News-Record.com

I am very sure she leaked it. I am also sure the all mighty N&R got it from the Pulpit Forum(Mazie ferguson?)it has gotten to the point where folks just lie. Dont want the truth? hey, this is GSO Lie about it. Loose your computer, deny facts, hide truths..it is all ok.

John,

In denying any role in the leak of the RMA report, Diane Bellamy-Small may have created an interesting ethical situation for you and the News & Record.

If, as Ben Holder and others believe, she is in fact the leaker, the News & Record is now in the position of knowingly reporting false information.

If you are willing to deceive readers in this case, in what other circumstances are you also willing to deceive them? Can you ever be trusted?

Are you also possibly tainting the credibility of your own reporters?

The Q&A with Bellamy-Small bears no byline. Somebody had to prepare and submit those questions. Did you have a role in that, knowing full well whether or not she was involved? Did other editors who knew have a role in it?

Who prepared and submitted those questions?

Did that person know how the News & Record received the report and the trail it followed?

If Bellamy-Small is the leaker, then that reporter, aware or not, is involved in the deception. His or her reputation may well be on the line. Is that why there is no byline?

This is a major news story now. If the reporter who submitted those questions didn’t know the trail of the leak and later discovered the source was Bellamy-Small, would you allow him or her to report it or just to go on being a dupe deceiving the public?

Don’t you owe it to readers and your staff to name the reporters and editors who are aware of the source of the leak so that readers can know who to trust and not to trust in writing about this?

If Bellamy-Small is determined to be the leaker, will you acknowledge to readers that you allowed them to be lied to? Will you do the honorable thing and step down?

I hope you will consider answering all of these questions.

Jerry, that is a good point about ethics and this story that I made yesterday. John did not make any attempt to answer it except to say it was "an interesting ethical quandry that I'll leave to the journalistic ethicists for now".

I think that you already know that when the ends justify the means, ethics do not matter. We could be wrong, and it may not be Bellamy-Small. But if it is her or someone she gave the report to (since she has now denied even that happening), the decision by N&R to support the lie is obviously outweighed by 1) the desire to be on the "right" side of an allegedly racial issue, and 2) to sell newspapers in that order. In the end, it can all be justified by claiming that the public good in releasing excerpts from the RMA report outweighed the interest in revealing the fact that the public was blatantly lied to with the denials.

Of course, we know that if the shoe were on the other foot (i.e., other political side of the equation), the N&R would probably blow the identity of their source also in an effort to get on the "right" side of the issue, and would claim that they were justified in revealing the lie because it is wrong to lie to the public.

When your values shift based upon your political position, you can easily sleep at night because you have convinced yourself of the righteousness of your cause and situational ethics are merely an obstacle to overcome on your way to enlightening the ignorant masses.

You are on the right path, Jerry. Keep up the good work.

I also think that the parallels to the Scooter Libby /Valerie Plame leak are interesting. I question whether the N&R would have protected Libby if he had leaked the Plame story to them, and then publicly denied it. The story that the illegal leak came from high up in the Vice President's office would seem to me to be as big story as the leak itself. Not so different here, except the N&R's protection of the source who may or may not be telling a blatant lie to the public.
I wonder if Wray had leaked the details of his investigations into Hinson (whether true or not) to the N&R and then denied it if the N&R would still protect him.

It goes back to the values judgment I mentioned above, and the future credibility issues the N&R may face that Jerry mentioned if Bellamy-Small or someone in her office leaked the report to the N&R.

What a tangled web we weave...

We're in no ethical dilemma. Other than that, I'm not going where you want me to go as you attempt to determine the source. Given your past, I would think that you would understand that, Jerry.

Eric Swensen and his editor, Eddie Wooten, prepared the questions. Neither knows where we got the report.

here is the thing N&R Grand Wizard...You are protecting a person who could decide if the city buys the canada dry property. There is a problem w that...but...of course..you wont see it...u r above that. At least u pretend to be above it. It is an ethical problem. there is no attemto to determine the source...small leaked it..bottom line..and she is lying about it...and so r u...nice touch.

