News-Record.com

Isn't it interesting what a difference one's perspective makes on controversial issues? My impression has been that the News & Record has been quite solicitous with respect to the GTRC and its process, and that you've covered this story extensively and more often favorably than not.

Ya think, Michele? The GTRC report presents the events of the day with important details. Look at how those details compare to the article John links to above.

"During the ensuing gunfire by both sides, five anti-Klan marchers were killed and 10 were injured."

An important missing fact is who opened fire. (And for accuracy's sake, 8 anti-Klan marchers were injured, as were a Klan member and a news photographer.)

"Two long and expensive criminal trials brought no convictions for Nazis and Klansmen..."

That the juries were all white isn't relevant?

"Surviving CWP members refused to testify during the trials, claiming the outcome already was decided."

As the report points out, the CWP memebers were also under investigation and feared self-incrimination if they testified. They weren't simply turning their backs on the system as the reporter implies.

"Its recommendations include apologies from the city and police department, building a monument to the victims and a News & Record-sponsored focus group for reader feedback."

Accurate but incomplete. It sure leaves out some important recommendations like apologies from those involved, greater police oversight and a living wage ordinance.

Again, Roch, I think the News & Record coverage of the GTRC process has been generous and most often favorable.

Had I been here, Michele, I'd have warned you about walking out on that limb.

Yes, Roch, that story does not include everything in the report or the executive summary, which itself is 54 pages long. The purpose of this specific story was to describe the meeting last night, not to provide a complete recap of the commission's report or the events of Nov. 3.

Well, the TRC just might be right.
We all know that the N&R is just a mouthpiece for the right wing and was surely involved in the government conspiracy/coverup.

Yeah, right...

Well, it's clear it was the focal point of the discussion to your reporter, who has proven in the past that she has tremendous difficulty in hearing things and then repeating them accurately.

Her story on Sunday was the first piece she has written on the GTRC that didn't stray from facts, and actually sounded like reporting. She refrained from her usual colorful adjectives and didn't reach into a bag of irrelevant details, as is her wont, searching for some controversy and conflict. My congratulations to you and her. If you have sent her to a class, it's working.

I wasn't at this meeting, but I bet everyone else who was in the room would have a description of it that didn't match Margaret's. I base that on hearing something for myself, then watching her misrepresent it in print, on many occasions. Believe me or not, I don't much care: it's happened, John.

But I'm eternally optimistic. I always expect that the newspaper ingests criticism, examines itself, and improves. Many people don't agree with me on that, but I've seen you do it, so I'm a believer.

I think your coverage of the GTRC has been very thorough and in the main accurate, but quite tilted at times. I've been very specific in citing instances where you got facts wrong, and could be equally specific in pointing out where an article starts to slant. If it would be helpful to a community discussion, I'd sit around a table and go through the articles again, paragraph by paragraph.

Your coverage of recent weeks has on the whole been very good. And though there's a large place for a discussion of the role the media has played in the story of Nov. 3rd, there's lots of other things we need to talk about, too, perhaps even first.

John: You're reply to me a straw man. Try again?

I have to say that the recent coverage has been pretty balanced, although I still can't get over the use of the term "Klan-Nazi shootout" when in fact it was more accurately the "Klan/Nazi-Communist shootout". Otherwise, the news coverage since the report came out has been pretty even handed. I think the opinion section (Allen's domain) is a little one sided though.

Somehow I knew this whole thing would be blamed on the police and the "city" and someone would be asking for more money....

It strikes me also that your reporter's presence at this meeting quite possibly determined the direction the open discussion went. Odd that you should then point to it and question whether people are "working on the right things."

Sounds like a case of direct cinema, rather than cinema verite, in other words.

"Somehow I knew this whole thing would be blamed on the police and the "city" and someone would be asking for more money...."

No kidding. I'm going to have to apply for a grant to combat all the misinformation that originates in blog comments, like the idea that the report blames "the whole thing" on the police and the city.

Mo money! Mo money!

Reading is fundamental... isn't it?

Maybe Chewie and Samuel and John A. can get together to discuss it and we'll cover that!

Chewie, seriously, perhaps our reporter's presence meant the discussion was directed at us. (We do cover an awful lot of events and it's rare that the events center upon our coverage, but I am aware of the Heisenberg Principle.) My question remains, though, is that working on the right thing?

