News-Record.com

The use of the word "everyone" is indeed purposeful, but its purpose, arguably, is to distract attention from what is actual: namely, the demographic makeup of blogoworld. As (a)someone who wanks on frequently on this blog and others and (b) an overeducated non-yet dead white male, I'd guess I'm probably more representative of contributors to this site than I am of Greensboro's demographic makeup generally. Sure, you can scare up a homeless blogger here or there, but overall the trend seems pretty clear.

If you don't believe me, look over to your right: of the "Links of Interest," I count 21 pretty clearly male names and only 4 female ones. (And that's giving Susan Everett full credit, even though Herb is obviously in charge of that blog.) Perusing the blogs for more 2 minutes, almost everyone seems white and middle class. Possibly the News and Record is displaying its racist, sexist bias here (Earl Jones, take note); possibly it's reflecting the actual makeup of a blogoworld that wants to think of itself as more diverse than it really is.

Using my blogroll as an indicator of anything other than my own laziness at keeping it up is perilous. Try Greensboro101 or Greensboroistalking.

That said, my guess is that the blogosphere is whiter and more middle-class than the population. One of the objectives of Converge is that it doesn't have to be that way.

Good luck. I think you're running up against two dynamics, though, over and above access to technology. (1) Civic engagement. I'd guess a strong demographic correlation, for example, between voting patterns and blog participation, with the exception of age demographics. (2) The gender gap. I think the 21/4 number is not that artificial, and for reasons that David Brooks wrote about in today's column. Specifically, I think women tend to view online communication as non-communication--i.e. as too thinned, lacking in contextual clues, disembedded from social contexts, etc.

Only guesses, though. I suspect there's some interesting research on the subject.

Several observations here.

First, John, due respect, not updating YOUR blogroll is an old and very tired excuse . . . especially for a journalist (and the person who some consider the "king" of the local blogosphere). Some of us started out as commentators - at your invitation no less. And I (for one) was really intrigued by the notion of "citizen journalism" . . . particularly the idea that the newspaper might be prompted to tell stories previously ignored (like mine in Asheboro, of "non-profit" hospital administrators breaking every rule in the book to monopolize public resources for their own purposes and run a good doctor out of town). But we got batted around and dissed for not having our own blog. I got mad enough to develop one - but it's not on your list.

Second, in terms of "debate", politically conservative (and occasionally even Christian) bloggers often find themselves subjected to insults and ridicule (often by people who blog under fake names or anonymously . . . or worse, gang up) on the very blogs you tout in this post. I think that ultimately this is going to backfire on the people who do it, because (again) it just makes the newbies angry enough to develop their own - and to network with others of like mind.

You and other blogger royalty speak of "community" and "everyone" being welcome", but it rings hollow in light of my own experience in the blogoshere - AND with local journalists.

Brian444 is right-on in his second post. Just yesterday I commented to a friend that I was (1) not black, (2) not Hispanic (or more specifically, had not hopped over the border illegally to drop my anchor baby/sign up for Medicaid), (3) not rich, (4) not politically connected, (5) not economically influential, (6) educated & reasonably articulate, and (7) law-abiding & tax-paying (when others in my sad saga were not). WHAT HOPE do I have of anybody (incuding the IRS - I will be meeting with an agent next month) helping me find "justice"?

By virtue of the criteria above, I don't merit consideration as a "victim" to write about/drum up that liberal sympathy for.

The Converge South list leans "left" and it does not take a rocket scientist to see it. The subject of Elizabeth Edwards heading up the Converge South was discussed on Ed Cone's blog (Ed being the High Priest of local bloggers) a few days ago. Those of us who raised the fairly obvious question of how her appearance could not be viewed as anything but a smooth political move were (predictably) "coned" and summarily dismissed. I have a lot of (reasonable) questions to pose to Ms. Edwards about her husband's performance as Senator (questions embedded in social context and personal experience as a public servant). Once again, I got "the Cone treatment".

Welcome to the "community".

Fair enough. If you want to draw conclusions about the blogosphere or my interests based on my blogroll, you can. Just be aware that I pay little attention to it because I don't think that basing anything on it -- other than my own lack of interest -- is valid.

Like all open communities, voices take all forms. Some are shrill and angry, others are gracious and shy. Most are in between. It's not just conservative and Christian blogs that get beat up. In some cases, they, too, are doing the beating. Never defensible, in my opinion, but it is what it is. I know I can't control others' behavior. On the other hand, I try not to go where it's clear I'm not wanted.

Personally, I think the voices online will grow. The blogosphere is not out of the bassinet. Communities of interest have developed and will continue to develop. If you -- and I mean anyone, not just you specifically -- don't like or feel supported by the community you're in, you can join others.

You've been vocal in your dislike of my decisions and the paper's coverage. I have tried to explain why we aren't pursuing your story. You disagree and that's fair enough. It's one of the purposes of this forum. But if you think I've tried to silence you or bat you around, you're mistaken.

