News-Record.com

The real question is whether the N&R will put out another front page feature story this Sunday giving Wray's side of the story, like you did last week when you hyped the "secret police". My guess is that you won't... It's the stories you choose to print, when you print them and how you print them...But I'm just an unenlightened neanderthal who can't see that sometimes in order to do good, you have to try and fool people or only tell one side of the story...Sorry, I didn't go to Chapel Hill.

I didn't go to Chapel Hill, either.

Although I don't agree with your premise of "sides" on our Sunday story, I agree that the public would be helped if Mr. Wray sat down and answered questions.

David Wray's statement deserves the same level of coverage as the accusatory stories run about him.
Be fair; present unbiased coverage of both sides of the story and let the readers make their own conclusions.
Report the news, don't make it.
David Wray has no obligation to sit down with anyone, especially reporters, and defend his actions. Wray is no longer a city employee. He's made his statement, more investigation by authorities may be under way in this matter, and it would be unwise for him to say anything more to reporters. I certainly wouldn't invite the foxes into the chicken coop if I were in his position.
Just like a criminal defendant, what he says might be misconstrued or misreported by reporters and cause even more rumors and problems for this whole issue.

I agree with you. Of course, he has no obligation to sit down with us. But when he's not answering questions and others are, it makes it more difficult to get the full story from his perspective. As a result it may come out over the course of time rather than in one or two days. That's all I'm saying.

What does Chapel Hill have to do with anything?

And no, I didn't go there, either.

I'm "just asking," but how much longer am I going to have to look at the Hinson Returns To GPD sympathy "advertisement" on the homepage of the site?

Also, in the "just asking" category, how many views of that have there been of the package and how many impressions have been delivered of the "ad" for it? (And how much would an advertiser have had to pay for those thousands upon thousands of homepage impressions?)

In my last blog entry Greensboro101 I asked why the FBI was becoming involved in the Wray case. After all, the case of “racial profiling” and “racism” and “black books” had all been investigated to the tune of $70,000+ from the city (tax payers) coffers. The findings: David Wray is guilty of all allegations. So let’s just stripe him of his powers, then lock him out of his office and force him to resign. AND, bring Lt. Hinson (the police officer who has business dealings with drug kingpins) back with a hero’s welcome and front page coverage. Case closed! Done! Everything in Greensboro, NC is hunky dorry! So why the FBI? Could the explanation be found in the first three paragraphs in ex-Chief Wray’s comment?

First, have you invited Hinson to answer the specifics of the allegations made against him? If there are no specifics available yet, then why should Wray answer questions but not Hinson?
Don't you find it interesting in any way that you appear to be more concerned with whether Wray is a racist than whether his investigation of possible corruption on the police for was merited? From the get go, my initial question was "why was Hinson suspended, and what was Wray investigating?". The N&R has made little effort to answer those questions, but has made a very public effort to publicize Wray's woes and the racism charges that are being leveled.

Second, Wray should be given the same benefit of the doubt that Hinson is entitled to. Not so in the N&R coverage. As pointed out, Hinson appears to be propped up by your paper as a martyr, and Wray is being portrayed as a perpetrator. You don't have enough information to reach either conclusion against either man. Yet, that hasn't stopped you. AND this is your NEWS division that has made an editorial decision to declare the Heroes and Villains in this story by the way each person is being covered. Can't blame this one on Allen Johnson and the Opinion page. This is filtered news.

Third, isn't it possible that both men are right? I.E., Hinson committed no crimes, and Wray was justified in conducting an investigation? Was your portrayal of the "black book" without hearing from Wray's side fair? Will you give equal time to Wray's explanation of the black book that you did to the fact that it contained photographs of black officers? You seem to be very keen on letting people know that it contained pictures of black officers, not so keen on letting them know the reasons offered for that fact. You know, it is possible that evidence was planted in OJ Simpson's trial AND he is guilty. Same thing here- Wray doesn't have to be wrong proportionately to Hinson being right and vice versa. Both could be equally innocent or equally guilty.

Fourth, who are the "others" that are answering the questions that Wray isn't? Wasn't his statement an explanation and answer? To date, his explanation has been the most thorough account of what happened. That doesn't mean it's true, but it certainly has done more to answer questions than anything anyone else has said. You have quickly placed him on the defensive instead of viewing all of the information about everyone (including Hinson) with skepticism and exploring the explanations that Wray offered. Again, you chose "sides" early on.