I should have included this context. (Sorry I posted in a rush.) Our reporter's presence was announced at the beginning of the meeting last night, and the question was raised as to whether it was appropriate for her to remain. No one objected.

John Robinson wrote:
"Maybe Chewie and Samuel and John A. can get together to discuss it and we'll cover that!"

Depends on which reporter you send to cover it, John!
Better yet, let us write our own story.

"Better yet, let us write our own story."

John, that's the best idea yet. You're on.

A factual correction: Ms. Moffett Banks says
"Surviving CWP members refused to testify during the trials, claiming the outcome already was decided."

The CWP did not testify in the murder trial but did in the federal criminal trial and of course in their own civil suit. It is an important distinction, one that the Executive Summary addresses explicitly (p15).

I hope you will publish a timely correction. There are too many myths floating around posing as facts. It is a shame to see them reproduced in print.

Speaking of which, can you explain why you chose not to make a correction when a front page story falsely claimed that there had been no apologies at the GTRC public hearings?

I have a solution that I think will make everyone happy. Given the clear bias of the N&R and the Heisenbergian distortions introduced by a reporter's presence, the N&R should refrain from covering any event associated with the Truth and Reconcialiton Commission, Task Force, Support Group, Action Team, etc.

If, as the report states, the N&R is part of the problem, continuing to cover the story will only compound the problem, thus increasing the need for retributive justice (the good kind of justice favored by the commission--or have I gotten them mixed up?).

This is the type of mistake that makes editors lose their hair faster than, oh, say, Roch Smith, Emily. We have a correction going tomorrow. On the apology question, I'll have to get back with you. I know we talked about it and decided we didn't think it was necessary, but I don't recall the details right now.

John,
Thanks for the correction.
I'll look forward to hearing more on the decision not to correct Ms Moffett Banks' mistake on the public hearings, since it seemed to be rather central to her entire point that there was nothing new in the hearings...

Emily, are you referring to Nelson Johnson's apology for calling Jim Melvin a name?

John,
Here's a couple quotes lifted from the hearing transcripts (available at http://www.greensborotrc.org/hear_statements.php):
---------------------

From Floris Weston--
“I'm sorry for the damage that happened within the Morningside community...I would be remiss if I sat here and didn't say that I would never have wished this trauma and pain on them and their children there for the lingering memories. And I'm sorry that they and to go through that.

…Sometimes you can just smell it when you think you’re being set-up and I told that to the first person I saw as soon as I found Cesar and that was a Greensboro policewoman. I am certain that most of the cops were unaware of the magnitude of what was before them. These were individuals, they were beat cops, they had their assignments. They were guys out there trying to do a good job. This policewoman was very kind to me out there with my husband dead in front of me in the first moments of my grief and I’ll never forget that. I want to say to her where ever she is, if she can hear this, that I will always appreciate her kindness to me in my first moments of grief.”

From Nelson Johnson--
"You know when I was speaking on Morningside Homes after I got up from Jim Waller’s dead body, I said that there isn’t any way, there isn’t anyway that this could have happened without active police participation or inactive participation and I said, I called Mayor Melvin a dog. He said I called him a pig, but I didn’t call him a pig. And I want to apologize to him tonight publicly.

And I want to apologize to my Klan and Nazi brothers and sisters. I, you know, people may or may not be Klan members, but to me they are human beings first. And that no label can capture all of the essence of who we are. And so I want to say to Mayor Melvin and I want to say to others who I might have said something that was demeaning, that I’m sorry about that. And at the very same time, I want to challenge him to come into this process and to use his considerable influence to encourage everybody else to do the same.”

------------

Although not strictly apologies, hearing speakers also made several noteworthy expressions of regret and admissions of mistakes (e.g. by Paul and Sally Bermanzohn, Nelson Johnson) that went totally unnoticed by Ms. Moffett Banks. In addition, former Klansman and Nazi Gorrell Pierce met with Nelson Johnson briefly backstage and they shook hands, both expressed regret for what had happened and a mutual desire to move on (a meeting which was publicly acknowledged by Johnson). These expressions of contrition seem to me to contradict her overall assertion that there was nothing new (an article, which by the way, she wrote without contacting anyone from the Commission for comment or information).

