a wonderful job the paper is doing -- I count three such posts in the last week on this issue alone -- surely you realize that you are inviting and instigating feedback. If you hadn't told the world that everything you have written on this process was online, then I would have had no need to come here and correct you. Be sure that your back-patting is error-free and hard to refute, and you will enjoy fewer discussions as lengthy and tedious as this one.

You say that you don't understand what I am asking with the last question. I suppose, in a disappointing way, that answers my question.

This is your blog, and you will always have the last word. I do believe you are making a serious effort here, John, and don't mean to suggest otherwise. I yield the floor.

Chewie, I'll grant most of your points, although I think you interpret them differently than I intended, which, as the originator, is my fault in not being clearer.

I had no intent in reframing the debate. Absolutely no question about the commenters commenting on our coverage, not the work of the commission. I had no intent either of suggesting those concerned with our coverage as being too biased. I do believe everyone views our coverage through the lens of their own beliefs but that isn't specific to this issue and it isn't necessarily bad.

You may not have called me a liar. You did say that I intentionally made a "patently false" statement, however. No problem. You've clarified. My original comment about all the stories being online was an honest mistake. There really was no conspiracy or intended subterfuge.

Last, please don't interpret my writing on this topic as an attempt to "congratulate (myself) for what a wonderful job the paper is doing." I know better than that. This column was an attempt to tell the newspaper readership what we are trying to do and, more important, tell them what's online they may not know about. If I were patting myself on the back, I'd have been much more effusive. So, again, I didn't communicate it well and for that, I apologize.

Thanks for hanging in there with me, John. You can go ahead and issue a pat, with my compliments, for listening respectfully and responding thoughtfully; it's appreciated.

I should have added, Chewie, that we continue to work to improve our coverage. I know you think that I'm not listening and/or I'm being dismissive, but that's not the case. I may disagree with some of your conclusions, but I consider them and think about them. In this case, Margaret and I have talked about your thoughts.

John, you were supposed to pat yourself on the back for listening, with my compliments. You defied a direct order. If I were your commanding officer, I would -- well, I don't know -- bust you down a rank, or something.

I do believe that you're listening, and don't feel dismissed in the slightest. Otherwise, I could never justify coming here and typing at such bladder-busting length. I always look forward to seeing what the N&R does next -- even if it's with a slightly sharp intake of breath as I open the paper.

I would add that where I feel the paper has missed a tremendous opportunity on this story is in the investigative arena -- digging deeper. It's one thing certain members of your staff do very well; and surely there's more to this story than just the players we all know and love in Greensboro. There are organizations around the country looking to apply this model in their own cities, and individuals around the country who have things to say about it, pro and con. The official opposition vote from the City Council has also created an interesting dynamic, and presented some interesting challenges, for the TRC in Greensboro. I'd like to read about some of that. I already know what Tom and Florence and Yvonne and Claudette think. What and who has that affected and how, very specifically? How about a look at the racial divide? I think there are answers out there, and people that can speak to them with some authority.

With some good digging, a lot of sources have a lot to offer a newspaper seeking an original angle and "new information" on these goings-on. I know it's a resource hog, but it would be hard for me to argue with that caliber of reporting, no matter what was unearthed.

I want to learn something from your coverage. The surface of this is not the story. Someone on your staff should be neck-deep in it and know more than just about anyone in the community about it, and be able to construct and tie together some good analysis.

That is absolutely my last bit of unsolicited advice, for now.

John:

I like to watch and compare the local and national TV news to see how they each represent and prioritize the days news. Similarly, I read the N&R and look for the same cues as to how the news is reported. I suppose with a national decline in the quality of journalism it's not unexpected that Greensboro gets less news and less depth in its reportage. While I'm disappointed, I'm not often moved to write about this. But I can't count the number of times I've heard "Can you believe what the N&R wrote today?" from friends and co-workers. This isn't such a large town that most of your readers don't know first hand about some of the stories you publish, so your bias and acuracy is often broadly checked at the reader level. I personally know from relatives who are medical workers, law enforcement, and business folk that your track record seems like a C+. And this is on factual stories, not opinion pieces.

So when other people allege first hand knowledge of the facts and then complain about your acuracy, I guess I'm inclined to believe them.

And as the writer above said, when you are caught on an inacuracy, there is seldom any contrition or transparency. I think this is symptomatic of the decision to make a "lite" version of a newspaper. It also ends up less filling.

We've been over that ground before Chewie, so I will let that one go.

Jeff, I think newspaper editors everywhere hear something similar to that. In an attempt to get at this, we have send out five surveys every day to people we quote in the paper asking them if they were quoted accurately and if the story is accurate from their view point. When they tell us we got it wrong, we correct it.

Over two years and a couple thousand surveys, our record is that 92 percent of the people say we got the story right. The vast majority of the mistakes are minor -- a title or a date wrong. That's not to excuse the errors; I wish our record was 100 percent.

I invite you to write and let me know when you read something that you have first-hand knowledge is incorrect. Tell your friends, too. It would help us get better.