News-Record.com

Mr. Robinson:

I hesitate to comment on your blog because I rarely can find anything "productive" to say about your operation. But the Sharon column brings me to this point.

Instead of admitting the column was likely hastily assigned and written and that on second thought (Twain's definition of "writing" btw) it may have been over the top to compare Sharon to Hitler or allow Muslims to spew more hatred against Israel, you defend the writer's failures and instead blame the readers.

You do this allot. It is quite tiresome.

The column and your post only reinforces two overt stereotypes. A. That Muslims are a violent lot and should be dealt with sternly, since it is what they understand best, despite their rhetoric. (Or as Lawrence said "Arabs are a vile people, barbarous and cruel.") B. That you will not admit to failure or misstep under any circumstances.

BTW, I posted this on the Front Pew. The biggest failure of her column was one of context and allowing the Muslim view a free pass on distorted facts w/o presenting the "other side" as you call it.

PS. Some could say Wray didn't have what it took to be chief because he wasn't the right color.

Religion. Race. Got two hotter topics that bring out the "my side/your side/no inbetween" any more vociferously?

Yeah, it's like YOU are the first person to mention that young white girls who disappear get a little more cable news time than non-white girls. Oh well, if anyone's sensitive to all those "isms," then it's me, and I'm not offended. But heck, I think arguments have 3 sides. You know, his, hers and the truth.

jsykes -- please tell me this is not the Jeff Sykes who was fired for only verbally disciplining reporters he knew to be lying while defending them in public. It's hard to imagine that person could find defending writers so tiresome with any credibility.

Mr. Sun:

You should be asleep at 1:40 a.m. Plus, my mother raised me not to talk to anonymous solar objects.

If you'd like to discuss something with me, email me with your true identity and we can discuss the truth surrounding that sad situation instead of relying on Mr. Robinson's employees harried version of the events, which were, btw, brought to light because one of his employees had an axe to grind with one of mine. If you think you know the truth fine. If you want it, email me.

AS IF Mr. Sykes is the only person EVER in a position of authority who has "disciplined" bad behavior in private, but "defended" it in public.

Commenting as a reader who has been "blamed" for misinterpreting what's in black and white (in this case the problem does indeed to be in the way Nancy Mclaughlin "crafted" the story - specifically her failure to use quotes when quoting) . . . Mr. Sun's summation of Mr. Sykes' professsional faux pas actually sounds a lot like an ordinary day in the life of a politician, or (in my case) a Randolph Hospital Board or (now) an Asheboro City Council member.

Referencing the epigraph from William Shirer's "The Rise and Fall of the Third Reich", (a variation of a quote attributed to George Santayana), "Those who cannot remember the past are condemned to repeat it" (that's not from memory, prompted by references to the Nazis and "Godwin's law", I did a Google search) . . . I don't know Mr. Sykes - and I never read his paper until I chased down the link this morning. I don't know anything about his ideology or his editorial opinions. I'm quite sure we don't know all of what actually happened. But Jeff Sykes is one of the few who actually paid a substantial price for his mistake. It's just a thought, but he might be EXACTLY the kind of person we all should hear from in terms of how those kinds of "mistakes" might be prevented and/or exposed in the future. I've always wondered why people thought going with "the lie" was the better thing to do.

Of course, I suppose it's more "fun" to blogspit on him - from the ivory towers of the N&R. One wonders about the motives for the N&R using its valuable resources to "investigate" that story in the first place (since they can't spare reporters for other stories in the other small towns surrounding Greensboro where they sell newspapers). I don't suppose it would have anything to do with discrediting a competitor?

Referencing Mr. Sun's link, I also really like the term "advertorial" in terms of what I have seen pass for "news" or "editorial opinion" in local newspapers. But I was unable to pull up the link to see the AP's story. It appears to have expired.

Dr. Johnson:

Hello. And thanks. My mistakes were just that, my mistakes. As a 33 y/o first-time manager, I learned much from my many mistakes.
As to why GNR spent their resources on that story, likely because the reporters we had brought together were eating GNR's pros alive, despite the fact that all but one of them were under the age of 23 and were in their first post-collegiate job.
But the fact remains that they should have been fired for fabrication and I should have recognized that immediately. I failed to do so, thus I deserved to lose my job as well. Period.
Funny, it seems now, but I believe both of the reporters in question moved on to paper's larger than the one we worked for and I have been able to spend everyday at home with my son for the last six months. He was two months old at the time of the incident.

I recall that the quote from the movie "Lawrence of Arabia" was that Arabs are a "little" people, not "vile."

Mr Sykes,

This is off topic, but I feel I must say it. I feel as if you were the victim in this whole thing.

I'm impressed that you own up to the problem and take responsibility.

You're the middle manager caught up in the impossible situation of trying to run an operation without adequate resources.

The News & Records and NY Times of the world (I can't believe I am putting them in the same sentence) have resources they can shift around if two people are fired and still put out a paper with the same quality. (The N&R would argue they don't, but they do...)

It's easy to be judgmental when you don't have to do the work and deal with consquences. The N&R lives in the same ivory tower as the NY Times. (I typed ivory tower BEFORE I noticed that Dr. Johnson used it also...)

I have learned over my many years that reporters look down on other reporters and editors at small papers (they're "provencial" and the people who work at them are "hacks," the Journalists say), but look who is trying to pick up the sucessful habits of those same journalists? (their lowercase, not mine)

The N&R and other papers are doing everything they can to try to be local again... just like the "hacks" at those small papers....

Mr. Sykes, spending every day at home with your baby son sounds like the best kind of "punishment". Enjoy it while you can. I expect you will be back at work somewhere soon - and you will be a better reporter for the experience.

You will be able to look your boy in the eye someday and tell him that in your younger days you made a mistake - and you owned up to it - and you paid for it . . . like a real man.

And that makes you a better man than many I have come across in a long while.

Good luck.

Mr. Wilson, your asseration that reporters from larger papers "look down" on reporters from smaller papers bothers me because as a gross generalization, it's simply not true and as a general rule, it runs contrary to my own experiences in the business.

I've worked at small papers, even one much smaller than the Reidsville Review, that were in the shadow of both The Washington Post and The Sun of Baltimore. Of the dozen or so reporters I ran into from those news organizations, only one was condescending and the rest were somewhere between cordial, professional, and down-right supportive. I've also met some pretty darn arrogant journalists from smaller publications than those for which I worked.

I don't think your asseration holds true because many of us, not all, but many, got our start at small publications.