News-Record.com

John, an interesting story and an interesting dilemma. I came across this blog post about similar services in the early age of photography: http://www.kirchersociety.org/blog/?p=813. Apparently, such photography was a common practice in Victorian times. I guess everything old is new again.

I'm not sure that it would have done a disservice to the reader if it had been positioned right. Perhaps on an inside page.

Wrong in the paper, right on the web. I don't get it.

Not sure what you mean, but I'll take a stab, Roch. The photos can surprise you in the paper. You don't have a choice whether to see them or not. Pull up the Life section and there they are.

They don't surprise you on the Web. You know what you're going to see and then you have to click to see them.

That and that the images are tame Web fare. They aren't tame newspaper fare.

I'm not buying the forewarning for the web content. There are many ways to navigate to this page from the N&R site and elsewhere on the web, most without an indication of what is to be seen. One is just as likely to be surprised on the web as in the paper.

Nonetheless, I am truly more intersted in the distinction you seem to be making for the appropriatness of material under the N&R banner in print versus under the N&R banner on the web. I'm just wondering why print readers should be deprived of or, conversely, why web readers should be subjected to certain types of content. You seem to imply that newspaper fare should be tame.

A photograph of a dead baby (anywhere) is "tame"?

I think the service offered is lovely and well-intended . . . and yes, once the practice was fairly common. But it is wrong in the paper. And it is wrong on the web.

It is the worst kind of manipulation and intrusion to even ask a family dealing with that kind of grief to publish photos of this nature. There is nothing more emotionally wrenching or soul-crushing than the loss of a child. Emotions and reactions are all over the place. As what the parents & family are feeling evolves, they very well could change their minds about the permission they gave. What do you do then?

It also begs the question how low will you go to sell papers or generate Google hits? As for not being surprised, I was skimming your post, and simply clicked the link to continue reading before I really processed what I was clicking.

I don't get it either, Roch. But probably for different reasons. And "non getting" what the N&R does is certainly nothing new.

Sure, Roch, we distinguish between the Web site and the newspaper in several ways, not the least of which is the difference in deadlines and in space.

On matters of taste, I agree with you that people can get to this page without an indication of what is going to be viewed, but it takes more doing. I headlined the post to indicate that it was going to be about photos of dead people, a headline that you'd likely see before you saw the photo. And, it is much less likely that someone would stumble upon that post innocently.

On the other hand, it's highly likely that people would come upon photos and story in the newspaper. It's also highly likely that they wouldn't know what the story was about until after they looked at the photo. And, because the newspaper is read by about a zillion more people than my blog, there's a good chance that a larger number of them would be upset by what they saw.

Online, if you don't like what you've found, you click out of it and go on your way. In the newspaper, you can throw an entire section away, but then you miss the comics and puzzles, the other stories and the ads. And you have the risk of other people in your household -- children -- seeing something that you might not want them to see.

Right call. Many print readers would have lost their minds had you published the photo. (See comment above your last one)

And thank you for posting the picture in your post. It hit me hard with goosebumps and all.

It is a powerful picture of a loving and very meaningful moment. That child, however short lived, is now immortalized to me. What could be more fitting and honorable to the child and the bereaved parents?

I think the service offered is lovely and well-intended . . . and yes, once the practice was fairly common. But it is wrong in the paper. And it is wrong on the web.

It is the worst kind of manipulation and intrusion to even ask a family dealing with that kind of grief to publish photos of this nature. There is nothing more emotionally wrenching or soul-crushing than the loss of a child. Emotions and reactions are all over the place. As what the parents & family are feeling evolves, they very well could change their minds about the permission they gave. What do you do then?

I think this is a bit manipulative to put thoughts and emotions into the minds of people who are dealing with a loss. Feelings evolve in everyone. Everyone has decisions that they would like to rescind. What do you do then? You can't unring a bell, but you can't expect people to ignore the fact that something like this exists. And to avoid it is to put it into the more prurient realms of the web, where there is less of a mainstream presentation. Instead of stigmatizing these images, perhaps the N&R would better serve the community by "norming" them. In fact, the story itself may help bring comfort to a member of the community who deals with such a loss by providing information about this service.

Think of it this way: You have no problem seeing a photograph of a small baby who is asleep. The baby that is dead is not any different in the image than the baby that is asleep. Perhaps it is our own mortality that we are uncomfortable with, more than the images of children "at rest."

I don't disagree with you much, Bryan, although it's hard for me to imagine a time when photos of the dead would be a norm. In any case, our issue wasn't the image as much as the concern that we'd almost be practicing a bait-and-switch with our readers.

David, I really wish you could post an opinion without snark ("see comment above your last one"). It might serve you better if you run for something again. John himself said that featuring the photos would be "jerking the reader around" . . . a kind of "bait and switch". He's right.

I have watched moments like this in person on a number of occasions. It is intensely emotional and private experience, and even as the child's attending physician, I've felt like an intruder . . . an outsider. Once your duty is done, you step outside, and you leave the family alone.

It's not about "stigmatizing" images like these. Such a moment should not be manipulated by the press (in any venue) and having that opinion does not constitute "loosing one's mind". Again, what if a parent later changes their mind about granting permission to publish . . . or regrets the decision to share? You can't unring the bell. What do you do then, John?

What might be more fitting and honorable to the child and his/her grieving parents is to tell the story of the wonderful service that this "non-profit" is doing while respecting their privacy. Not too long ago you argued that cartoons were too offensive for the eyes of your readers (both online and in print). Words and descriptions were enough you told us. Many argued that it was their decision to make. You would not be moved.

Yet a dead baby and a grieving family is "tame". I really don't get it.

