News-Record.com

John, you wrote "It was clear to us that it contained information about the operation of the police force that the public deserved to know."

The sentence does not contain the word "alleagations". Instead, you imply that the "information" is established fact. That has been the problem with your coverage from the beginning.

You obviously believe that the allegations about possible criminal acts by Wray are true and more important for the public to know than whether a member of city council leaked the report which would actually be a real crime, not a mere allegation. Again, it's a values thing- your desire to highlight racism overshadows everything including whether a real crime was committed by the unlawful leak of the report. Both are important and newsworthy, but you have clearly chosen the allegations of a crime over the actual existence of a crime (the leak).

If your source was not a city council member, but instead someone who told you they got it from a city council member, then you still have the same problem because that would still mean a member of city council committed a crime, you know about it, but don't consider it a story. It is also a story because everyone on the council has denied it, and you would know that not to be true. So it is okay in your book for an elected official to commit a crime and then lie to the public about it.

I suppose that your affection for Bill Clinton probably makes this okay. After all, he did the same thing.

Even if it was not someone on city council who leaked it directly or indirectly, you still should be concerned about who it came from. I asked yesterday, and I will ask again today for you to list all the people that were officially allowed to see the report besides the city council.

I cannot believe that you don't believe that this violation of the law is worthy of investigation. It had to come from someone who was not authorized to release it, and is therefore a criminal. You have done a great job of injecting your paper into the story which is a question for the ethicists, however, you have also placed a much higher value on getting out the allegations against Wray than you are interested in informing the public that a criminal act has occurred in the leak, most likely from an elected or highly accountable official.

I would understand your position if there was no underlying criminal act involved, but that is not the case here. You are intentionally looking the other way. Once again, the ends justify the means.

Perhaps Jerry Bledsoe is right, and you should resign and move somewhere that race really does consume every day life. There is nothing noble about your position no matter how you cut it.

We know the leak was a crime. We don't know if the allegations about Wray are even true. You have chosen the allegations over the crime. That is an editorial decision based on an agenda, and is indefensible.

Is it truly better to protect your source than it is to let the public know which official has broken the law? You wrote "it was clear to us that it contained information about the operation of the police force that the public deserved to know". Does the public not deserve to know who is the public official and criminal that leaked the report? Guess not, because it doesn't suit your agenda. Situational ethics. Shifting values. Welcome to the N&R under John Robinson.

I'll make it real simple. We need to know:

1) Whether the allegations against Wray are true.
2) Whether the allegations against Hinson are true.
3) Who committed a criminal act in leaking the report.

You are clearly interested in the first. You are clearly not interested in the last two. Why?

As this has been discussed in earlier posts, I'll refer readers to those posts below. I must ask about a new entry into the many, many false assumptions being made about me and the News & Record: My affection for Bill Clinton?

"many, many false assumptions"- which ones are false? Maybe the Clinton thing was an assumption, but is it false? Did you vote for the man? The ball is in your court, tell me where I'm wrong.

The Clinton thing is an illustration, I think, of how this discussion goes. No reason to drop it into the discussion. No reason for you to assume that I feel affection for him. No reason to ascribe a vote as affection. And rather than explain it, you ask ME to explain it.

Just to start: you're the one who inserts allegations of possible criminal acts by Wray, not me, although you write as if I did. You talk about my "desire to highlight racism" even though I don't mention it and have never said any such thing. The whole line of questions about the source and if the source did this or if the source did that, assume all kinds of things.

You say it is ok in my book for an elected official to commit a crime and then lie to the public about it. It's not. I've said that or done anything to imply that. But you say it as a fact.

Even saying that someone committed a crime, when no one has been charged, much less convicted is one heckuvan assumption.

That's good enough for starters.

I don't have a list of everyone allowed to see the report so I can't answer that. Perhaps the city will tell you.

The Clinton comment was made because it involved a public figure breaking the law and then lying about it. The Clinton defenders seemed to be okay with that because the ends justified the means. The greater good was to keep him as president to push the agenda. I see a parallel with your coverage on this issue and many others. That is the only reason it was injected.

