News-Record.com

And, although no one asked, I'd like to say I'm thankful for Lex Alexander for so clearly showing the world how obviously flawed the thinking is among mainstream journalists.

Aside from his ordinary posts (which border on extreme invective) one of his most recent on his personal blog arrived just before Thanksgiving providing a wonderful feast for those of us who love to have our fears confirmed...

As if there was any doubt in the tragically askewed Alexander's train of thought, it was made clear when he said that George W. Bush was an illegally installed regime and "backed it up" by saying that recounts by media groups in Florida CONCLUDED this.

I'm certain that a lot of people don't wish that Bush had won the presidency. And, I'm certain I can guess which way 95 percent of the News & Record staff voted... but, really, this is just too much.

Obviously, Lex is entitled to his own opinion. But, when that opinion, which shapes his (and the newspaper's coverage) become so warped that it's frightening, it's time to pull back the curtain and... well... shudder..

Happy Thanksgiving!

And, although no one asked, I'd like to say I'm thankful for Lex Alexander for so clearly showing the world how obviously flawed the thinking is among mainstream journalists.

Aside from his ordinary posts (which border on extreme invective) one of his most recent on his personal blog arrived just before Thanksgiving providing a wonderful feast for those of us who love to have our fears confirmed...

As if there was any doubt in the tragically askewed Alexander's train of thought, it was made clear when he said that George W. Bush was an illegally installed regime and "backed it up" by saying that recounts by media groups in Florida CONCLUDED this.

I'm certain that a lot of people don't wish that Bush had won the presidency. And, I'm certain I can guess which way 95 percent of the News & Record staff voted... but, really, this is just too much.

Obviously, Lex is entitled to his own opinion. But, when that opinion, which shapes his (and the newspaper's coverage) become so warped that it's frightening, it's time to pull back the curtain and... well... shudder..

Happy Thanksgiving!

Tough day, jim? Really, you only had to post it once.

sorry for the double post.. I hit submit and it didnt take.. so, I hit BACK and hit it again.. I guess two took...

feel free to delete one JR.. (although somehow I suspect both will be deleted)

Why would you suspect that? Have I deleted any of your posts before?

well, no.. but recently Lex added me to his "moderation" list (although I guess that is a badge of honor -- sort of like being on double-secret probabtion)

I figured he would get to you eventually...

plus, my post -- admittedly -- does skirt the "no personal attack" rules...

It's "on topic" of giving thanks.. but only barely, I'll readily admit..

Lex would get to me? Lex's opinion shapes the newspaper. I know that you believe you know how we work and think, but your comments don't support that, really.

If there is one thing that is true about all the newspapers I've worked (and maybe -- just maybe -- that included yours), it's that the executive editor is typically unplugged from reality.

I suppose it's possible in your case that you're hard-wired into how it all works there... and that many folks at your paper in this increasingly scarce employment situation involving print journalists would risk their careers by bursting your bubble to tell you otherwise...

I know you say that Lex holds no power and he certainly keeps insisting it.. but, I know that editors (of which Lex is a quasi one there if not one in full) have some power... even at a minimum, reporters who work at newspapers for as long as Lex do have power...

I've seen how it all works.. sadly... if anyone thinks that what happens in the budget meetings are where the decisions are made about what is put in the newspaper, then they need a reality check....

heck, whoever lays out the front page has more power than many at the paper...

and, who else in the NEWSroom ever challenges Lex' point of view? just the vacuum effect is enough to confirm it's accepted and the way things are..

Thanks John, I appreciate the compliment and make no doubt that I also appreciate the contribution you and the rest of the N&R staff, including Lex, have made to our community.

Thanks, JR. And I'm thankful for Lorraine Ahearn, one of the people God uses to inspire ME! :)

Thanks, all. A final note for jim: I'm happy for you to believe what you want as long as you don't think it is actually based on reality.

Perception becomes reality.
Lex and Lorraine pursue their political agendas through their writing in the newspaper and on the N&R blogs.
Many readers perceive them as liberally guiding the ship because the rest of the newspaper seems to follow their liberal lead.
Think what you may, Mr. Robinson, but that's what many readers think. And what they think, regardless of what you might know to the contrary, is what shapes the way they regard the newspaper.

I know that some readers think that, jaycee, but that doesn't make it right. It also doesn't excuse them from drawing assumptions based on their own biases, rather than reason. Lex and Lorraine guide the ship about as much as you do.