"Goosebumps" aside, you're not reporting on a war . . . or a terrorist attack. With this story, you are essentially promoting a service ("so that readers could get a sense of what they might get if they went this route") . . . advertising if you will. You can promote the service . . . and even "provide comfort" . . . without printing the actual pictures. I don't think it's appropriate.

And I think you did not feature these photos because you knew many of your readers would feel the same way.

By the way -- and I probably should have put in the original post -- the family that sent us those photos volunteered them for publication. Katie Reetz told me: "At no point did I ask her to share them. Tammy Becker, who I talked to for the story, said she's proud of her son and wants to share him with the world. She said she wanted to share the photos in the hope that it might help other parents deal with their grief."

I've had the misfortune to see dead people, young and old, all over the world.
I think it's in poor taste.
Think of all the parents who've buried their small children. The grief you'd cause those unfortunate parents who've lost children can't be offset no matter how "loving" the pictures might be.

Mary, in this case, the child had died a year ago. I don't think the parents were going to change their minds.

I'm not sure what or if you're arguing with me about on the other points. I'm not the one who said the photos were tame or made any reference to goosebumps. I know they would offend many readers. Yes, that factored into the decision. And we didn't publish any of the child's photos on the front page.

I believe the physician has it very near perfect on this one. Report the service...not the pics.

There may be some parents that are comfortable with having their dead child published....there are many that are not.

John, I believe you made an excellent choice to not show the photos.

For those who have never experienced this very sad event...go back and read that even the Doc should leave the room......and simply imagine for a few seconds that you are the parent.

"John, I believe you made an excellent choice to not show the photos." -- meblogin

But he did show them.

I have one child (almost two years old) and one on the way. I am still haunted by this story that I read yesterday, and I made sure that I threw the paper out after I had read it yesterday (much to the chagrin of my wife) I did not want my pregnant, emotional wife having to deal either with this story or with the gut wrenching picture. I found it unbelievably morbid, and I wish I had never seen it.

Look I get that you have the freedom to publish whatever you want, however I would have appreciated some type of warning accompanying even the picture in the paper and now that I have seen the one that you published here I am sure that that will be burned onto my brain for a long time as well. I have enough worries about praying and hoping for a healthy child without having to be reminded so vividly what could happen.

Maybe I am wrong here, or I haven’t thought through this very well, but I just find this whole story highly inappropriate. I mean why does this even need to be news? I think this kind of thing is a private personal story and it should be left there. I also understand from John’s comments here that the parents seemed eager to share this story. I would have liked to have been saved from their eagerness to bring this story out into the light.

Please don’t get me wrong, I ache for them and their loss, yet I don’t see how me having to feel bad about it and stir up internal worries of my own helps anyone. I don’t know maybe in some way this was cathartic for them and if so I’m glad for them, I’m just not very glad for myself, and the worry this brings.

John Appel and Nick Vipperman raise a legitimate point. Many parents who have lost a child . . . or those who are anxious about a pregnancy or long-term illness . . . do not need to have their memories/emotions/anxieties/fears triggered by something like this. Images of this nature (be they from photogrpahs or real life) burn into your brain and stay there.

I'm quoting you, John: "That and that the images are TAME Web fare. They aren't TAME newspaper fare." I don't make the same distinction, so I guess I'm arguing with you.

MeB, Roch is right. John DID publish one of the photos - on an "inside" page of the paper - and on his blog. He then asked us to pat him on the back for not "featuring" them in an "art" layout. He did NOT make a decision to publish or not publish. He just wanted us to agree with his rationalizations about how and where he published the picture(s).

I understand this young Mother's desire to "share her son with the world". But you must understand that just a year out, her feelings are still fresh and very raw. Her desire for the memory of her child to live on (and the tragedy of his death to serve some purpose) is perfectly natural and understandable . . . even if the methodology for "helping others cope with their grief" is a bit naive. But there were/are ways for the N&R to encourage her and help her do that without exploiting her - and manipulating readers (both of the newspaper and the website).

Finally, if "eagerness to share" a story were a legitimate criteria for the News & Record, then they would have reported my story (about stunts pulled by another "non-profit") years ago. I have wanted/needed/begged for the attention and assistance of John's "zillions of (print) readers" for a long time . . . for a news story about how a doctor got hosed for SAVING a newborn infant's life eight years ago . . . as opposed to promoting what amounts to a glorified ad featuring the photograph of a dead baby.

John from your mismashed logic over the cartoons, to your GPD coverage, to your cruel/calculated burial of my story, to this . . . you can talk about "journalistic ethics" all day long and I don't get it. I guess never will.

Yes, my mistake on the tame reference. Please, please don't assign other words or thoughts to me. I wasn't looking for a pat on the back. In fact, I asked for opinions. And I did note quite clearly in the post that we published one photo inside.

It feels presumptuous to me to describe the mother's motives and emotions. Seems to me that she's able to make her own decisions. Her eagerness to share wasn't a criteria. It was merely an attempt to explain why she was willing to allow us to use the photos.

You and I disagree over what a newspaper does, Mary. I accept that.

Again, John, here is what you said: The family that sent us those photos volunteered them for publication. Katie Reetz told me: "At no point did I ask her to share them". Tammy Becker, who I talked to for the story, said she's proud of her son and wants to share him with the world. She said she wanted to share the photos in the hope that it might help other parents deal with their grief.

You went on to justify the newspaper's publication of the photos by telling us that the child died a year ago . . . apparently more than enough time, in your book, to process the loss.

I therefore see no "presumption" in my assessment of the situation . . . or how the N&R took advantage of this Mother's "eagerness to share". I admire her strength and generosity of spirit. Her motives were no doubt pure . . . well-intended . . . and very commendable. It is the paper's motives I question.