Your whole paper's coverage has been all about possible criminal acts and racism by Wray. It's laughable that you try to act as though that was my assertion. Then you go on to say "even saying that someone committed a crime, when no one has been charged, much less convicted is one heckuvan assumption." No one has been charged in the Wray case, but anyone who reads your paper would think he had been charged with wiretapping, obstruction of justice and numerous civil rights violations, so maybe you should practice what you have just preached about assumptions.

Just yesterday, you mentioned about the RMA report "it was clear to us that it contained information about the operation of the police force that the public deserved to know." That report isn't established fact, but you treat it as if it was. In other words, you assumed that it was, and you went public with it even though it is only full of allegations and assumptions, so don't tell me about jumping to conclusions.

The whole thing is about highlighting racism. Just like the Feinsilver thing- another excuse to portray this area as being full of racists. Anytime you guys can find a racial angle to a story (or make one up), you take it.

"You say it is ok in my book for an elected official to commit a crime and then lie to the public about it". The speculation is that an elected official did leak the report and then lied about it. However, you have refused to absolve the city council either way when you are CENTRAL to the leak story. So blame yourself if people think you are okay with that sort of thing. You could have simply said that you did not get it from city council, but instead you say nothing.

Finally, the only way you get out of this without problems, and the only way that I will concede you're in the clear (ethically and professionally) is if your source was not a person who was entitled to have the report and did not tell you where they got it, and you were/are unable to determine where they got it. Otherwise, you have a big news story about a crime committed by a high official that you are sitting on.

You are acting like the politicians you are covering with your slippery answers and refusal to address matters straight on. As much as you beg the people you cover to answer your questions (like the Wray interview you want so badly), you aren't doing a good job yourself. Did you get the report from a high ranking official in Guilford County, and if not, did you get it from someone who told you or made it known the identity of the high ranking official from whom they got the report? Your answer: Not going to answer that question. No one has asked you to reveal your source unless you know the individual is likely to have committed a crime by releasing the report to you or someone else. But you have been asked to confirm or deny that it came from a city council member. You won't. Why? You could do that without revealing your source, so there must be some other reason that you are withholding information from the public, which is contrary to your stated purpose.

Why don't we debate this some time, live and in person in a public forum? Name the place and time, and I'll be there.

Still with the incorrect assumptions.

"Anyone who reads your paper would think he has been charged with wiretapping, obstruction of justice and numerous civil rights violations..." If you say so, but I'd say those people didn't read the paper very closely as we've never written anything even close to that.

My statement that there is information in the report that we thought the public should know about? That's no assumption. We've confirmed many of the assertions in the report through our own reporting and public records. Feel free to call the report "only allegations and assumptions" but it's more than that. (And I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that it is only allegations and assumptions as you've not seen it.)

You use speculation about who leaked the report, and my refusal to identify the source to make an assumption that I think it's OK for a public official to "commit a crime and then lie about it." It's an another assumption and isn't true.

And the reason you incorrectly assumed I have affection for Clinton? Oh, well. Never mind.

This is live and in public enough for me.

Sam,
Let's review your statements from this thread and see how many of them have basis in fact, rather than assumption.

"If your source was not a city council member, but instead someone who told you they got it from a city council member, then you still have the same problem because that would still mean a member of city council committed a crime, you know about it, but don't consider it a story. It is also a story because everyone on the council has denied it, and you would know that not to be true.

So it is okay in your book for an elected official to commit a crime and then lie to the public about it. I suppose that your affection for Bill Clinton probably makes this okay. After all, he did the same thing."

Assumption #1: Leaking the document is a crime.

Assumption #2: A City Councilperson leaked the document.

Assumption #3: The N&R doesn't care if City Councilpersons commit crimes and lie about it.

Assumption #4: Therefore JR must have affection for Bill Clinton.

"I asked yesterday, and I will ask again today for you to list all the people that were officially allowed to see the report besides the city council."

Assumption #5: The N&R is all-knowing, and is withholding information.

