News-Record.com

> "The public deserves to know how deep and widespread the problems reach."

John, another general "industry practices" question (and thanks for your answers to the last one, on corrections) -

Where is the line typically drawn in the newsroom, as to what the public does and does not deserve to know? For example, would a decision to publish leaked, interesting Grand Jury proceedings be a "go for it" no-brainer?

(and if so, does this mean that the press's position is that all these records really should be public, or is the reasoning more of a business-oriented "we got it, they'll read it, let's use it" ?)

BTW this q. isn't particularly News&Record related (your justification in the police dept. case seems strong), it's just that as Most Transparent Editor (tm) you also get saddled with the mantle(?) of General Explainer.

Very good question, Anna. I'd like to hear the answer to that one myself.

How does the N&R determine what the public deserves and does not deserve to know?

We think the public deserves to know just about everything about the actions of public bodies. Whether we have the time, space, resources or interest to be the one to tell them is another question. We can't and don't publish everything we know because we don't have the space and because some topics aren't all that interesting to the public at large, in our opinion. We don't chase everything we hear or may even want to chase because we don't have the people to do it. We have to pick and choose. So, yes, there's some of both -- all records should be public and "they'll read it so let's use it" in our thinking.

As we make decisions about what to push for, we consider public interest, public service and the impact on people's lives. We would pursue records about a developer who uses tax money to build low-income housing because we think it's important that people who spend public funds be held accountable. We pursue children with ill effects from lead paint because of the public service. We pursue the police investigation records because we think the public is interested.

The nice thing about all records being public is that the interested public doesn't have to rely on our coverage, if they don't want to. They can view the records themselves.

How about "discovering" and publishing where every dollar spent on the Money Pit On Elm Street (aka The Civil Rights Museum) went and to whom it was paid? That would make for some interesting reading, indeed.

Sounds a little bogus to me. I would think if public funds paid for the report, it should be a matter of public record. If there really is a privacy concern over personal information of personnel, those portions could easily be redacted.

Relying on memory, it seems to me there's been several cases around the country, with mixed results but the drift is public employees can't expect the same level of privacy since they're paid with public funds.

John, your explanation is a round-about way of saying "We The Paper" decides what is REALLY important or "interesting". And that's the truth of it.

The N&R has described its reporting of the Wray debacle as "investigative". From the timeline published in the paper this morning, there was a story to investigate and tell as early as June of last year. But honestly, until the story "broke" on January 10 about Lt. Hinson's struggle & the "black book" (it was released by the City Manager after the City Council voted to release "partial findings" in the department's own internal probe), the N&R's investigative coverage (which at one point questioned the use of the outside consulting firm to investigate - or bemoaned possible damage to "collaborative law enforcement programs" the Chief championed) had many of its readers sympathizing with Wray for being locked out of his office without a good explanation from city officials.

Now I may be naive, but to me "investigative reporting" means that a newspaper takes the information a source or sources (sometimes confidential, sometimes not) gives it, and runs with it. In other words, the newspaper investigates and "breaks" the story - and the paper brings pressure to bear, via its reporting, to right a wrong. It's like Andy Dufresne finally getting the goods on the evil warden in the "Shawshank Redemption", or "Deep Throat" pointing the finger in Watergate.

The time to conduct "investigative reporting" was when Chief Wray first put Lt. Hinson on administrative leave - according to your own timeline, back in June 2004. Where was the N&R then? I can sympathize mightily with Lt. Hinson's predicament (as I too have been the subject of baseless and mean-sprited rumor & innuendo). He may have been screaming for help - or wanted to scream for help (I don't know), but the newspaper WAS NOT THERE to ask for his side of the story. Of course, in any situation like this, the lawyers (want to talk about a "network"of good-ole-boys?) are all over you to keep your mouth shut. To his credit, Lt. Hinson apparently kept his silence to serve the greater good of the internal probe.

Real investigative reporting is dead. The only time the N&R ever showed its face in my own case in Asheboro was when litigation was filed or went to trial. Now, I've uncovered evidence of blatant perjury, contempt and fraud on the part of non-profit hospital administrators who monopolized public resources for private gain . . . and still the newspaper(s) make lame excuses.

You talk glibly about public records and public interest. In my own case, these guys lied about the "confidentiality" of public records!!! And no one . . . not their own "expert" non-profit lawyers nor the all-knowing judges . . . or (even now) the Randolph County DA . . . has called them on the lie! So tell me, HOW is the public supposed to know when the officials who are supposed to know, DON'T? In terms of "the public good", I guess (what with the doctor shortage in North Carolina and the sudden concern about ethics in government - be it in Washington or Raleigh) it's not a big deal when a Pediatrician is run out of her hometown on a rail for doing the right thing . . . while the big boys with the fat, publicly-subsidized paychecks lie, and lie and lie some more - and walk away unscathed. Neither the News & Record nor the Courier Tribune thinks they should be held accountable.

The N&R did not "break" this story. It was handed to you. Most of the "investigative reporting" you may conduct now, amounts to meddling in an on-going criminal inquiry - and perhaps damaging the case that investigating officers are now trying to make./prosecute. Yes, the public has the right to know. In this case, I have no doubt they will know. But it may not be right this second.

In the military and government service we had a thing called "a need to know". Any information that may reflect, no matter how small, on any ongoing investigation certainly does not fall into the "need to know" category. When and if the time comes that the investigation is complete and if any prosecution comes forth and it is completed , then by all means make it known. Until then, there is no public "need to know."

John, I don't keep up with Greensboro politics that much but have seen many media frenzies and intentional railroadings in my days.

My take on the Wray episode is that Wray and his lawyers will make lots of money when they sue the city.

I don't look for your paper to 'investigate' those grounds, but you can be sure someone will!

As this plays out, the good and honest policemen/women of our city will suffer the most.

Thanks for your forum.

Harry has that one right on the money. The lawyers (on both sides) will make the money - they will bill and bill and bill some more - while those who were victimized (if that is ever really figured out) STAY victimized . . . and "the bad guys" will mininimize and rationalize what they did . . . and everyone else around them (particularly the "good and honest" police men and women of Greensboro) will be made miserable for the show.