In reference to the paper’s coverage of Nov.3, just to be clear, the GTRC’s research showed that the Daily News and GSO Record fairly reported the facts of the shooting and trials, and overall used neutral language to describe the events and the different actors. We found that(unlike the Carolina Peacemaker's coverage)reporting on the background causes/context was sorely lacking and that there was not much coverage of police involvement. However, the view that there was a noticeable shift from “ambush” to “shootout” in the language used by the paper was not borne out by our reading of 471 articles from Daily News and GSO Record. I would encourage you to read that chapter on “Reporting the Story: media portrayals and public opinion.”

I assuming you're referring to the article we published on Sept. 28. The context is important. That story looked at the testimony before the commission up to that date. The part in that story in which we refer to apologies is in this context about eight paragraphs in:

"A News & Record analysis of the testimony has discovered few, if any, new details about the shootings and little sense the hearings have mended old divisions.

"There have been no tearful apologies. No startling revelations. No acceptance of responsibility.

"Testimony to the commission sounds far from conciliatory."

The intent of "tearful apologies" was to refer to apologies that were heartfelt, exhibited deep remorse and reflected a significantly changed perspective on the events of that day or subsequent days.

The apologies you refer to, I suppose, could describe Rev. Johnson and Ms. Weston. I wouldn't suggest they were not heartfelt. However, apologizing to Jim Melvin for calling him a name, while presumably appropriate, is hardly deeply significant in the scheme of things. It's preceded by a statement about police involvement, but there's no apology for that statement. And he doesn't say what he is apologizing to the Klan for that I can tell.

We weren't present during the meeting with Rev. Johnson and the Klan member's backstage meeting, and given that the story clearly outlines our point of reference, the commission testimony, I'm not sure how we'd be expected to know about the backstage meeting.

Ms. Weston's apology to the residents of Morningside Homes is heartfelt and it is arguable that it was a "tearful apology." As for its significance in the context of the story that was being written, I'm doubtful.

I understand how you or anyone else will quibble with our reporting and what is emphasized and what's not. It is the nature of what we do. Everyone interprets things through a lens.

I've read the section of the report on the media coverage. I haven't reviewed our coverage and the Peacemaker's coverage since 1979. However, the two publications have distinctly different missions when it comes to covering news.

"It's preceded by a statement about police involvement, but there's no apology for that statement."

John, are you offering an opinion that someone was owed an apology for that statement? Did the lack of such inform the article's assessment of "no apologies"?

I'm not clear on how this factors in to your decisions then and your defense of them now. The statement of police involvement seems to be quite separate from the apology to Jim Melvin. What dots are you connecting?

Perhaps I will call for you to apologize for stating this opinion. In addition, I shall render judgement on whether it was adequately heartfelt, and note the presence or lack of tears as evidence of such.

The absence of an apology on your part will serve to invalidate your entire post, indeed, this entire blog and its premise. I will loudly declare this fact in a large public forum, and chide all those who disagree with practiced paternalism.

If you apologize to other parties but do not make explicitly clear what you are apologizing for, the apology will not count.

If the opinion you stated proves to have been factually based, an apology will still be required before I may declare you appropriately contrite and this blog worthy to be read. If you continue to misbehave, I will discourage anyone from listening to you ever again, or taking seriously anything you say or do.

Sorry. Those are the rules.

Although it is your prerogative to decide what is 'news', 'facts' are not open for interpretation. In that vein, the mistakes you make in your post undermine the credibility of your paper’s decision regarding what IS 'news'.

You are right, context is important. The N&R’s Sept 28th article was titled “Testimony lacks new information” – so the context is that the N&R believed that the GTRC was not providing anything new, and certainly nothing conciliatory…

Here are the mistakes that you made in your post:

Mistake #1
You wrote: “he (Nelson Johnson) doesn't say what he is apologizing to the Klan for”

In fact, it is clear in his testimony from the second Commission hearing that Johnson is apologizing to the Klan for using ‘dehumanizing’ terms. This is particularly noteworthy because so many people have decried the WVO for their provocative and challenging language -- language that Johnson has now apologized for.