So, here is more of our "perceptions"

In the GLOWING John Edwards story in today -- which doesn't try very hard to sound objective (GASP: Edwards would do better in the South than Hilary Clinton) the omission of certain facts is unbelievable...

If you had had ONE Republican even glance at the story before it ran they would easily point out that the ONE fact that was missing was that the Democrats actually did WORSE in N.C. in 2004 with Edwards on the ticket than they did in 2000.

(As a former reporter, I don't know how anyone writing a 20-25 inch story about Edwards possible run for office could not have included that...)

So, instead of having a balanced story, you serve up a ridiculous softball story that borders on making Edwards a rockstar. The only people even quoted in the story seem to be democrats who make him God-like...

If this was a story about whether he is going to run for president, wouldnt the ONE thing you'd want to have in there is some perspective about his only OTHER pursuit of an office such as that?

To tell you the truth, I'm not sure what the point of the story was about Edwards.. if you're not going to provide ANY perspective, why do it?

The easy answer for people like me is to THINK you're just part of the DNC's mechanism... of course, that is just perception.. but when you write something like this, doesn't it become reality?

In essence, you're hyping him. Period. You become part of the hype machine. All anyone reading it might think is that "yes, he's our man from N.C. and the South. So be it. The News & Record's story said so." When, in fact, that is hardly the case...

I think you can still have a story that borders on coverage of the speculation of whether he will run or not but AT THE LEAST offers a balanced look at the man -- without it become a political wonk quote-fest.

And, when you are in the process of writing stories like this why NOT just treat them as if they are sensitive.. as it is you just give people like me (and the many who give up on your product each month) more ammunition. Put these stories through more sets of eyes.. ask more questions... Lord knows you would if this was a republican. (You're deny it, but it's true..)

And, back to my original point: At the very, very least your newsroom creates and fosters an entire culture where certain subjects and topics get a free pass -- without any real objective look at the stories before they run.... THis is a PERFECT example of that. WHERE is the objectivity????

And, although it would have been WAY too much to ask..

It would have been nice to hear about even one reason Edwards MIGHT not be as great as everyone thinks...

I can think of a few..

1) The Breck-girl video... Check it here

2) The last-gasp comments in the 2004 campaign that electing Edwards and Kerry would allow people to get out of their wheelchairs and walk... incredible.

3) The everlasting lie that Edwards' dad was "just a millworker".. when, in fact, it took Edwards forever to admit that his dad was the mill BOSS! (quite different.. mill bosses were pretty evil folks...)

4) The "channeling" of a dead girl during one of Edwards' closing arguments when he was an active trial attorney. Yes.. it's true... he claimed that he could feel the girl talking through him and what she was feeling as she was dying... he told a JURY this! incredible!

I imagine that at least one of these would come out later when you do a big "think piece" look at Edwards.. but, in the meantime, you PERPETUATE the myth that this guy is great with stories like the one you did today...

so, you'll do a dozen glowing "Edwards speculation" or "Many hope Edwards will run" or "Edwards decides to run" stories which make no mention of any reason why the guy isn't the greatest thing since sliced bread...
and then, when you've already helped form for everyone why the guy IS great, you'l come back and do a 60 inch "profile" that slips in two of the four things I've put in this post...

I know how it all works...

And don't think that the reporters who are covering Edwards right now don't want to see him elected: if Edwards wins or becomes VP they get to go work for him in Washington... or write books about the experience or.... you get the idea.. there is plenty in it for them...

Sorry to get you so worked up, Jim. The story wasn't supposed to be a critical look at his candidacy. We'll do that later on, as we did three years ago. It was more of a "people are talking about" story. We don't need to do all those things you mention in every story we write about Edwards any more than we need to review why we're in Iraq with every story we write about the war. OK, you don't like it. That's not surprising.

I understand that you view the world through a political lens. "If you had had one Republican even glance at the story..." suggests that. (How would you know whether we did or not?) Not that it would matter so much because most people don't view the world as either Republican or Democrat, in my opinion.

All that aside, why you jump to the conclusion that it is a Democratic bias as opposed to something else....even simple incompetence? Were we writing about Elizabeth Dole, we'd have done the same sort of story.

You've made my point for me JR. Thanks.

Right down to agreeing that you'll do the "critical piece" later.