What if the source of the leak was....Chief Bellamy...? Suppose Bellamy-Small let the Chief take a peak at the report because he wants to know what is going on in his new department. So he copies it (hence the removed staples), and either leaks it himself or has an underling leak it. It would be interesting to compare the coverage of that as a story vs. the Wray story.

John, Bellamy-Small has denied leaking the report to anyone, so if she let anyone see it, then she is lying and you have a problem if you know that to be the case.

Here's a good idea- the leak itself is a major news story, so why don't you put your investigative reporters on it (like you have against Wray) and find out who leaked it? That would be a big scoop. Oh, wait a minute- you already know who leaked it.

I'm sure the pillow is very soft at night when you think about all the good your activist journalism is doing for the world.

Spagnola (not being disrespectful, I just like the way that rolls of the toungue), it is public knowledge that the city provided a copy of the report to Chief Bellamy.

Spagnola: Not only is it public knowledge that Chief Bellamy got a copy of the report, there has been absolutely NO indication that Tim had anything to do with leaking it. This city is so fortunate to have a man like Tim Bellamy in the chief position, especially at a time like this. To suggest that he's involved in any of this mess, including the leak, is just ridiculous, inflammatory rumor-mongering.

If that is the case, then why hasn't he been asked to take a polygraph? It would seem to me that anyone who had access is a suspect. I am not accusing Bellamy, just suggesting the possibility. I don't see how he can be ruled out if he had access, so all the good intentions or deeds in the world can't eliminate him.

Of course, if it was him and he did not get the report from anyone on city council then that would relieve some of the potential ethical problems for the N&R to some degree because he hasn't been asked or denied it.

I also note that Chief Bellamy has engaged in some inflammatory "rumour mongering" of his own when he had his little press release two weeks ago about the alleged recordings. So to say he's is not involved when he is the Chief of police is a bit of a stretch. Whether he is involved in the leak or not is something that a good journalist should at least explore, along with anyone else who had access.

Spagnola: I'm glad Chief Bellamy isn't taking a lie detector test; let him be one of those with integrity that doesn't need to participate in this carnival sideshow. Besides, only the City Council decided to voluntarily take polygraphs; no one asked them to and I, for one, wish they hadn't.

The shame of this all is that the News & Record has the knowledge and power to end all speculation, end the waste of tax dollars on polygraphs, end the innuendo about public official's integrity, and end this whole mess.
But they refuse to do it.
And may suffer legal consequences for their actions in generating this whole so-called scandal.

Samuel Spagnola wrote:

"When your values shift based upon your political position, you can easily sleep at night because you have convinced yourself of the righteousness of your cause and situational ethics are merely an obstacle to overcome on your way to enlightening the ignorant masses."

I nearly wept when I read this dead-on description of the N&R position on "news." This is sheer poetry, a thing of beauty. Thank you.

I'm very sure I'll be sorry I asked, but Sam -- regarding Chief Bellamy's press release about the GPD's recordings of citizens (they're not "alleged", by the way - the Chief and City have confirmed that they exist):

in what way was the Chief's press release "inflammatory rumor mongering"?

Be specific.

First, let me get this out of the way- I am not suggesting that Chief Bellamy has actually done anything. I am not trying to portray him as a villain, or at fault for anything so I don't want any of my comments to be considered an attack on him in any way. I am merely posing some questions that I think are worthy of debate, and as I mentioned above I believe anyone who viewed the RMA report should be a suspect.

That said, my point about the "rumour mongering" was directed to the comment that Bellamy was not involved in this mess (which I took to mean the whole Wray investigation) in any way. He did not have to issue any statement about the recordings while the investigation was ongoing, but he did.

Further, none of us have heard these recordings, so what they actually contain is merely gossip (or a rumor) at this point the same way the allegations against Wray are at this point merely rumors. That is why I have used the word "alleged" with regard to Bellamy's deeds and Wray's deeds. We don't know anything for certain.

"We don't know anything for certain."