Don’t take my word for this, read his testimony yourself:
http://www.greensborotrc.org/njohnson2.doc

In his own words:
“the letter that challenged the Klan to come out from under their rocks was an awful mistake… it really dehumanized. The language did. And whenever you do that, I think you reduce your own moral standard. And I thank God that I’m growing to see that… And I want to apologize to my Klan and Nazi brothers and sisters… who I might have said something that was demeaning, that I’m sorry about that… “

Likewise, many blame the WVO for provoking the Klan attack by using “Death to the Klan”. In his testimony Johnson also acknowledged that this was a mistake for which he’s trying to take responsibility:

“I think the slogan “Death to the Klan” was a big mistake. It was ill informed and the reason is that it so easily lends itself to misinterpretation. In the sense that it could be easily interpreted particularly when you link it to some of the other language that we used. That that meant Death to the People…I’m saying that it was bad to use it and it was a mistake to use it and we need to take the responsibility for it and I’m trying to do that.”

I would have thought this was newsworthy. I am sure many in Greensboro would be relieved to hear that Nelson Johnson recognizes that he made mistakes, and acknowledges some responsibility and regret for what happened on Nov. 3.

Mistake #2.
You are also wrong when you wrote that the N&R couldn’t know about the “meeting with Rev. Johnson and the Klan member's backstage meeting, and given that the story clearly outlines our point of reference, the commission testimony, I'm not sure how we'd be expected to know about the backstage meeting.”

In fact, Gorrell Pierce makes an explicit reference to meeting with Rev. Johnson in the interest of reconciliation in his testimony during the first Commission hearing on July 16th. Again, fortunately you have to take my word for it, anyone can look it up themselves: http://www.greensborotrc.org/pierce.doc

Pierce said: "like I told Reverend Johnson, I'm done with it, and nice to see you and shake your hand. It ain't gonna get no better until everybody else throws their sword down."

#3
Your third point: that “Ms. Weston's apology to the residents of Morningside Homes” was of doubtful significance in the context of the story is a matter of opinion. But I have to take exception with your opinion.

One of the main criticisms is that the WVO staged a showdown with the Klan with little regard to the safety of Morningside.

I don’t suppose Ms. Weston agrees with that criticism, but I would suggest that it is newsworthy, and certainly significant to the context of the story, that she offered a tearful apology to the residents. (She also said that she regretted yelling at the police on Nov 3 and expressed thanks to the Police Officer that comforted her when she was mourning her dead husband.) http://www.greensborotrc.org/weston.doc

----------------------------------------------------------

All of this questions the veracity of your reporter’s conclusion: "There have been no tearful apologies. No startling revelations. No acceptance of responsibility… Testimony to the commission sounds far from conciliatory."

You’ve got two of the biggest players (Johnson and the Klan) shaking hands and seemingly offering to “throw down their swords”, you’ve got Johnson apologizing for using dehumanizing language, and you’ve got Weston apologizing to Morningside and the Police Officer – all in the interest of reconciliation.

Even if your reporter missed some of these points, she might have got it right if she had contacted the Commission before writing the Sept 28th article.

---------------------------------------------------------
And it isn’t just a matter of setting the record straight. The many factual errors that your paper made (three of which you continue to make in your post) undermines your credibility. And inaccurate articles like “Testimony lacks new information” may have had a profound negative effect on the Commission. How many people didn’t bother to go to the third hearing because of the false impression that your paper gave that there hadn’t been anything new, and certainly nothing conciliatory? How big an effect did your coverage have on perpetuating the impression among some that the Commission had little value? How big a responsibility does your paper’s inaccurate reporting have in undermining reconciliation?

I don’t know the answer to those questions, but once you’ve acknowledged that you made mistakes (like those referred to above), I’d be interested to hear your opinion on how your mistakes affected the whole process.

John,

I am disappointed that you have not responded to my concerns.

It is discouraging to see mistakes go uncorrected, much less repeated by the editor -- especially when those errors are used to justify the accuarcy of a 'news' story.

Moreover, the purpose of my post was not editorializing or opining... it was to hold the editor accountable for serious mistakes of fact in a story that appeared on the front page, above the fold, shortly before the third hearing of the GTRC.

Sorry, art. We disagree on the interpretation of news and the interpretation of the facts.

As to your other questions, I didn't answer them because I don't know the answers. Certainly, as shown by the first public hearing, some people believe that we've done many things wrong. Personally, I believe you ascribe much more power to that one newspaper story than it deserves.