This is OF COURSE after you've done 8-10 stories where Edwards gets a free pass! And by then every one has it stuck in their head that he's a rock star! ("Will he, won't he, please run, he might run, oh gosh, he IS?.. wheeeeee.. he IS!")

You claim that it wasn't "supposed to be" a critical look.

Well, can't you include a sentence or two about something that doesn't make it read like a press release? (aside from how Edwards would do better than Hilary.. NO DUH!)

Even the teaser to the story on the homepage of your site says "Older and maybe ready for another go at the presidency, John Edwards is under scrutiny from pundits and voters"

But, your story gives him NO scrutiny. In fact, instead of taking up 25 inches of newsprint to do a useful story (by using recent speculation or the book as a news peg) you provide us with the a breathless happy account of everyone (it seems) hanging on the hope that he will run...

I could even write your critical sentence for you:
"Even if Edwards decides to make another run, he'll have to convince N.C. voters better than he did last time, when -- with his name on the top ticket on the ballot -- George Bush did better than in 2000 against Gore and Liberman."

How hard was that???

And, although I don't feel like paying to scan your archives to actually prove it, I will guarantee you this: when you first started started writing "speculation" stories about Elizabeth Dole running for senate in 2002 I'm sure they included MUCH more scrutinty than this story about Edwards just did...

And JR, to compare the Iraq situation to Edwards is insulting. The Iraq situation and history and events are not things that people are likely to forget. And your coverage of it is highly critical. But, the things that Edwards has done and said and had an effect on the last 3 years will easy get forgotten with the types of stories you are doing...

That's a weak comparison..

Also, I let this slide earlier, but I'll address it now: don't assume to know what my moods are or how my day is going. It's condescension at it's best. You assume I'm having a bad day and that's what this is all about.

Just keep thinking that as the circulation numbers plummet.

That last comment made me laugh. Tell you what, I won't make any assumptions about your thought process if you don't make any about ours.

And I mean that in a collegial, non-defensive way.

"I know that some readers think that, jaycee, but that doesn't make it right."
Right or wrong doesn't enter into it, Mr. Robinson, it's the perception people get when they read your newspaper.
When they open it up and see liberally biased articles by "reporters" such as Lex and Lorraine, then their beliefs are substantiated.
What will you do to dispel those perceptions? Will you cull the liberal, misleading, and factually challenged ranting on The Lex Files? Will you have Lorraine write a story on her real role in the Wray "expose?" Will you address the devastating revelations in Jerry Bledsoe's story detailing Lorraine's one-sided, misleading, and inflammatory reports on Chief Wray?
If you fail to allay the suspicions which are reinforced in many editions then people will continue to see you as a liberal "rag."
Perception often becomes reality.

John Robinson's monologue in the forthcoming feature film about journalism in a small southern city. This scene will be just after the dethroning of a city official via a one sided series of stories with no semblance of objectivity -

"I am reality. There's the way it ought to be, and there's the way it is. Wray was full of it. Wray was a crusader. Now, I got no fight... with any man who does what he's told. But when he don't, the machine breaks down. And when the machine breaks down, we break down. And I ain't gonna allow that... in any of you. Not one."

heh.

Mr. Sykes, that's funny right there, I don't care who ya are!!

Great to see so many thankful, warm-hearted comments.

I wanted to add that I'm thankful for Chewie, but what has happened to her blog?

Jeffrey -- When you've worked in newsrooms as long as I have, you've heard plenty of accusations with absolutely no grounding in reality. I've picked up the phone and been accused of having my news judgment dictated by people I've never met. I've been told that content I created of my own volition (not dictated by any editor) only exists because an advertiser demanded it.

Even when a legitimate complaint exists, the reality of the situation often differs from the complainer's point of view. Example from my college paper -- our editorial board was cranky and rude at our editorial meetings, even when we were interviewing prospective student-body presidents seeking our endorsement. So one year, we got a nasty letter from one of the candidates we spurned, accusing us of having our minds made up before the interviews. Funny thing -- several of us, enough to change the majority vote, changed our minds at the meeting. We were impressed with one of the candidates and not so impressed with the one toward whom many of us were leaning. The impressive one got our endorsement -- which would NOT have been the case without the interviews -- and went on to win the election.

So in this case, the process deserved criticism. But the snubbed candidate erred in ascribing motive.

And that's often the reality.

Which makes it irritating when you tell people it's the reality, over and over, and they accuse you of lying. And they embark on mini-crusades to keep you from doing your actual work because they're so convinced you're lying.