"We know the leak was a crime. We don't know if the allegations about Wray are even true. You have chosen the allegations over the crime."

Assumption #6: See Assumption #1.

Assumption #7: The N&R has written more stories about the Wray investigation than about the leak.

"I'll make it real simple. We need to know:

1) Whether the allegations against Wray are true.
2) Whether the allegations against Hinson are true.
3) Who committed a criminal act in leaking the report."

Assumption #8: The N&R is the justice system.

Assumption #9: Being cleared of any wrongdoing does not mean Hinson is not guilty.

Assumption #10: See Assumption #1.

"Your whole paper's coverage has been all about possible criminal acts and racism by Wray."

Assumption #10: The "whole paper" is devoted to the investigation of Wray.

"anyone who reads your paper would think [Wray] had been charged with wiretapping, obstruction of justice and numerous civil rights violations."

Assumption #11: That N&R readers can't read.

Assumption #12: That the N&R wrote something they did not write.

To summarize, you say:

"your desire to highlight racism overshadows everything including whether a real crime was committed by the unlawful leak of the report."

"Perhaps Jerry Bledsoe is right, and you should resign and move somewhere that race really does consume every day life."

"The whole thing is about highlighting racism. Just like the Feinsilver thing- another excuse to portray this area as being full of racists. Anytime you guys can find a racial angle to a story (or make one up), you take it."

Listen to yourself, Sam.

A credit to your profession?

Your anger reads loud and clear, but emotion can't carry the weight of your unwieldy arguments.

When you get really really mad, you decide to throw in Bill Clinton and Lt. Hinson, who obviously provoke you in some way, but have nothing otherwise to do with the topic.

The more you throw darts at JR trying to make something stick, the less concerned you seem with what is actually true.

Protecting sources is a cherished value of journalism that has served our democracy well. In this matter, JR is a credit to his profession.

Could you admit for one second that perhaps you don't know all there is to know about this case, that the N&R's investigation could actually yield some critically important information about the police department that the public needs to know?

I can, and I'd dare say so can many of your fellow citizens. We're prepared to overlook, even laud, a "leak" that keeps the public informed where there is wrongdoing on the part of government officials, usually accompanied by a cover-up that makes the truth impossible to get to. Are you prepared to state that such things never, ever happen, and that if the newspaper would just shut up, there wouldn't be any problems in the city?

If you're so convinced that the leaker committed a crime, that the leaker was a City Councilperson, that Wray is innocent of any wrongdoing, and that Hinson is guilty of some wrongdoing, as a fellow citizen I'd urge you to immediately take the information you have on these cases to the D.A. so the appropriate people can be prosecuted.

J.R.'s not the D.A., and no one's on trial in the newspaper. You have representatives in government who are charged with hearing your concerns about abusive investigations and crimes committed by elected officials. Seek them out.

Regarding your stipulations about the newspaper making everything about race, Sam -- reading your comments, I have to say you are holding a mirror up to yourself on that one.

The problems in the police department are about race. The City Manager and City Council have said so. You don't believe them? Why would they lie?

Greendog, you are taking bits of what I said and not putting it in context with the whole. First, you're putting too much into the Clinton comment which was a sarcastic reference to my continued belief that the N&R staff are lockstep liberals who believe that the ends justify the means even if it does involve outright lying.

I raised the possibility that someone other than a city council member leaked the report numerous times, so I have not assumed it was someone on city council.

Leaking a document that is confidential and prohibited from public distribution is a potential criminal act and at the very least a breach of one's office. If the document was not protected by law, then anyone could get a copy under the Freedom of Information Act. Lying about it is a breach of the public trust. Do you disagree?

The N&R obviously does not care if a city council member may have committed a crime and breached they public trust because despite all of the denials made by the city council which would seem to eliminate all of them, the N&R has refused to eliminate any of them. Why? No, they aren't supposed to be cops, but they never seem to have trouble uncovering facts that don't favor Wray but can't seem to use their power to clear the city council. Fair and balanced?