Finally, the "Chapel Hill" comment is my way of saying that the liberal elite think the rest of us think the way we do because we don't know any better. Meanwhile, those who received a proper liberal education (at Chapel Hill for instance) know better. If only we had a better liberal education to enlighten us, we would see that what the N&R is doing really is better for society. That the ends justify the means, and if that means pretending your neutral when you aren't, so be it. You can still keep your integrity by knowing that in the big picture, you are doing the right thing. A few weeks ago I sent you a copy of the article by Washington Post Book World editor Marie Arana when she said:

"The elephant in the newsroom is our narrowness. Too often, we wear liberalism on our sleeve and are intolerant of other lifestyles and opinions. . . . We're not very subtle about it at this paper: If you work here, you must be one of us. You must be liberal, progressive, a Democrat. I've been in communal gatherings in The Post, watching election returns, and have been flabbergasted to see my colleagues cheer unabashedly for the Democrats."

This confirmed what so many conservatives believe- that the liberal elite in the media write for each other. They surround themselves with like minded people who confirm their beliefs until eventually they believe anyone who disagrees is simply uneducated, ignorant, or unenlightened. They become so self-righteous that they are unable to see the blatant bias that is so apparent to those who don't agree with them. It's no different than a conservative who gets their news from Rush Limbaugh. If all you hear are conservative voices around you, you will become convinced that other views are invalid. The difference is that Limbaugh openly admits he is biased. Hence, if I had only been given a fine liberal "Chapel Hill" education, I too, would be enlightened and would stop attacking the N&R because I would understand that they are right, and only trying to do good. Classic Machiavelli.

For the record, I went to Guilford College which is more to the Left of Chapel Hill, so it would be hard to say I didn't receive the other side or a proper education.

I hate to keep "P.S"- ing, but John, what is your response to Jerry Bledsoe's valid criticism about the "NEWS" division of your paper not giving the full story about Willena Cannon's history? Do you think it was fair to portray her as merely an "activist" without disclosing her past confrontations with the GPD? You must surely agree that this story was exactly the type of careful "NEWS" editing that although factual, is misleading and obviously agenda driven. Will you answer this charge? Do you even have an answer? Or do the ends justify the means?

Yes, John, will there be an answer to Mr. Bledsoe? We are waiting.

I've been in positions similar to David Wray vis a vis reporters. (I should mention I was a law enforcement officer here for 20 years, 10 years as a detective. I've talked to more reporters than I care to remember.)
The typical refrain is, "If you won't answer our questions, we'll just write what everybody else is saying about it." It's an attempt to make the subject of the interview answer questions even though he is better off keeping his mouth shut. The press has the right to public information, but it's a bit shady to try and compel or coerce people into making statements for the record against their best interests.
Based on the Wray's statement today, I have some real questions about just what Lt. Hinson was doing that made him part of a Federal drug investigation. Don't you think that bears some looking into?

So..."Chapel Hill" means "liberal," and it applies to people who didn't go to Chapel Hill, and it's used as an epithet by someone who went to Guilford?

Clear as mud.

Ah, the diversionary tactic from Ed Cone.

Latch on to one small point and try to steer the conversation to that, ignoring all the other points made.

Good try... but, I'm still waiting to the answer to my "just asking" question (on this thread AND the other one) and Sam needs his questions answered.

Let's get back to the point...

It may take me a little while to answer your questions so I'll do this in stages.

The Hinson Returns package will remain featured there until we have something else. I don't know how many views or impressions it's gotten or how much an advertiser would pay for it.

Mr. Spagnola, you make presumptions about our intentions and our report that aren't the case, so don't presume by my attempting to answer your questions that I agree with their basis. However, Hinson has been invited. His attorneys have talked with us and we've reported what they've said.

We aren't more concerned about Wray and racism than corruption in the police department. We aren't trumpeting the racism angle except as it comes up in the investigation angle. We have the same questions about Hinson's suspension and Wray's investigation as you. And it would be helpful if Wray told us of his suspicions and why he reversed some of the findings of the two internal investigations.

You may see us as having decided that one's a hero and the other's a villain. Don't know what's we've said about Hinson that has made him a hero. However, one reminder is that Wray, the chief of police, has resigned under pressure from the city. Hinson was reinstated.

Yes, it is possible that both are right. Again, until we get a fuller explanation from both sides what's happened, it's difficult to make that determination.

Wray's statement was helpful, but there are still many questions. He acknowledged as much when he said he submitted a comprehensive, detailed response to the city (as opposed to the public.)

I appreciate the comparison to The Washington Post. As I have said many times, the managing editor, the city editor and most of the assigning editors here did not go to Chapel Hill. Nor did I, although I'm proud to have a daughter there.

I assure you that we're as interested as you all are in getting to the bottom of this. We're putting as many public documents and public statements about this case online so that you can draw your own conclusions. We'll continue to do that.

More later.

Jim, it's not a "diversionary tactic," I don't really have a dog in this fight, I don't know all the facts so I'm reserving judgment on the case and the coverage (a novel concept, I realize)...

I just saw something funny and had some fun with it.

I'm sure this explanation will satisfy you, and not serve as further proof of my complicity in the Evil Media Conspiracy.

