News-Record.com

John,
My apologies if this comment appears to be too critical but I am just speaking my mind.
Your "you hold us to the highest standards" and "that listeners-to-readers thing" has just about pushed me over the edge.
Every Thursday there is a publication that comes out called "The Rhino Times". You should read it. At this time they are completely kicking your ass and you sit idly by.
Lorraine Ahern has completely ruined a great man's life by her innacurate reporting and you still just sit idly by.
The local PAC has surgically removed the city council's, city manager's, and city attorney's vertebrae and you just sit idly by.
We deserve more John, and you know it.

I suppose my interpretation of standards is different than yours. Completely ruined a great man's life? Imagine if we were truly so powerful.

What exactly is it that you think we reported that is inaccurate?

See, Mr. Robinson? I'm not the only one...

Thursday, April 20, 2006
Recordings by police uncovered

Your paper claimed, "It is unclear whether any law was broken by the employee." It is only unlcear if you don't bother to look at the law. It is perfectly legal to tape as long as one party involved in the conversation is aware of it. The only thing that is unclear is why you paper didn't research the law to clear the legal question up for the reader. Can we start with that one?

"It is perfectly legal to tape as long as one party involved in the conversation is aware of it."

Of course, the "one person" could be the person doing the taping leaving the other, the one being taped, totally unaware.

Make perfect sense to me.

Ben, we did research the law, but we try not to interpret the law on our own like that when it's possible we don't have complete information.

The story later says this: "North Carolina statutes allow someone to tape conversations without another's knowledge if the person doing the recording is part of the dialogue. That is what Joe Williams described as happening to him."

Well, Mr. Robinson, Lex Alesander sure "interprets" the law when he alleges that President Bush, SecDef Rumsfeld, and anyone else who disagrees with him is a "criminal!" regardless of the fact that they haven't been charged, tried, or convicted.
I guess that rule only applies to some of the folks down there at your place.

This horse is dead, but if you want to keep beating it, OK. I don't think Lex has done that. But regardless, comparing his blog with a newspaper news story is like comparing a hand beater and a bicycle. Both have wheels but they are used for vastly different purposes.

John,
What inaccuracies?
Could you start with Ahern's description of "secret police"? They were so secret that their phone number is listed in the phone book.
Can you tell us right here and right now that you still defend the story by Ahern?
If you do then you are correct about one thing...we do have different ideas about standards.
Have you ever investigated if Ahern and "Hercules" had any type of romantic relationship that could have affected her story?
Believe me, I am not the only person asking that question.

Pretty offensive comments from someone not identifying himself, tony. But no, I haven't investigated any romantic relationship. Have no reason to.

She spells her name Ahearn, by the way.

The first time the term "secret police" was mentioned in our paper was in June 2005. This is how it was used:

"Though once under Internal Affairs and Criminal Investigations and primarily assigned to keep tabs on criminal gangs and groups such as the Klan and Communists -- thus earning it the nickname the 'Red Squad' -- Special Intelligence under Wray is an independent unit with a new moniker among officers leery of its function: 'the secret police.'

Said City Council member Claudette Burroughs-White, who sat in on a meeting with the chief on Monday about the tracking incident: 'Until this week, I didn't even know there was such a thing as 'the secret police.' I didn't know it existed.'"

So, yes, we knew it existed as Special Intelligence and we told readers that. Of course, that wasn't in the Rhino when they said we "invented" the secret police.

I don't believe citing when you first "mentioned" the term Secret Police explains who originated it. The first many officers had heard the term was when it was used by Ahearn. I know this from talking to many officers about this whole episode and the N&R participation in it. And I've not talked to any who were "leery" of the Special Intel unit. It was an overt, clearly defined unit which was hidden from no one. Though every officer knew it's function, often the specifics of cases or projects it was working on were confidential, as are many investigations. By that definition, you could call any Detective unit the "Secret Police" because it doesn't broadcast the details of it's investigations.

John,
My intent was not to offend you but to share my thoughts. I can not disclose my identity, I have no choice.
I'll close our correspondence by saying that I hope we can just agree to disagree.
I believe Ahearn's "National Enquirer" style writing of this article damaged the city and damaged a career based on inaccurate reporting. You now have a questionable cop laughing at the system and a dedicated man out of a job.
I did notice that you chose not to confirm or deny that you stood by her story.
I also believe that a significant number of people in Greensboro agree with me on this.
Your decision to sit on the sidelines now promotes that belief.
Merry Christmas John. I appreciate your time in discussing this with me.

You're being too easy on yourself, tony. You can be anonymous and make accusations without supporting evidence.

Yes, I stand by Lorraine's reporting.

What is it that you think has been inaccurately reported? You say we're sitting on the sidelines. The sidelines of what? What is it you want us to report?

Funny how you guys are willing to invent motives for Ahearn to get stuff wrong but don't see any problem believing the stuff Bledsoe's peddling.

Also funny how you guys keep insisting John is "silent" about this when you turn half his posts into discussions on this topic.

From someone who has no idea on any of the particulars here (but would back Ahearn's integrity against Bledsoe's any day of the week), it seems to me you're getting more answers when you ask specific questions. Not "when are you going to respond to Bledsoe."