The N&R is in the news business and has easier access to know who had access to the report than I do, hence my request they list the names of people who received the report.

I haven't accused Hinson of anything, just that the N&R seems perfectly content to believe that Wray had no business even investigating him. No questions asked about that investigation for them. Don't you find it funny that the N&R will let that one go so quickly but wouldn't give up so easily on the Homestead investigation even though it is also "over"? Don't you want to know what made Wray investigate Hinson in the first place, or are we supposed to believe it was solely because Wray is a racist and he just happened to choose Hinson as his black victim? Aren't you interested why the FBI got involved before the Wray thing blew open? It's so much easier to blame it on Wray the racist than to ask uncomfortable questions, but the N&R isn't asking them. They just go with the "Wray is racist" angle because history has shown they love a good racial story whether true or not. Ask Eric Feinsilver.

You wrote: "If you're so convinced that the leaker committed a crime, that the leaker was a City Councilperson, that Wray is innocent of any wrongdoing, and that Hinson is guilty of some wrongdoing, as a fellow citizen I'd urge you to immediately take the information you have on these cases to the D.A. so the appropriate people can be prosecuted."

I never said the leaker was a city council member, that Wray was innocent, or the Hinson was guilty of anything, so those are outright distortions. I also have never asked or expected the N&R to "prosecute" this case, I have simply asked that they be fair. They have not been. All the bad Wray stuff comes out in the name of public interest, but the stuff about who is leaking confidential reports (and their agenda for doing so) is ignored.

And yes, I do believe I am a credit to my profession because I refuse to put my head in the sand and act like there is nothing wrong here. Obviously, I am not alone in my thinking due to the many comments over the past few months that have been equally critical of the N&R one sided coverage of this story. Further, if you think my arguments are based more on emotion than reason, I'll give you the same challenge I gave JR- when and where do you want to debate? You won't have the benefit of selective editing of my comments when you're on the spot. Yeah, I'm angry but only because I'm sick of the constant bias of the N&R and their continual denial that they have an agenda. They dishonor this city with their constant race baiting and bigotry under the guise of being progressive.

I agree with you that whistleblowers should be encouraged when there is a coverup. However, this is not a whistleblower case, there is no indication that the city council was involved in a cover up. This was simply a matter of a person with an agenda to shape public opinion in the Wray matter released a report they weren't supposed to . It wasn't about some higher good, it was politics pure and simple. Evidentally, it was politics that the N&R agreed with or they wouldn't have selectively edited the most damning parts of the report, and they would have given a copy to Wray so he could respond. No, it's not their job to give him a copy, but if they wanted to be fair about it, they would have.

Finally, you said "the problems in the police department are about race. The City Manager and City Council have said so." So they are supposed to be the final word? Why then are there still investigations going on? What about innocent until proven guilty? You see, your position is exactly the reason why I have been critical of the N&R- nothing has been proven but you are so quick to believe the worst.

The reason this thread has gone on so long (to the point that I am completely tired of it) is that John keeps bringing it back up with new justifications for his position every time. Then when he is challenged, he comes up with something else. So I will say to you what I said to him. That is my last word on this for now. I'm sure the N&R is working on another racial story that will be featured soon enough. It's too bad that so many on the staff there, including the editor have such contempt for this area. Perhaps they should move and leave all of us racists here to rot in our own ignorance.

"My statement that there is information in the report that we thought the public should know about? That's no assumption. We've confirmed many of the assertions in the report through our own reporting and public records. Feel free to call the report "only allegations and assumptions" but it's more than that. (And I don't know how you'd come to the conclusion that it is only allegations and assumptions as you've not seen it.)"

Really, John? So now you know they are proven facts? According to who? I admit I've been a little too tough on you personally, and for that I apologize. However, statements like the one above are exactly the sort of thing that draws my ire. If you have such proof that "confirms" the assertions, put it out there. Give us some names dates and places.

I've said all along that I'm not defending Wray. If he has done something wrong, then he deserves our contempt. I just want some honesty and fairness, and I don't think we're getting that from your paper.

This really is my last word on this.