"Continuing with the appropriate to publish theme", you asked for opinions. I gave you mine . . . both as a physician who has dealt with the death of babies and children . . . and as a woman who once helped her best friend's husband pick out a tiny coffin for their two-day-old son (who died of a complex congenital heart defect). When they left Asheboro (the place they had planned to call home), they had to leave him here.

It's just part of that story your "local" newspaper has kept hidden from its "zillions" of readers.

Re: "You and I disagree over what a newspaper does, Mary. I accept that."

I don't. And I will be all over you in these blogs until you start playing fair and get it right.

Roch,

...oh...from David's post I deduced incorrectly that the pics were only here. Sorry--my mistake

John,

Many examples come to mind of other pictures of death that one would hope you would refrain from either print or web.

The article was wonderful...no need for pics.

Go find the currently pregnant and ask them.

I see you as innocent and now educated.

thanks

Normally, meblogin, this is the point where I join everyone else in leaving the discussion. But as you're still here, I will say this. I have not been educated yet. (Insert jokes here.) Virtually everything we publish draws fire from some offended constituency. The choice is, thinking of what will serve readers, where is the public value.

We thought the photos would help people understand the story but we also knew some people would be offended. That is a main reason we published a photograph inside the paper. It was a judgment call.

Mary brings up the Mohammad cartoons. It's similar, in a way. We didn't publish the cartoons because the mere fact of depicting Mohammad was offensive to Muslims. People were rioting over them. We thought they could be described effectively in words. We published a photo of the stillborn baby because we thought it was necessary to let readers know what the story was about.

Some readers, Mary being one, thought we should have published the Mohammad cartoons, and in this case, not the stillborn baby photo.

Different judgments. Different standards.

"Normally, meblogin, this is the point where I join everyone else in leaving the discussion."

Your true colors burn brightly, John.

And MeB, for all that these blogs are supposed to provide feedback that the paper takes seriously, John is immune to such "education". The N&R's coverage of the GPD police debacle is evidence enought of that. This newspaper does not learn from its mistakes.

John, I brought up the Muslim cartoons to point out that your journalistic "judgements and standards" are warped. People may have been rioting (which speaks to the fear and cowardice that actually fueled your decision not to publish), but the Muslim cartoons were NEWS . . . in large part, because PEOPLE WERE RIOTING. The rest of us deserved to see what people were rioting about and make our own judgements. The cartoons themselves were open to a myriad of interpretations by the beholder . . . so words were, in fact, not effective. In terms of the First Amendment and freedom of the press/religion, the Danes wound up being more "American" than Americans.

In stark contrast, publishing photos of dead children to promote a service provided by a non-profit entity, is NOT news. For purposes of your story, those pictures could have been described very effectively . . . and provided (by the non-profit) to those readers who made inquiries. This would have promoted the service without offending anyone AND fulfilled the Mother's wish to share and help others.

Instead the photos were published in print and on the web . . . even as you wanted a pat on the back for not featuring them front page. It's called having your cake and eating it too.

Describing the photo(s) was an opportunity to write something beautiful and etheral. In the right hands, it might have been remarkable journalism.

"Different judgements, different standards" indeed. "Please, please" don't mind if I continue to try to (1) get you to give more thought to your judgements and (2) hold you to a higher standard . . . even if you leave the conversation (because the thread didn't generate the fawning praise for cutting-edge journalism you were obviously fishing for).

Just to be clear, Mary: I leave because you and I have reached yet another impasse, and, judging by the comments, everyone else has long ago left.

By the way, please let me know when you run into that fawning praise you refer to....I don't seem to recognize it in the comments as often as you apparently do.

Well (as demonstrated in this thread), Hoggard comes to mind . . .

As an observation, both you and sometime N&R columnist/blogger priest Ed Cone (who linked this post) seem to be suffering mightily these days from a significant bit of disenchantment with the commentary you INVITE and/or provoke on your blogs.

But neither of you seem to be gleaning anything from the dissenting voices who care enough to show up and engage. I've been down for a while . . . reading but not commenting. It's my observation that you tune certain voices out from comment one.

Maybe people left this thread (or didn't comment at all) not because you and I have reached "yet another impasse", but because they KNOW you will never change your mind . . . or modify your position (despite asking for the input). Maybe they're tired of the (not-so-subtle) snark. Maybe they figure, what's the point?

Journalists and dissidents in the former Soviet Union are being murdered right and left in the name of getting the truth out there . . . for encouraging the kind of dialogue & public discourse you're so quick to abandon. America should be showing the world how journalism and free speech is done . . . fearlessly, fairly and without bias . . . with class and integrity.

I often wonder what happened.

If I really showed the thoughts you assign me, you would have been banned from commenting on this site long ago.

Because we don't agree doesn't mean that I don't listen. But simply asking for input doesn't stake me out as requiring a change of mind. Have you changed your mind as a result of one of these discussions?

We obviously disagree on what the newspaper should do on all sorts of topics. You're going to "be all over" me in this blog. OK. But it doesn't encourage me to think we're going to have a civil, constructive discussion. And if we're not going to have that, what's the point?

You two need a good boxing ring.

Here we go with the "banning" threat again. Please. You don't have any reason to ban me other than the fact that I disagree with you . . . and can be both articulate and persistant in defending my position.

John, you're a newspaper Editor who has set up a blog (and "networked" with a several prominent local bloggers) on the pretense of journalistic "transparency". You repeatedly INVITE commentary and opinion from the community (as you did here). In this thread, you've had both a physician/web-reader and a parent/print-reader tell you that the paper crossed a line it shouldn't have. I'm not "encouraged" at all by your responses that you really "listened" to our objections. It fits a long-standing pattern.

It is fascinating now (and more than a little satisfying) to watch Jerry Bledsoe and the Rhino pound the N&R's horribly biased coverage of the GPD fiasco into the ground. Was what you did to David Wray "constructive"? Have you done ANYTHING that might be considered "constuctive" in terms of shining light on the CRIMES that were committed against a home-grown Pediatrician . . . by officials at a "local" non-profit hospital? What you do . . . or do not do . . . affects people's lives. And the N&R has left some bodies in its wake.

