News-Record.com

John:

Twice now (once in an article last week, and in Sunday's "The replay" section) the paper has printed that the City Council's meeting to discuss the TRC report was attended by "30 TRC supporters." I'd like to know how your reporter determined that everyone in the room was a TRC supporter. Was there a survey? Did everyone stand up and give testimony as to their feelings on the issue? Is Locke Clifford, who was in attendance, comfortable with this label?

I wish I could rely on the newspaper to report accurate, verified information. This is the kind of sloppiness that drives me nuts. Why can't you get a handle on it? Is there incentive for your reporters to be careful, and fear of consequences if they don't?

It's really not that hard.

Just DON'T PRINT THINGS THAT AREN'T TRUE.

I noticed the same thing, Chewie. John Hammer was there, he's a vocal opponent of the process. Margaret Banks is an officially-neutral journalist, she was there. Were they included in the count? I saw city staffers there, but don't know their positions.

Determining the size of a crowd is risky business. But in this case, I feel pretty confident about my numbers. Let me explain:

About 10 minutes into the meeting, I counted the people in the room, minus the media and city staffers. My count was 28. I knew most of these people by name or at least recognized their faces from previous TRC events. I consider them "supporters" because they have attended so many meetings - and no matter what they think about the report, they seem to be generally supportive of the process.

I didn't count Locke Clifford because I'd never seen him at a TRC event before.

Throughout the meeting, people came in and out of the room. I decided to round up to 30 in case I missed someone.

How come Beth didn't get a nod in the print edition?

Sue,

I'm not sure Beth would've gotten credit in the story had I known that's how JR found her. It's not typical to give that kind of credit when you do your own independent reporting.

But as it is, I didn't know Beth was the place we found the tip until I saw JR's blog this morning. He e-mailed me Sunday afternoon with a link to Lina's blog and suggested I try and get in touch with her. I didn't stick my nose in here at all Sunday.

Beth pointed to the blog entry, but that's it. We wouldn't give her credit simply by linking to someone else's blog. In the same way, if someone called us and said, hey, do a story on my neighbor who just returned from Lebanon, we wouldn't include that person in the story about the neighbor.

Howdy John,
Ashraf isn't local, he lives in Philadelphia, but he was 14 when he left Lebanon during the 1982 invasion. He's really up to speed and in contact with friends and family there, he knows what's going on. His blog is: http://archmemory.blogspot.com/ and I'm sure he'd love to talk with you.

And as far as crediting me goes... Hey, I just left myself a link, that's enough.

Margaret, your explanation pretty much makes it worse. Your qualification for deeming someone a TRC supporter was their attendance at many meetings?

Jerry Bledsoe qualifies by that criteria.

You don't explain how these people "seem to be generally supportive of the process". I'm not sure how sitting in a chair communicates much in the way of support, skepticism, or disgust, unless facial expressions and body language are much exaggerated. Even then, it could just be that somebody sitting near them smells bad.

Your disqualification of Locke Clifford because you'd "never seen him at a TRC event before" is equally mystifying. Sometimes people support things from their easychairs with their checkbooks. Sometimes people show up at meetings because they are opposed to something, and want to state that, or just represent it by taking up a chair that would otherwise seat a supporter.

The point is that this is journalism. It's supposed to be rock solid, confirmed, and triple-checked. I don't understand the casual, unconcerned approach to the reporting of knowable facts. Why did you choose to say "30 TRC supporters"? You could have chosen a description of the audience that you knew to be true, such as that it included some TRC supporters, instead of one you weren't sure about and didn't verify.

This particular misstatement isn't a big deal. The cumulative effect of writing assumptions into the historical record as fact, however, is enormous.

I'd like to see the newspaper embrace accuracy as a non-negotiable value. John, the editor, should care more than I, a reader, about this. I find it frustrating and off-putting that he frequently writes these complaints off as bias and special requests.

I do? I write errors off as bias and special requests, whatever those are? You lost me on that broad brush, Chewie.

Frequently, you do, yes. You ascribe partisanship to the complainee, and filibuster on how steadfast you must be against special interests wanting you to print something in their favor in the paper.

You'll admit how someone could possibly regard something as an error, but follow that with three times as much verbiage on how the uninformed populace really couldn't comprehend your difficult decision-making process. The punchline is often something like the post above this one, which casts the newspaper as an innocent victim of the prejudices of the masses.

Deliver accuracy, and you'll find the need for rationalization decreases in direct proportion.

Um, OK. I object to the term filibuster, and can't recall ever calling someone partisan or suggesting that the populace is uninformed. But I'll let those lie. One note on the post above: it actually suggests that "the masses" are much smarter than the partisans.

Mr. Robinson, does the fact that "the masses" easily see through political bias in news reporting make it OK to continue doing it since you're "not really fooling anybody?"
No harm, no foul?

Read the Post story, jaycee, and I think you'll know the point I was trying to make.

Thanks for the nod here, I really do appreciate it.