Beau Dure wrote:
"(but would back Ahearn's integrity against Bledsoe's any day of the week)"

If you knew them both you wouldn't make that statement.

"What is it you want us to report?" -- JR

John, it is not just your usual chorus of critics who think the N&R is sitting on the sidelines--Ed Cone (on possible bad behavior by Hinson): "hello, N&R, anyone home?"

This is a complicated subject that our community is trying to understand in the midst of contradictory information, if ever there were a role for the local newspaper, this would be it. If that seems too general for you, off the top of my head, here are a few things the N&R could provide its readers:

- Bledsoe reports that Ahern told Wray he had a dirty cop on his hands. Is that accurate? Was she referring to Hinson? If so, what information did she have?

- Bledsoe's reporting includes interviews with Wray for his "side" of the story. Has the N&R interviewed Wray and investigated his claims? I don't recall, but I think that's an appropriate tack for the N&R.

- The term "secret police" seems to have originated with reporters from the N&R. When it is mentioned, at least as quoted from the N&R by Bledsoe, it is in the passive voice or unattributed to a specific source. Did reporters from the N&R apply the label "secret police" to CID and did that spur others to start using the term or where the rank and file of the police using that term prior the term being used in N&R reports?

It doesn't take a genius (again, see Cone), to recognize that substantial questions remain unanswered, that rumor and innuendo abound, that different versions of events are competing as the "truth." Pretending it isn't so by feigning naivety and asking "What do you want us to report?" is a cop out. You recognize that their is confusion among the citizenry on this matter, yes? With open eyes and ears, see and hear the questions people are asking, observe where different versions of events conflict and set about to offer the public information that will bring greater clarity and better understanding--and don't avoid the subject areas that include the N&R as part of the story.

Thank you, Roch.

1) Lorraine had a conversation with Chief Wray in which she asked him about what she'd been hearing in the community. I won't say who she was referring to. She didn't say to the chief. She had no information that could be confirmed or reported. Had we had anything we would have reported it at the time.

2) The chief has refused our requests for interviews, although I don't know that we've asked for one in the past few months.

3) We did not make up the term "secret police." We don't make up information. Officers referred to Special Investigations that way to our reporters. I wonder how the Rhino determined that we invented the term. You're the only one who has asked us about that.

I'm am open to suggestions on how we should cover the Rhino's story. Do we reinvestigate the Rhino's report? I haven't seen anything factual suggesting we got it wrong, other than the chief's and Jerry's opinions. Would a column by me saying that we stand by our reporting suffice? Jerry has raised all sorts of questions about Lt. Hinson, an officer who has been investigated by authorities three times to no avail, who was reinstated by the city, and who remains employed. Are you looking for us to investigate him, too, based on the Rhino's reporting?

And how do we do it when the story changes every Thursday?

John,

I've offered my advice. Smart people are observing that the N&R is leaving a lot of weighty subjects under reported and serious accounts (not just opinions, but first-hand accounts) of the N&R's reporting unanswered.

"And how do we do it when the story changes every Thursday?"

Oh?

Just how does it change, John?

"Would a column by me saying that we stand by our reporting suffice?"

Let's see, now. On what story have I heard you make that comment before?

Not NEARLY good enough, John.

I understand you being loyal to your people, but really......

Thanks, Roch. That's only partially helpful, because you're asking us to deconstruct an ongoing opinion piece that hasn't even reached 2006 yet. The why is easily to understand, but the how is much tougher. But we'll continue to talk about it.

John

All anyone is asking from you is the truth. I have no dog in this fight. I want to believe in your paper. I had respect for Ms. Ahearn. She has done a great service for our community with her heartfelt stories. She wrote a story about a friend of mine who had come off crack cocaine. That story gave hope to many people suffering from addiction. As a member of the recovering community, I can tell you we need help from your paper.

However, I believe that she was very unfair to Chief Wray, politically motivated, and has caused tremendous damage to the News and Record and the City of Greensboro.

Forgive me, but I don't think you quite know how to handle this. You keep blaming Jerry Bledsoe. Well, is he lying? Is this just Political Correctness? This is the talk of Greensboro. This is not going away.

Mr. Stutts, no question I don't know how to handle it. I thought I had made that clear. I'm not blaming Jerry. But people get the idea that our coverage was "very unfair" and "politically motivated" somewhere. You and others apparently have made a decision that the Rhino's coverage is correct and ours isn't, and I've been trying to get a sense of what it is that we've reported that is wrong. And how you've drawn that conclusion.

And what you want to know that will persuade you that what we have written is accurate.

jaycee -- I know one, and I've had conversations with the other. I'll stand by my statement.

I worked there for four years, you know.

Beau Dure

Since I have no memory of ever meeting you or having a conversation with you, I'm courious to know when and how you think we met and what our conversations were about.