It's a wonder that some of us with the guts to challenge the almighty infallible N&R have been as "civil" as we have in these discussions.

I'm not Jim Webb, Annon (I would have liked to have seen what the Secret Service might have done to the freshman Senator from Virginia had he taken a punch at President Bush). I don't need the boxing ring. I need a newspaper with some intestinal fortitude that doesn't play favorites.

Words are powerful things. They would have been very powerful had they been properly applied in this particular situation (describing the photos instead of publishing them) . . . and a chance for a journalist to shine.

"You don't have any reason to ban me other than the fact that I disagree with you..."

Dr. Johnson, that's plenty enough to invoke the N&R Censorship Act.
If you don't believe it, cruise some of the other non-N&R blogs and see how many people have been banned by Lex Alexander because they challenged his lies in the N&R.

Where do we draw the line for describing photos instead of publishing them? Nick Ut's photo from the Vietnam War showing the naked girl burned by napalm is so much more disturbing to me than any of the photos I saw on NILMDTS, but I can't believe words, powerful as they can be, would ever describe that situation as powerfully as Ut's photo. And why should writers be the only journalists allowed to shine? I love a good narrative, but I'm a big fan of photojournalism, too.

Also, what's offensive about the photo if you don't read the caption or story? Coming across this photo wile thumbing through the paper is not going to shock anyone at first glance. It's our personal feelings about death that create any problems we may have looking at this photo. People in other parts of the world aren't nearly as squeamish when it comes to viewing a corpse (Lenin's Mausoleum comes to mind). Also, if we don't care to read the story we can easily move on to Ask Ann or Brewster Rockit. Some of that intestinal fortitude you refer to, Mary, might serve us all well.

I look at the photo of the dead baby and I feel sad, but the sadness I feel is for the family who has to deal with their loss. If having a tastefully done photo of their baby helps them through their painful experience, who am I to speak against that? I felt empathy for anyone having to deal with the loss of a baby as I read Katie's story, and I was grateful to the mother who shared her story and helped me understand how a fellow human deals with a tragedy.

After finishing the story I took a deep breath, counted my blessings, and hoped I could be as helpful in such a stressful situation.

I know Jaycee. Even though I've been down, I've been reading. There is a lot of similarity between my situation and Chief Wray's. We both were recruited "home" to clean up a mess . . . and when we did, we were crucified. My misfortune has been to have my story buried ("banned" is a good word) by the newspapers and ignored by law enforcement (serving the agenda of the powers-that-be) while two overpaid/corrupt hospital officials dance right along. Chief Wray's misfortune was to be crucified by the newspaper to help city officials (and the powers-that-be) rationalize their bad decisions and cover their tracks. In both cases, corruption rules and plows forward unchecked, and the public (who in GSO will ultimately foot the bill for the myriad of lawsuits to follow) is not well served by the journalism that is practiced.

I know why Bledsoe burns.

"What's offensive about the photo if you don't read the caption or the story?" Rob, you are right. The photos are not offensive in and of themselves. From my standpoint (having seen the real thing) they are ethereal and surreal. But the caption and the story are the point are they not? Photojournalism does not exist in a vacuum. Respectfully Rob, this is NOT a news story . . . like the photo of child with melting skin in Vietnam or the faces of dead babies gassed by Saddam. Again, the N&R was promoting a service . . . a commendable service . . . a service that has a website he could have simply referenced in his story or linked to. In this case, there were other ways to do it.

This call was about about journalistic insight and respecting your readers . . . all of your readers . . . especially those who do not have the "intestinal fortitude" to deal with something like that. It's about compassion for the personal feelings of those who might not be able to process or digest these photos in the way Rob or Hoggard did. John asked us if he made the wrong call.

He made the wrong call.

Part of an Editor's job (like my job . . . and a police chief's job) is to see the big picture. In this case, and in many others, I think the N&R's insight was/is lacking.

"This call was about about journalistic insight and respecting your readers . . . all of your readers . . . especially those who do not have the "intestinal fortitude" to deal with something like that."

But where does the line start and stop? There are many people in the area who have family overseas fighting a war, many of whom have lost those family members. Should we not cover the war or have photos of wounded soldiers in the paper to avoid dredging up memories?

We have people who have lost their homes in a fire. Should we not run photos of fires in case we offend those readers?

We have people who have lost pets. Should we avoid cute animal pictures so we don't remind them of what's no longer there?

Should we stop running photos of people walking and exercising in case we offend readers who no longer can?

Once you make the case for not running one photo based on what would offend readers (a beautiful photo that, in this case, I totally agree with running inside to help better tell the story), it's a slippery slope for your other decisions.

And I really wish you could read our minds -- no matter what you might think of us, no matter whether you always agree with our decisions, we honestly have the readers' best interests at heart. If we didn't, we wouldn't be in this business -- working nights and long hours, low pay, dealing with the heartbreak that goes with covering and editing some of our stories, not seeing family as much as we'd like to, and then hearing on a regular basis how we did it wrong -- you don't stay in the business for long if you don't honestly think you are making a difference and helping the community.

Mel, please. You're a journalist and you honestly can't look at the examples you provide and see the lines to draw? Wars and fires are news. I am assuming that the "cute animals" you're talking about are alive. If you're talking about printing a picuture of the piles of dead animals at the animal shelters (to make us aware of how irresponsible and cruel the human race can be), then that's a different story. It's news.

In this instance, we are talking about the photograph of a dead human being that the N&R ran as part of a "human interest" story that amounted to a glorified ad for services.

