News-Record.com

I hope you send a copy of the story about Michael Decker and Jim Black's criminal probe in your email alert because it sure didn't appear anywhere on your websites front page even though it was the TOP story on the Charlotte Observer and Raleigh News and Observer front page. I guess it isn't big enough news because it doesn't involve race and it is a bad news story for Democrats.

It could be that. Except that the story ran on the local front in yesterday's paper and on the front page in today's paper. It was, in fact, on the website yesterday. The link is this: http://www.news-record.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20060210/NEWSREC0101/60210017/1001/NEWSREC0201

How long did you keep on your website? It wasn't even on the story links on the right side of the home page last night. It was the top story on the Charlotte Observer and Raleigh News and Observer's home page all day. In fact, it is still on the home page of both of those newspapers today. I guess if Wray had plead the fifth, or even someone remote like Tom Delay it would be the top story on your website.

But I guess Jim Black has been such a good Democrat, and Mike Decker helped prevent those evil Republican's from having the speakership, so it's best to bury their woes as best as possible (without completely doing so- that way you have plausible denial when charged with bias) lest it reflect badly on the N&R perennial party of choice, the Democrats.

I know from your standpoint, I sound like a whiny broken record, but the facts are what they are. I cannot see how this isn't the top story in every newspaper in North Carolina.

I too have wondered at the N&R's web coverage of the Black debacle, given the attention it's been getting from other state newspapers. Of course, Raleigh is an hour away. Probably not "local" enough.

This is a good link that summarize press coverage and editorial positions so far: Jim Black Must Go

It's a point I've been making for over a year now, Sam. Laws aren't really laws (especially for us plebes who try to live and play by them) unless they are enforced. It's very clear that the top dawgs in Raleigh (and other places - like ASHEBORO) were not paying very close attention. They didn't have to . . . no one (especially our Attorney General who wants to be Governor - or the big "liberal" newspapers in Raleigh/Greensboro/Charlotte) was really looking or asking any embarrassing questions (psssttt . . . it's called "prosecutorial discretion"). Now that millions are missing in some scandals - and in others, some of those dawgs (like Speaker Black) are caught and cornered with dog food all over their faces, the laws suddenly seem to be in better focus.

As for ethics in law and government? ARE YOU KIDDING?

Mark Binker's blog posted a blurb on February 9 ("Tapping Public Opinion") offering up Public Policy poll results (in terms of comparing Presidents and "impeachable" offenses) that indicates North Carolinians think lying under Oath is a more serious crime than wiretapping without a court order.

North Carolinians think lying under Oath is a big deal? Really? You mean it might be "civically relevant"? Imagine that.

I must be just a whiney broken record for John to ignore too. We should form a club.

See How Local Hospital Administrators Lied Under Oath

Thanks Jim Wilson, for the lesson on linking.

Actually, the link remains on the site, but it have been pushed down the page as other news occurs. We try to refresh the news on the front page more often than once a day.

As for your argument that we're ignoring that news about Black because of a perceived bias, I repeat that the Black story was the lead story in the newspaper yesterday.

John, can you explain why there is such a difference between the content of your paper and the content of the website? It seems like your layout people have different priorities over the placement of stories on the website versus the newspaper. One would expect the website to mirror the paper as much as possible. I usually don't read the daily paper because I don't have time, but I do check the website regularly. If what you are saying is correct, then there is a big difference in the content and the priority that is placed on each story between the website and the paper.

Sure. Actually, the newspaper and the Web site are very different and intended to be that. We treat the newspaper and the Web site as different mediums with different readers and readers who have different habits. The newspaper comes out once a day and there are hours between the time we're finished with it and it's in your hands. So what may be big news at say, 10 p.m. isn't eight hours later at 6 a.m.

The Web allows up to update with news and features constantly, an ability we take advantage of. We rarely put stories up in one certain place and leave it there for a long period of time, unless we really like the photograph (one article must have a photograph for that center position). And then we'll change the photograph often. Readers will come back more often if we change the content of the site often.

While I know you don't believe it, we don't make news judgments based on our politics.

I will remember your words "We rarely put stories up in one certain place and leave it there for a long period of time, unless we really like the photograph" the next time there is a Republican in hot water. I don't expect the story will stay up longer than a few hours. We will see.

Still, the Black story went from the front page of your paper to completely off the home page of your website in the course of a few hours. How can you explain that? I can see newer, MORE IMPORTANT stories taking precedence, but that isn't what happened. It wasn't even on the right side story links. Seems inconsistent. But as I said, I have your words now and we will see what happens the next time a conservative gets in hot water...