Good interview with Mitchell Johnson this morning in the paper.
Sounds like he took the words of disgruntled employees over his Chief, walked into this with no knowledge or understanding of police procedure, and made decisions without regard to Chief Wray's explanations. Johnson says his confidence "was just destroyed" when he heard that police officers were using a photo lineup, which is a court-accepted procedure used by police across the world for decades and decades. Johnson's ignorance of this is unacceptable. He should have asked some questions before he allowed his confidence to be "destroyed" by something of which he knew so little.
I think Johnson has watched too many movies; If he'd suspended or fired Wray, Wray would have turned in his gun and badge to the Police Supply Division, not left it on Johnson's desk as a trophy.
From the interview, it appears Mitchell Johnson took sides early on with disgruntled employees, possibly motivated by racial intentions, against the Chief.
Should other City government department heads now worry about being undermined and backstabbed by Johnson?

I am happy to hear that someone else is as disgusted with Mitchell Johnson's handling of this whole affair as I am. I feel that his and the City Council's refusal to back David Wray in his efforts to improve the police department is the basis for this whole debacle. He chose to listen to disgruntled police officers and thus encouraged continued discord among the rank and file. If he had squelched it in the beginning it would have ended. The only problem the officers had was with the rotating shifts (read the survey taken by the Police Association and it literally screams of SPOILED BRATS not getting their way). As for Lt. Hinson and his playing the 'race card', that too I find disgusting. Racism is terrible; the only thing worse is using the accusation of Racism indiscriminately as is being done too often in our society today.

As for Jerry's letter, yes, I suppose we could have included that about Ms. Cannon. The story was not about her or her son or the events in 1979, of course. And we didn't go deeply into the past of any of the other people we asked for comment, all of whom have had some relationship with the former chief and the police department over the years.

As for why her, on stories like this we cast a wide net, calling folks to get their comments to a news event that might affect them. Some people we reach, some we don't. She worked with the police department, as did everyone else in the article.

It is a metaphor, Ed. Surely you know what that is. It's like saying "excuse me, I didn't go to Oxford" when discussing British snobbery.

As a Duke grad, I'm tempted to make some comment about how the only Oxford with which Chapel Hill could be confused is the one in Mississippi, but I actually have a great deal of respect for Chapel Hill. And Oxford, Miss.

Still, the metaphor rings a little strange. I don't often think of Chapel Hill folks as Oxford-style (the English one) snobs.

"As for Jerry's letter, yes, I suppose we could have included that about Ms. Cannon." But why didn't you? Your explanation is less than candid. If you interview me about McDonalds hamburgers, and I say they are awful, is it responsible journalism if you don't let your readers know that I work for Burger King and have had an axe to grind with McDonalds for years? Unless of course you are trying to portray the criticism as objective to suit your own agenda. Which is what you guys do every day, and deny that you do every day.

I suppose when Julia Hejazi (recently fired by the new district attorney because of her future political plans) goes back to work in the future, you will feature her as well? (Julia goes back to work"). Try as you may to say you haven't picked Heroes and Villains in this story, the truth reveals otherwise. The whole "Lt. Hinson goes back to work" is an attempt to paint him as the good guy. Running this every day only emphasizes that more.

And by the way, didn't Wray say Hinson was the subject of an ongoing FEDERAL investigation before Wray started his investigation? Are the Feds also racist? In your story today the N&R said "allegations of internal racial profiling were fostered by rumors of a “black book.” Who exactly who are the anonymous people making these allegations? Or are they proverbial straw men used by the N&R (e.g., "some people say x...." when there aren't really identifiable "some people") to avoid having to admit that the N&R is the one accusing Wray of racial profiling? Name some names, tell us who they are and why we should care what they say, and challenge them to produce evidence. Don't just throw it out there as a given fact.

I have nothing against UNC or Chapel Hill in general. I wasn't saying they are Oxford snobs. It's just the UNC grads wake up every morning and kneel towards Chapel Hill as if it were Mecca... Seriously, I dislike the Duke crowd far worse.

So, Sam, to wrap this up..."Chapel Hill" is a metaphor for "liberal elite," no, wait, it's a metaphor for Oxford-style snobs, although by comparing UNC snobbery to Oxford snobbery you are not saying UNC snobs are like Oxford snobs, except insofar as you are, and anyway it's the way UNC people worship Chapel Hill that's the problem here, all of which should have been clear to people familiar with the concept of metaphor from your first reference.

And you went to a fancy private college, and nobody in this conversation actually went to Carolina, and you also "dislike the Duke crowd."

Okey dokey.

Apologies to Jim for the diversion, during which I personally fired two worthy civil servants and stole your hubcaps.

Funny, Ed, but I think you get my point.

I think your comments have been most revealing, Sam.

Revealing me as what? Be careful how you answer that...