John- where are they doing the beating? You said conservative and Christian bloggers are also doing the beating- where? You are right of course, if we don't like it we can leave. But don't patronize Dr. Mary by saying it works both ways- you cannot substantiate that claim at all.

I was thinking of the Chairman's Corner, for one, chip.

Chip, thanks, but I am used to being patronized. And, OBTW, I left off two other "criteria" for N&R coverage. I'm not gay nor terminally/seriously ill.

That, and my story is only eight years old . . . not thirty or fifty.

I was going to address this on my own blog (my laptop adapter died and I did not have enough power to do anything but check e-mails for the last few days), but here seems better. JR, you're absolutely right. I have been very critical of your paper and its policies. From where I am sitting (in the "citizen journalism" cheap seats), the criticism is well-deserved. And, as for my appearances here, you sure have let others bat me around. Your silence speaks volumes when the usual suspects show up (like they do at the Chairman's corner) to shut me up and start slinging the (very) personal insults and psychiatric referrals.

For the record, you have IN NO WAY explained WHY the N&R is not covering my story . . . indeed, has not even sent a reporter down to Asheboro to interview me or LOOK at the evidence. You've offered some fairly lame EXCUSES, but you have not given me/my family/my friends a good/solid reason WHY. And that is a big reason why most of us don't buy your paper anymore. My Mom still does . . . but her only alternative is the Courier Tribune.

You CANNOT say that mine is not a local story . . . in fact, I am informed that an N&R reporter showed up for the "Candidates Forum" in Asheboro on the 19th, so Asheboro IS "local". I could not go to that particular party. But two of my questions to several of the politicians in that room would be (1) Why can't you answer correspondence? (2) Don't you think community & non-profit leaders should be obliged to obey the law . . . and if they don't, shouldn't they answer for it?

You CANNOT say that my story is "not relevant" to the times, when (1) a former lottery commissioner is being prosecuted for essentially the same thing I've charged Randolph Hospital administrators with doing . . . that is, lying (under Oath) and withholding information that IRS code says was not theirs to withhold; or (2) North Carolina finally got handed its financial hat on the "disproportionate share" scam (hospitals over-billing for indigent care) . . . OBTW our state newspapers did not so much as whimper when NONE of the well-connected (mostly Democrat) hot-shots behind that veryexpensivetothetaxpayer fiasco went to jail; or (3) non-profits are under more scrutiny than ever for their business practices.

There's a half-dozen other "relevant" issues in law, medicine and politics that my case speaks to, but those are enough for now.

On the way back from NCBH today (I just had my first post-op check after the surgery to correct the botched 1997 job at Randolph), I stopped at the Master's Loft. A book caught my eye and I started to thumb through it. It was called "No More Christian Nice Guy" by Paul Coughlin. To quote Mr. Coughlin: "Timing is critical when fighting hypocrisy and other forms of injustice." Proverbs 3:27 (Old Testament) says, "Do not hold good from those who deserve it, when it is in your power to act."

My voice is angry. It's angry, in large part, because of the treatment I have received by "the community" I served . . . faithfully and well. Once again (for the deaf), I was fired after I ignored unethical & amoral threats made by my hospital "bosses", to answer a nurse's call and save a newborn infant's life. My life and my dream were destroyed for doing the right thing. It was wrong. I was sued (unsuccessfully) for telling the truth. I got no help from the government I served. That was wrong. And finally, I was denied justice when those same hospital bosses lied under Oath to shield their books from scrutiny and get their way. The law says that was a crime. Where is the N&R?

I deserve justice. I have deserved it for a long time. It IS in you power (as both the N&R Editor and GSO "Blogger King") to act. It's also in Ed Cone's power (as "High Priest") to lend some support to a "newbie". But BOTH of you have made it crystal clear (on mulitple occasions) that you're withholding the help you KNOW you could provide in terms of me getting the word out . . . and the help/attention on this case that I need to make things move.

I don't like it. And I am not going away.

Converge that.

Okay. Time to rage comment.

See. Again. OBVIOUS issues trying to figure out what ConvergeSouth is. Perhaps I need to spell it out for some.

For some odd reason, every corner I turn, I'm seeing this "blah blah blah... ConvergeSouth is liberal... blah blah blah." Then I hear. "Oh yeah, I'm not going." Or, it's all white males. What the heck do you expect from the Internet? Supermodels?

Uhh.. okay? If you don't like Ed, that's fine. Whatever. I really don't care what the issues are. You don't like JR or N&R or whatever? Hey.. whatever. I happen to like both while I have my differences with them on certain issues.