You are lecturing the WRONG person on personal sacrifice. I KNOW all about working nights and long hours and (even) low pay and dealing with heatbreak and not seeing family as much as I'd like. I also know a great deal about criticism . . . having been sued unjustly and unsuccessfully for "libel" because I dared challenge the powers-that-be in Asheboro (who were the REAL liars) . . . AND having been slapped around in these blogs because I won't just lie down and take it (or accept John's word as the last word on local journalism). I'm NOT the sterotypical "rich doctor" that apparently everyone everywhere loves to resent/hate. I am a home-girl who chose public service and saw her life-as-she-knew-and-dreamed-it destroyed for doing the right thing.

I've been working on the road (all over this state) for eight years, making one-third to half of what I should be earning during "the most important earninig years of my life", watching people who suffer no scrutiny act with impunity to get whatever they want because of who they are and who they know. Please note that Asheboro is just miles from Robbins - and I have lived the "Two Americas" theme that the N&R's wonder-boy, John Edwards, harps about all my life.

These people can lie and cheat and steal and nobody (especially not the journalists who "serve" this area) holds them accountable for their actions.

In my travels, I have seen and coped with some awful, gut-wrenching, soul-crushing things . . . things that rival or top what happened in Asheboro for their sheer ugliness, greed and inhumanity. I've watched, over and over again, "business" corrupt a noble profession.

I've kept plodding, hoping against hope that one day someone would WAKE up and really look at what is happening to medicine . . . hoping against hope that one day I might actually see the justice I was raised to believe in done. I've done it because I honestly believe that what I am doing would make a better community . . . particularly a better/safer/more accountable/HONEST medical community.

What I did in Asheboro eight years ago, prevented one set of parents from having to consider a photo like the one the N&R published. But in the N&R's book the photo deserves the attention of its "zillions" of print readers, and I don't.

Your newspaper full of crusading journalists so concerned with "making a difference for the community" has not seen fit to give me the time of day. It's just fundamentally wrong, and I'm telling you so.

Those photos opened old wounds, and I'm sorry if I've digressed more that I should. But once again, we're talking about the repsonsibilities of journalism. Once again, the N&R (even though it asked) won't even consider the possibility it made the wrong decision.

I really wish I could read your minds too.

John -- You need an ignore list. That way, readers who want to have an intelligent, agenda-free discussion about tough calls such as this one -- and this one is a particularly tough call -- can do so. And those who want to continue to tie everything into their own narrow agendas can continue to post, realizing that many readers have set their preferences to skip right past those posts.

Beau, this was not a "tough call" unless the "agenda" you're wrestling with is how far you're willing to push the envelope on a "feature story" (Sue helped establish that it was not news in another thread) in order to stir the pot.

As your "ignore list" idea, that would seem to defeat the stated purpose of the N&R blogs . . . for "one voice" to be heard and/or make a difference. Alas, that's a totally bogus notion that unfortunately many of us bought into when these blogs first burst onto the scene (and the reason we're seething). As jaycee has pointed out, some N&R blogs are already "banning" voices that disagree.

John asked me earlier if I ever changed my mind. The problem with that question is that I am not the one asking for "feedback" on the pretense my mind can (or needs to) be changed. That would be John Robinson, Editor of the News & Record and "king" of the local blogosphere. And I see no evidence whatsoever that he (who has left the conversation) is listening.

Mary, I would wager that I speak for many people who'd prefer to remain silent when I say that a far greater reason for disappointment in the blogs is that every discussion is hijacked by the same small group of people obsessed with slamming the paper over the same narrow concerns.

Here's the rub. I for one have no opinion about the issue that had made you so angry. I don't know enough about it, and I can't say whether I'd make a different call if I were in John's shoes. I also wouldn't be as politically outspoken as Lex has been on his blog -- I wouldn't even reveal my political registration if I were required to register with a party.

So I *might* disagree with John or Lex about the same issues you and jaycee raise.

And yet I find I can have civil conversations with both of them.

Neat trick, isn't it?

Beau, my conversations with John are "charged" with feeling and emotion (at least from my end), and are occasionally laced with sarcasm and snark (on both ends), but by-en-large they are "civil". Again, John is the journalist asking for opinion about what he's doing (and pretty much never taking the advice he gets from those who disagree). And in this conversation, he is the one with all of the power. I don't like the way he wields it. It's a growing club.

Re: "the neat trick". I've said this on Ed's blog and I'll say it here, as a physician - indeed as a human being - I was never, ever called the names I've been called since I dared bring my story to the blogosphere (not being able to get it told in local print).

You have "no opinon" about the issue that has made me so angry because you don't know enough about it. Well, there's my rub: I am accusing two local "non-profit" hospital executives of (among other things) perjury, contempt and fraud . . . the same kinds of crimes for which a former President of the United States was impeached and disbarred. What these two overpaid "public servants" did cost me hundreds of thousands of dollars at settlement, AND the chance to pick up the pieces of my life and practice (the whole point of the lawsuit).

Now, one would think that you and I have the right to expect non-profit executives - indeed anyone - to tell the truth when they're sworn under Oath. Federal and state law says that the crimes I have reported are felonies and punishable by fines and jail time. But the law has not been enforced by the Randolph County District Attorney/Sheriff or the Asheboro Chief of Police . . . because they are all bowing to the wishes of the mill-town "powers-that-be" . . . some of whom "oversee" (as Board members of the hospital) what these two executives do. To avoid conflicted interests, I asked for an independent SBI investigation (as I was told by a number of lawyers to do). The investigation was killed (by the DA) before it could start. In a legal sense, I would be better off if I had been robbed on the street. The Attorney General says he cannot help me . . . that he's bound by jurisdiction . . . even though I was in state and federal service . . . even though I got fired for doing what my licensing board required . . . AND even though the hospital is licensed/privileged as a "non-profit" by the state. The IRS is supposedly investigating, but that's a big black hole. The Courier Tribune is a bust because David Renfro (the publisher) is best buds with the two executives I accuse. That leaves John and his newspaper.