Hello John,

It is fine to disagree over interpretations of news, but the purpose of my post wasn't only to examine your interpretation of the facts. It was to point out that the two facts at the heart of your interpretation are, in fact, false:

1)“he (Nelson Johnson) doesn't say what he is apologizing to the Klan for”

and

2) the N&R couldn’t know about the “meeting with Rev. Johnson and the Klan member's backstage meeting, and given that the story clearly outlines our point of reference, the commission testimony, I'm not sure how we'd be expected to know about the backstage meeting.”

Once corrected, do the actual facts lead to the same conclusion of 'nothing new'?

Well, your link and Emily's seem to lead to different quotes from Nelson Johnson. I was referring to Emily's when I answered her question. Still, apologizing to the Klan for dehumanizing comments seems as if it is a small apology rather than a significant one.

As for the backstage meeting, we were writing about the commission testimony. Even in that testimony by Mr. Pierce, I don't see an explicit or tearful apology. Regret, yes.

Sorry to be so late to chime in on an important discussion. I was there the night of the conversation and the focal point according to the attendees was NOT the News-Record coverage. The newspaper coverage did get dicussed, but other topics were brought up for comment as well, including the need to continue to hear other people's perspectives in order to reach understanding in a difficult situation, how to rise above blame toward the "higher and more noble purpose" of uncovering the truth, how traditional leadership structures help or hinder honest and frank discussion, the role citizens play in the transformation of their own communities, the legacy of fear that keeps people from speaking, how to build bridges among advocates for labor and economic development leaders, and cultural conditions that encourage silence.

At the end of the community discussion, the attendees completed a questionnaire. On a scale of 1-5 (5 being most successful), the session received a 4.6 score attributable folks said to how everyone took the opportunity to speak, others listened intently,and the positive focus of the conversation. It is interesting to note that not one of the participants mentioned "media coverage" as the topic that captured their attention that evening, yet they did point to the often-repeated suggestion of hearing others' impressions/thoughts/ideas as the most promising value of the community conversation.

Spoma, your comment is probably the one reporters hear most frequently from non-newspaper types - that we focus on one aspect of the meeting rather than report what happens in more general terms. You're right. Participants did discuss those other topics. I chose to stick to a topic I felt was more newsworthy. It's the difference between sticking with one theme (comments about the media, in this case), and just reporting a laundry list of topics for discussion.

I found that people kept coming back to a discussion of the media's coverage of the shootings themselves and the TRC process. In fact, I got the point that participant and task force member Bob Foxworth REALLY wanted his comments in the newspaper. Before he gave his opinion on the paper's editorial page, he turned toward me and said something to the effect of, "I want to make sure this gets heard." It definitely got my attention!

Margaret,

I'm glad you didn't provide a laundry list of topics covered that night in your article. That would have been as dry as what I listed in this blog. I understand why you chose to feature the news coverage--plenty was said about it to be sure. My concern is that John's post at the very beginning suggested (inaccurately) that the media coverage was the FOCAL POINT of the community discussion. Even a trained newspaper man who knows reporters can't write about everything assumed (from your article I imagine) that what you wrote was THE item most discussed. Your readers likely had the same impression. I think it's important to say no, that's not exactly so. It's necessary to provide adequate context in any story by pointing out in this case the other main topics of discussion. Absent that, people do not get a full picture, they get a parial view.

On a somewhat related note, I would APPRECIATE coverage of city council meetings to include topics discussed in earnest other than the one or two items generally mentioned in the article following the meeting. Again, it's a way to provide us readers with a more full picture of the goings-on in our city.

This blog (and others) is a GREAT way to generate this type of discussion, correction, and understanding (including your important point that you need an angle for your stories). I wish these blogs could be edited for printing in the newspaper.

Spoma, thanks. As we think about what to focus on, we consider newsworthiness, what's new, and relevance to the greatest number of readers. Sometimes earnest discussion enters in; sometimes not. The council can have long, earnest, passionate discussions about topics that don't interest many people and aren't relevant to many.

I appreciate your point about editing blogs for inclusion in the paper. We have issues with space, with linking to other sites or to back-up information....but mostly with space. We've done that once a week on Mondays until just recently, and gotten little reaction from it.