But don't go around talking crap about ConvergeSouth when you have no clue about it and aren't going because it's "too liberal". It wasn't a political talk conference like FreedomNet (although last year there was a political session) and it's never going to be. The idea behind it is to use the technology to drive the voice, be it a shrilly, angry or calm. Really, what the hell does demographics have anything to do with this. It doesn't take a genius to see that you have to be able to get on the Internet and that most conference-goers in general are white males (I have yet to go to any music/tech/blog conference where the majority isn't white males).

I'm REALLLLLY sick of people bitching about how they're not coming. Fine. Don't come. I don't want to read about your sob story when the justification comes out of the left field. Just ask Guarino. He went last year, had a great time as did many local conservative bloggers.

JR, you're welcome to delete the comment at any time if you feel like it's coming on too strong. Won't be censorship at all from my end. But I'm sick and tired of having to explain to people what ConvergeSouth means and is about and trying to plead with them to come and at least try it. Maybe I shouldn't even bother. Whatever.

Dr. Johnson, I don't know how much more clearly I can say that we're not interested in committing the time and investment into your story. You are burning with the injustice you see in your case. I appreciate that. As I've suggested before, perhaps another media outlet will pursue it. That's the value of having multiple competitors in a market. But we have enough on our plate right now.

As for "letting" bat you around, I try to let the commenters have their say without committing libel or cursing. I would like people would be constructive and civil -- and use their real names -- but that seems to be too much to ask. In the future, if there are comments that you believe are offensive, please let me know.

Darkmoon, "rage" all you like. MAYBE if the invited guests and speakers to Converge South showed a little bit more political and phislosophical diversity, you/Ed/the organizers lobbing the softballs to the Edwards camp (and doing the "happy dances") would not be getting the "push-back". John Edwards is a polarizing figure for many of us who believe that he totally sold out the state of North Carolina with his 2004 Presidential run. And personally speaking (as a public servant burned), the Senator totally left me behind in the dust of his populist rhetoric and one of his own lofty ideas. But who cares as long as the former trial lawyer (who made a good portion of his millions suing doctors) can build his Kennedy compound outside of Chapel Hill? I'm genuinely sorry Elizabeth Edwards battled breast cancer (a doctor-friend of mine once wondered aloud if the Edwardses would use the same kind of pseudo-science the Senator once used to crank up C-Section rates and sue the fertility doctors). But if you/others don't get that "using the technology to drive the voice" of Ms. Edwards sounds just a little bit self-serving for the wife of a past/future Presidential candidate (and let's all stop pretending there) who is also releasing/selling a book, FINE.

The people organizing this event can't see that EE's appearance is a BIG off button for some and that's fine too. But please DO NOT blather on about voices in the "community" you say you want to build, when you "rage" about the (very valid) point they make. Perhaps you'd do better acknowledging the point - and doing something to AT LEAST balance it. Whatever you do, I sincerely hope you have fun. It is doubtful I will be there. I've had my own health issues to deal with . . . related to real malpractice (for which I did not sue) . . . and was pounded for bringing that up recently on ED's blog. But then again, I'm not EE and don't rate the liberal compassion.

"High Priest" (and N&R columnist) Ed Cone (who once chastized me for letting my faith influence the way I view what government is supposed to do) has said on one or two occasions that the only "angle" he can see to my story is my use of the web to try and get it to the masses (because John here has "too much on his plate). Seems like I might be a good person to encourage to "Converge". I've certainly blogged more than four times in nine months (I think that was the number Roch threw out for EE).

John, apart from a couple of professional journals (who have taken the time to interview me - and have published on my story), the "outside media outlets" I have contacted have all opined that mine is a local story . . . and several reporters/Editors have wondered aloud about what is going on in Randolph & Guilford Counties that I haven't seen ANY kind of coverage of my situation. You see, I am getting the same kind of jurisdictional dance from the "journalists" that has been thrown my way by local/state/federal authorities for over EIGHT years. If you apprecitated ANYTHING about my case, you'd have sent a reporter down here long ago. I simply don't believe it would break the N&R's bank to do that . . . especially when you're spending loads of time and front-page print space on thirty (T&R) and fifty (injustice against homosexuals) year-old stories.

I don't rate with the N&R - for all of the reasons I outlined in previous posts. Newspapermen these days seem to be very concerned about circulation. Consider this. Maybe there are many more people like me out there in your "community" . . . burning with the "injustice" of what is going on in our local and state governments (fat cats who break the rules getting fatter on the public's dime, while the "ordinary" Jane and John Q. Publics of this world follow the rules, pay for everything, and get screwed). And maybe they're just as disgusted as I am. Investigative journalism is clearly dead . . . it's easier for newspapers to wait until charges/lawsuits get filed - and then just file the story. It also would be nice to see news organizations apologize to individuals and communities when they get it wrong (ala Ethan Fiensilver). I think these things ultimately translate into who buys your paper . . . or doesn't . . . and why. I KNOW it has some relevance as to who does NOT buy your paper in Randolph County.