My "rub" is that the News and Record can put out all this noble blather about one voice mattering . . . it can say it "serves" my community (it certainly sells papers there), yet the paper completely ignores this story of LOCAL corruption (with so many cautionary lessons to teach) . . . even as it slaves to someone's agenda by splattering the blood of David Wray all over the walls of GSO City Hall.

The primary job of the press is to police government. My "rub" is that you have "no opininon" on what has made me so angry because John has not done his job.

My "rub" is that a physician and former public servant who tried to do right and play by the rules can be accused of having an "agenda" when she uses the only mechanisms left to her (i.e. these blogs) to get her story out there and obtain justice against those who didn't.

After eight years of being mired in the muck, it would be a "neat trick" to see it finally happen.

Every year, at about this time, I get a Christmas card from the parents of the little girl whose life I saved. It's acutally just her picture (in this case worth a million words). Now, the card is lovely and I treasure every one. But I want my life back. It would be a great Christmas present.

Mary -- You're right in that I have no opinion because I don't know anything about it. I've seen your side of it once or twice, and I can't recall John's response. Even if I did, I'm sure there's more to the story. That's why I have no opinion.

At this point, I can't imagine you're hoping to change John's mind. Piling on the hostility generally isn't a good way to convince someone to see things your way, even if your initial point is valid.

What I'd suggest is this -- take your story to one of the other papers in the state. Maybe the N&O, maybe the Charlotte Observer, maybe Winston-Salem. The Salisbury Post was an excellent paper years ago -- not sure how it stands now, but maybe they're worth a shot. Take it to a medical journal. Heck, tell the Rhino, since some people in these parts think they're a legit alternate source of news. Some of those publications may be better placed to take your story.

If you can't get ANY of these publications interested, then at the very least you'll have diffused your anger among several newspaper editors, not just John. That might be healthier.

And then I'd suggest that one disagreement should not form your complete opinion of one person or one publication.

I know this seems to be harsh criticism from someone who doesn't understand your situation. I'm just telling you, in all sincerity, that from my distant vantage point, you don't seem credible. If you dialed down the knee-jerk hostility a notch and just laid out the facts, it might be a different story.

I have not been able to get on the blogs for the last day or so. The site would not upload.

"You don't seem credible."

My story has already been published in (1) a medical journal (scroll down to Medical Economics link) and (2) a state business journal. They found me "credible" enough.

Could it be that you don't find me "credible" because of the way JR has treated me/spoken to me on this blog?

Steve Twedt, of the Philadelphia Post Gazette found doctors like me "credible" a few years back when he did a series that told the stories of whistle-blowing docs who were destroyed for doing the right thing.

I have contacted several national/state newspapers, Beau. Every single one of them has opined that this is a LOCAL story and that either the Courier Tribune or the News & Record are the places to go. So, forgive me if I believe my "anger" is properly placed.

Here's another thought, I (like many other physicians in this kind of boat) have already had our credibility and reputations viciously attacked (I was unsuccessfully sued for "libel") . . . by hospitals that abuse their power. It is a problem that is getting NO press attention because (1) our advocacy organizations (like the AMA and NCMS) are pretending the problem doesn't exist, and (2) hospitals in this state rule (as evidenced by NO prosecution for ANY of the executives and politicians involved in the "disproportionate share" fiasco - where millions, if not billions of taxpayer dollars were diverted into the wrong pockets).

In my case, I suspect that my "credibility" with John and company has more to do with that (in the situation that got me fired eight years ago) I challenged the authority and competance of a doctor employed by a subsidiary of the MOSES CONE hospital system (a major N&R advertiser). This family physician falsely advertised his skills and abilities to the public (in an NEWSPAPER ADS sponsored by Randolph Hospital). After I rescued his tail in the "bad-baby" case that ultimately got ME fired (because I defied the threats of executives to report it), he had the gall to tell the parents that he has been "elected" "Chief of Neonatology" at Randolph Hospital . . . when NO such department existed and I chaired the Perinatal Committee (the one that was supposed to ensure "quality of care" at the hospital). Fortunately specialists at the tertiary-care facility came to my defense. The parents (good, God-fearing people) wound up apologizing to me.

My blood still boils every time I think about it (as they are the people who deserved the apology). So (again) forgive me if I think my anger (against those who continue to foster the status quo and cover tracks) is well-placed.

All of this stuff gets buried in Peer Review and the public doesn't hear about it. As a parent, if your baby was well on the way to being one of the subjects of these pictures John published, do you think you'd want to know who is competant and who is not?. Doctors (like me) who blow the whistle can get destroyed by a hospital abusing its power/resources to cover up a mess . . . particularly when the local newspapers won't report anything. It's happening all over this country. NO ONE is doing anything about it.

Since discovering that I was victimized AGAIN by blatant perjury and contempt on the part of Randolph Hospital executives (after spending three years warring with them trying to get my life back), I have laid out the facts over and over again. The DA has buried the case. State law gives one man ALL the power. There are NO checks or balances (like the Duke/Nifong fiasco in Durham). Yet John does not think this story of (real as opposed to manufactured) corruption is newsworhty. He can publish stories that tap dance all around it ("non-profit" salaries, "perjury doens't get prosecuted"), but he cannot tell my story (even as "human interest"). He won't even send a reporter to LOOK AT THE EVIDENCE.

If only, instead of reporters like Ethan Fiensilver and Lorraine Ahearn, we had journalists like Steve Twedt. We've have a "different story" . . . a story that might actually help other doctors and their patients.