As a citizen of Greensboro who expects to be protected by the police and represented by the City Council, I say it's high time we do know some things for certain.

John,

Despite your slippery response I visualize you painted into an ethical corner. As I said in my LTE we are all pulling for you to do what the editorial side asks the City to do.. FREE THE REPORT !

On a somewhat related matter . Please explain exactly what was the news value in your B1 story by Eric Townsend , Thursday May 4th, " Officer's mother defends his ( Lt. Hinson ) honor " ? For crying out loud most anybody's mother would defend her son. Heck I was sued twice in Federal and state court by prison inmates serving lenghty sentences for drugs. I suppose you would have covered my dear Mom's press conference to say I was a good son. I know I am not and was not as notorious as all the cast of characters in this saga but again why send a reporter and photographer to cover a non-event ?

"We don't know anything for certain."

Except for the knowledge that this entire situation has been mishandled at every level by every one and every organization who has been an active participant in this fiasco.

Your comments are on target, Mr. Spagnola. Thanks for your contribution.

Slippery response, Fred? I'm presented with made-up ethical situations, portrayed as if they are real -- one drawing it out so far as to call for my resignation -- and I'm expected to treat them seriously? We're not giving up our sources, which is really what's being asked. We're not in any ethical quandary by any stretch of the imagination. You, of course, are free to visualize whatever you like. :)

As for the story on the news conference, I believe it was written with a sense of the absurd. A major play in the investigation calls a news conference, doesn't show, but his mother does? Pretty surreal. I think readers saw it for what it was, just as you did.

John,

So the reporter ( Swensen ) and his editor( Wooten ) prepared their questions not knowing the identity of the leaker. Appears then that they were sent on a fools' errand and you are back square behind the eight ball. I am by no means suggesting that you step down but simply do what the N&R editorial cravenly asked the city to do.. FREE THE REPORT !!!

Just like Homestead deal, Fred, nothing will become of it and the taxpayers will still be left holding the bag. The public will not know the facts of any of the current debacles and the guilty will go unpunished while those on the wrong side of the fence will have their lives ruined. And the N&R will always be guilt free because they maintained "their ethics".

The card that puts fear into the N&R and the council has been played by D.BS and no one has the guts to trump it. Do you expect anything else Fred??

You've lost me, mrp. Dianne B-Small says she didn't release it. Others call her a liar. Where's the fear? You keep imagining that we have an ethical problem based on nothing. You know, of course, that you wouldn't know anything about Project Homestead were it not for the reporting of the News & Record, right?

Fred, how are we behind the eight ball? You, too, seem to assume that Dianne B-Small is our source. And the evidence is? We made a commitment not to copy the report. I appreciate you not valuing a promise. We don't share that. Are you demanding that the city council not release the report?

John,
Have you become incoherent or should I have my hearig checked cause you are making me dizzy with your changing rationalizations. Sheesh.

"You, too, seem to assume that Dianne B-Small is our source. And the evidence is?"

You could end this all John by simply stating that you did not get the report from a city council member. That would not reveal your source, so you could keep your promise to the source and end all the criticism. The fact that you haven't done this suggests that a city council member did leak the report.

I understand your argument is that if you say it's not someone on city council, then by process of elimination we may be able to figure out who it was. So be it. Did you promise your source that much protection? Answer this- how many other people are you aware of that were officially allowed to review the report? If it is not that small of a group, then you still have plenty of cover (assuming it was not a member of city council). If it is a very small group other than the city council, then perhaps you may have a bigger story about the leak than the contents of the leak.

Will you deny that David Wray gave you the report? What about John Hammer, or Steve Arnold or Howard Coble? Do you see the point? By specifically refusing to address whether you received it from a city council member you are creating a class of suspects. You could easily say "Steve Arnold was not our source." Will you say that? You could say "Sam Spagnola was not our source". Will you say that? Why then do you say "no comment" when asked about a city council member being the source? What is special about them other than they have seen the report along with a few others?