Mary -- I liked the Post-Gazette series (it's Pittsburgh, fyi). Yes, that's good work, though it doesn't specifically mention your case. The other stories do, but they don't address the merits of your case.

I did a quick search and found some Asheboro content at the N&O. I wouldn't let them off the hook that easily. Besides, they view themselves as crusading Pulitzer-contending investigators, so they shouldn't let a little drive bother them.

Again, I don't know the full story, and perhaps I'd investigate if I were in John's shoes. But I can tell you that rash assumptions don't work. In this case, the Moses Cone link is one heck of an assumption. There's an old story that someone would know better than I would in which the N&R stood up for its right to point out that a contest at a Monarchs game was unwinnable -- costing the paper a hefty chunk of ad money for a while. I seriously doubt that even entered John's mind. And whatever you may think of Lex, I know he'd scream bloody murder if he thought advertising interest was silencing actual news-gathering.

Good grief, people. That's a lot of pixels over a newspaper doing what it gets paid to do. All this hand-wringing over "manipulating" the reader. Television kicked the daily newspaper's ass for all eternity when JFK was assassinated, although that pair of photos from the Dallas Morning News (Ruby lunging forward with the gun) and the Dallas Times Herald (Oswald in agony, absorbing the bullet) sure did stand the test of time.

Fast-forward to 2006 North Carolina, and an incredibly kind service which mirrors common practices of a century ago generates all of this righteous sensitivity! Note that I didn't say "over-sensitivity". Feelings just are. I get it.

But Mr. Editor, grow some fortitude! A legit enterprise with a story (that's your first clue) and compelling art (ding-ding!) comes across your desk, and you FOCUS-GROUP the obvious gem onto an inside page in a fingers-crossed effort not to offend one single person. This in spite of the fact that the parents in question suggested publishing in order to honor their children and share news of a GREAT service and wonderful human-interest story! (BTW: Roch101 is spot on target. To differentiate between the web and in print is hair-splitting at its most boring.)

Yes, it may remind lots of parents who lost a baby. If that's your criteria, please stop publishing accident photos, plane crashes, anything having to do with 9/11...you get my point.

Newspapers! Quit pussy-footing around and do your bleeping job! Surprise! Alarm! Inspire! Enrage! Cajole! Honor! Defend! Err! Get over it!

All of this navel-gazing is bringing you down. (Next thing you know, papers will stop making election endorsements or recuse themselves from having their knowledgeable sportswriters make a difference in college football polls.)

If it had been my decision, I would have told the press operators to prepare for an extra run and to make certain every ink jet was clean in order to make each copy as close to the original print as possible. I would have run it on a section front, large and with great typography to support the rare and beautiful photo. I would have asked the family, present-day, to sit for a portrait to let everyone know they're OK. And I still would have had the agonized back-and-forth you have this week but, Mr. Editor, I would have seized the rare moment to do something meaningful and something which would have made a huge impression in 99 percent of the homes I reach. I would have gone to bed that night knowing that I did not abdicate my responsibility, nor waste the vast array of tools I had earned, over my decades in the biz, the right to use.

Clifford J. Fewel
Aspen, Colorado

When my fingers are flying, typos inevitably result. You are correct re: Philadelphia vs. Pittsburgh.

Mr. Twedt and I did not communicate until after his series was written/published. The disturbing thing is that many doctors contacted him after the series was published . . . with more stories . . . just as awful as those he published . . . or worse. He told me that at some point, he might consider doing a follow-up. But honestly, he was lucky to get the first one published. It stepped on a lot of important toes. Truly courageous journalism.

I think the "credibility" of my case would best be served by a proper independent SBI investigation . . . don't you? All I am asking for is the law to work. If the law does not work, it is the newspaper's job to report that. This case is not in the N&O's backyard (and no, I have not let them off the hook . . . but at lease the stories they are publishing . . . re: the State Bar and the Medical Board . . . are getting warm).

The Moses Cone link is more of a reasonable deduction, Beau. It's incestuous, I suppose, to reference a link that references this one, but my latest blog post discusses the importance of hospitals (as the economic lynchpin of some communities - particularly small towns) keeping badness under wraps. They are big employers and big advertisers in local newspapers. At least that's the way it works in Asheboro. And (in case you haven't heard) Randolph & Cone boast a strong "cooperative relationship". The fact remains that the doctor who screwed up (in the case I reported) was/is a Cone doc. He has slept in his own bed for eight years. I have not.

So you're saying a fixed contest at a Monarchs game is more important to the paper than a physician who kept one infant from starring in one of John's artful pictures . . . and who was ripped off by a medicolegal system that is not working to protect the public? No. Of course you're not.

But that's EXACTLY what John is saying.

I've talked to Lex (via e-mail) about my perceptions of what is going on. He's told me he doesn't make the decisions. And he's not screaming bloody murder.

Missed Cliford's post before my last preview. He says, "Newspapers! Quit pussy-footing around and do your bleeping job! Surprise! Alarm! Inspire! Enrage! Cajole! Honor! Defend! Err! Get over it!"

I whole-heartedly agree, Clifford. But I don't think journalism is so much about making "an impression" ON 99% of those "zillions" of readers JR reaches as it should be about making a difference FOR THEM.

Dr. Johnson,

Thanks for responding. For some you will be doing something for. For some you will be offending. For some you will plant a seed so they can share the idea later with a friend.

No way to guarantee making a difference for someone, which makes a poor argument for pulling in your horns to do nothing so you don't risk offending anyone.

All the best,

Clifford

Thanks Clifford, you rock. I won't be pulling in my horns anytime soon.

I just think it's time I had some help (from those "local" jouranlists who say they want to make a difference) planting the seeds of knowledge. Knowledge keeps what happened to me from happening to anyone else. Just ask the doctors who are still in Asheboro . . . and were able to transition into their own practices . . . because I dared to stand up and say NO! Of course, these individuals have never given any indication that they realize the sacrifice . . . or appreciate it.

Being "collegial" (the Medical Board's new buzz word) means you look the other way.

Just today I heard from a former parent in Asheboro who had been referred to my website (by word of mouth as opposed to word of journalist). She said she was glad to know that Dr. Mary was "okay" and "still" in Asheboro.

I'm not, of course, and I sent her an e-mail telling her why. She told me how much her heart "hurt" when I told her I had been fired . . . and that it "still hurt" . . . and that "we knew something was not right with that picture".

A lot of parents (and colleagues) felt that way when it happened. They wrote letters to the executives who screwed me . . . and to the Board members that "supervised" them . . . and to our local newspaper. I was told that petitions were even ciruclated on my behalf. But apart from one or two (inoffensive) "Letters to the Editor" praising my virutes, NONE of it made daylight. The Courier Tribune AND the News & Record (which then was represented in Randolph County by Ethan Feinsilver) ignored all of it (so much for hyper-local journalism) . . . even when I filed my lawsuit. The ugly truth of what this hospital did was a "can-of-worms" that Courier publisher David Renfro did not want to spill all over his friends.

Both the Courier and the N&R only printed the story after the hospital filed its despicable/unsuccessful "SLAPP" suit against me. You see, the hospital suing me was the equivalent attention-getter of printing a picture of a dead infant.

In the wake of discovering and reporting perjury and contempt to state and local law enforcement (three years ago), I've protested in front of Randolph Hosptial twice. The only coverage that got was from a local weekly that JR would likely spit on. I've appeared before the Asheboro City Council begging for help. The Courier's reporter PUT DOWN HER PEN.

No doctor should have been put through something like this because she stood up to three bullies in suits and did her job . . . saving a child's life in the process.

So John can keep telling me that the silence of his newspaper (relegating me to the status of a "troll" on his blog) is not serving the interests of the pretty powerful people and organizations I challenged . . . and still challenge. But I just don't believe it.

Clifford -- You probably know this, but newspapers are already bowing out of sports polls. I'd bet it won't be too long before endorsements are at least modified. Too many readers cancel their subscriptions over one editorial discussed by maybe 1 percent of a typical content staff of a typical newspaper every four years.

My pet suggestion: Name the editorial board on the masthead every day, give the vote count on every editorial and allow brief dissenting opinions. For something as big as an endorsement, let the dissent run to significant length.

Mary -- I've probably said all I can without knowing any more specifics of your case and why the N&R or N&O didn't pick it up. I can only say you're completely wrong on the Moses Cone thing. Even if you assume a complete lack of ethics on the editor's part, hospitals aren't huge advertisers. Just compare them with department stores. You think the N&R wouldn't mention it if someone was seriously injured through a department store's negligence?

Beau, you and I are going to have to agree to disagree on the "Cone connection" here. As you admit, I know more "specifics" about the way medicine works in Asheboro . . . and in what direction the money and referrals flow. Bad publicity certainly would affect that.

If you didn't know, a few years back I tried to BUY (very expensive) ad space in the N&R in order to publicize my story - and difficulties with the Randolph County DA (an elected official). The N&R would not sell me the space.

Re: "You think the N&R wouldn't mention it if someone was seriously injured through a department store's negligence?" FYI, in the case that got me canned . . . in ANY court of law . . . a hospital's lawyer would (successfully) argue that the baby was NOT injured by the other physician's negligence . . . because she suffers neither permanent impairment, nor did she qualify for one of the photographs here.

She wasn't injured and she didn't die because I was there. As a physician, I am asking HOW did I wind up loosing everything because I answered a nurse's phone call in the middle of the night and did the right thing? And how did the Cone doc get off with his job intact and a mere slap on the hand? You tell me . . . if there was not some serious winking and nodding going on.

Moreover, as a citizen and the victim of a series of white collar crimes . . . which cumulated in perjury, contempt and fraud on the part of "non-profit" hospital executives . . . why can't I even get the case investigated?

And why doesn't the newspaper care?

Over on Capital Beat today, Mark Binker is crying over his keyboard because a state official will not give him information that is, by law, public record (it's yet another healthcare oversight fiasco . . . this time something about NC being twenty-four BILLION in the hole with regards to its state employee health plan). He's making a stand for open records and ethics.

It is pretty much exactly the same thing as a citizen who is in court and suing a "non-profit" for damages being thwarted in her efforts to get information relevant to her claim (and subsequently being cheated of fair restitution) . . . because two (three actually) fine upstanding executives lied . . . swearing under Oath that the information requested was "confidential" when it was actually public record . . . and treating the court (all of us actually) with contempt when they failed to comply with a judge's order to produce the information.

The difference in these two cases is that is my livelihood was irrevocably altered, justice was obstructed and the story has not been given any newsprint. In stark contrast, Mark will probably only be late on a scoop. The power of the newspaper will get him the information he wants.

It's not an absensce of ethics, it's just selective ethics . . . and journalistic hypocrisy on the part of the N&R.

But at least now Mark has a small inkling of how I feel.

John's made it crystal clear that I am a nobody-troll.

Mary -- You can call it agreeing to disagree, or you can accept that I might know more about how a newsroom works than you do, just as you know more about how a hospital works than I do.

I'm curious to know how a hospital works, and I'd like to hear from multiple people about it.

If you're willing to do the same to learn how a newsroom works, then I think we'll all understand each other a bit better.

Best of luck,

Beau

It sounds like Beau and Doc need to meet to learn more about each other's occupations.

I wonder when Jerry Bledsoe is going to pick up on Doc Mary and hunt out the story?...man ol man...if there is a conspiracy that is exposed...many folks will have wished they had the chance first.