Obviously, Arnold, Coble, Hammer, and myself were not given official authority to view the report and I use them as examples only. But still you have the question- how many people were officially allowed to see the report? Who are they? We know that the city council saw it and Chief Bellamy saw it, but who else?

Obviously, if it was only those two (the council & Bellamy) you'd have some BIG problems.

Also, your promise was to protect your source. If your source got a copy from a city council member, you could still reveal the city council member without revealing your source. I think you would be obligated to do that now considering everyone on the council has denied leaking it to anyone. That would be a lie, wouldn't it, if your source told you they were given the report by a city council member.

I hear they have some real good sand at the playground in Lindley Park. Might be a good place to bury your head until this story is over.

Bellamy-Small could be correct in saying she was not the "source" for the N&R, and the N&R could be able to say they did not get it "from" a Council member.
A council member could have given it to a "cut-out" person who then passed it on to the N&R. This would place one level in between the Councilmember and the N&R.
Just food for thought.

My point, Samuel, is that there is no reason to reveal anything about our source, except that city council wants us to. That's not good enough.

What about the notion that a crime may have been committed in releasing the report? Will you even concede that? Why is that not newsworthy? If your source is not a person officially entitled to have the report, then don't have an obligation in the public interest to find out how they got it so the public can know who the criminal is? You don't have to reveal your source for that, just investigate. Unless of course you got it directly from a firsthand source in which case you are looking the other way at a known criminal act, which is hard to justify as being in the public interest.

The PUBLIC wants you to reveal the source, not just city council, because they want to know who is the dishonest government official who broke the law in releasing the report. NO different than the Plame affair. This is the same public that wants to know if Chief Wray is dishonest and is a criminal. You haven't looked the other way when it comes to him. Why? Doesn't fit your agenda.

You're confusing the newspaper with a government agency and with a law enforcement agency.

When someone is charged with a crime, we'll report it. I would caution you not to assume that you know what we're investigating.

No, I'm not confusing them. But I do know a few things.

1) Nobody who was authorized to view the report was permitted to release it. Therfore, a crime has been committed by someone.

2) If anyone on the city council released it... see my comments above about crimes.

3) If the city attorney released it, see my comments above about crime, and add to it breach of contract with the city and breach of client confidentiality and possible ethical rules violations.

4) If the Chief of police released it, see my comments above about crime.

John, I don't know what you are investigating. I suspect it is about finding more to get Wray, and ignoring every thing else. No one has asked you to reveal your sources unless it was a city council member, and only then because they have all denied doing it and because the act would be a crime. You won't deny it was a city council member which has made this worse. It makes it look like it was a city council member, and you don't care about the public being lied to or any crime that was committed.

I am the last person to confuse your paper with a governmental agency or law enforcement. I have never said you committed a crime. I don't think you have any liability here. This is about ethics, honesty and good journalism- all things that should not have to be forced on you as if you were a governmental agency or in law enforcement.

But you do have a lot to answer for to maintain what shred of credibility your paper has left. It's like talking to a brick wall with you. You just don't get it.

Tell us, if Wray is exonerated, will it have been worth all the sacrifices in credibility and ethical compromises your paper has made? You don't have to answer that. It is rhetorical, and for now, that is my last comment on this subject.

The brick wall speaketh! :) Non-city council members have asked that we name the source. They asked before the city council asked. You and others insist -- based on circumstantial evidence and what I'd consider leaps of conclusion -- that there's some ethical breach here. I don't see it. And, frankly, I don't believe that you have enough information to make the judgment. But you feel you do and that's why I said at the beginning that I'd let the journalism ethicists deal with that.

i dont see any ehtical problem concerning the leak...if the paper got it from a person that basically said...ssshhhhhhhhh...and tip toed out of the office...why is it the N&R's deal to reveal it? it aint....the ethical thing in my opinion is...oh ...nevermind...i did like u got earl jones to talk about what is smart and just in the paper sunday...that was hillarious. Have youe ver wondered why some thoughts of mine end with......and some end with. i just began to ask myself that very question. or....