Jerry Bledsoe

Mr. Robinson, if you don't understand "why" the readers think Ahearn was "unfair" and "politically motivated" after all of the discussion and the articles by Mr. Bledsoe then you're part of the problem, not part of the solution.
With blogs and the Rhino Times we now have sources of information other than the N&R. And sometimes we find out that the N&R is not exactly on the mark. Ahearn's manner of twisting the words of Chief Wray and others is a prime example of how liberal reporters can make a statement sound the opposite of how it was intended. You and I have had this conversation many times in the past. Perhaps now that others are saying the same thing you will begin to understand. It's how a reporter actually says something that matters in an article. Accurate, unbiased reporting is a great things. Biased reporting is ugly, unfair, and damaging.

jaycee, it hardly surprises me that you think I'm part of "the problem." I'm also dubious that we could print anything about this story that would make you change your mind. Still, what I'm trying to do is get beyond the generalities you've been using and determine precisely what you think we got wrong. That would help us be part of the solution, as you say.

John

I think you are pulling a Bill Clinton on us, asking us to tell you what "is is". I think you know exactly and precisely what all of us are saying. I'll admit you're smarter than me, but even I can see through this. Anyway, have a good day.

Calling names isn't helpful, Wayne.

John,
When I started this conversation six days ago I had no idea that it would lead to the many comments above. It does appear that a lot of people feel the same way I do.
A writer today in greensboro101.com stated the News and Record was the "worst problem" in the Greensboro community. It's sad that someone would feel that way about their local newspaper. Perhaps the many "racial" stories (that aren't really stories) that you tend to cram down our throats are making people feel this way. I believe that a story is a story when it's a story, not by your Wednesday deadline.
Remember the Mayor Nussbaum retraction? Could that same solution be in order here?
The many questions coming at you and your continous "whipped puppy" answers solidify my original concerns.
I feel better now John.

Mr. Robinson, part of it is that you are so liberal you don't recognize that Ahearn (and others) liberally slant their stories. To you it looks "normal" because it dovetails with your outlook and thinking. "Mainstream" to you is "liberal" to many of us. While you're certainly entitled to you own outlook and philosophies, the whole neighborhood does not necessarily follow that view. If your newspaper intends to cater only to those who agree with you, you're doing a fine job. If it intends to appeal to all, you're failing.
Far be it from me to "rewrite" your stories. Ahearns use of worksmithing to sway the reader to her point of view, be it right or wrong, is not "fair and impartial" reporting. It's political dialogue masquerading as news.
When you have one side (Ahearn) claiming a certain statement made by the other side (Chief Wray) means this or that, and then to have Chief Wray say that he did not mean that at all should give you cause to examine the manner in which this issue has been reported.
Give us the facts and let us decide what they mean, don't try to force your view on us.

I have asked for some specifics on how the stories diverge and what convinces you that we have been inaccurate. If that comes off as whipped puppy, that's due to my inarticulateness.

Before you get carried away with the numbers, I'm counting five different commenters saying that we must do something -- that something being an apology, apparently. Three of those five are anonymous, so they could be one commenter for all I know.

I do hear y'all's point, though.

John:

There are several news stories about the David Wray controversy that were published by the News & Record that are a matter of concern to many of us. I will be specific about just two of these articles, which covered the same topic.

On 6/15/05, the headline read, “Officer's wife: Police shadow her as well.” The story was written by Lorraine Ahearn and Eric J.S. Townsend. The first two paragraphs read:

“GREENSBORO -- The wife of a high-profile Greensboro police lieutenant who last week found a tracking device hidden under his cruiser has alleged that her home was under police surveillance as well.

“Beverly Hinson, though separated since last year from Lt. James Hinson, filed an internal affairs report Monday asking why the same retired police detective caught tailing her husband was apparently behind the wheel of a "suspicious vehicle" outside her home May 7.”

Then, on 1/15/06, the News & Record published another article about this topic; Lorraine Ahearn was the writer of the article. Here are a couple of excerpts from this news story:

“At Wray's news conference, the chief said he had thoroughly investigated Beverly Hinson's allegation, and that it was "classified as unfounded."

“But last week, [Mitch] Johnson said his investigators cast doubt on the veracity of Wray's finding, saying it was "irregular" and that Wray had ordered it wrapped up in time for his news conference.”

Since that time, The Rhino Times has published a Bledsoe installment that relates to this incident. According to the article, Art League, a private investigator and the alleged “spy” for the “secret police,” and the attorney who hired him have both verified Wray’s finding. They confirmed that League was in the area doing surveillance on an unrelated domestic case that had absolutely nothing to do with Beverly Hinson.

Since the News & Record gave such prominence to the two above-mentioned news stories, don’t you think a follow-up story on this topic might be in order? One of your reporters could easily interview both Art League and the attorney who hired him. In the interest of fair and balanced reporting, it seems to me that such an updated story would be the right thing to do.

Mr. Robinson, as you know it's very easy for you to check the IP address and determine if the posters are one and the same. If you don't know how to do that, ask Lex.

I know I am late to this, but Mr. Robinson, you asked for specifics and Wendell gave you one. Are you going to respond to his request? I think he has pointed out one good example of why people are questioning Ahearn and the N & R.

i thought to myself, self, i don't seem to have anything better to do with my time, so i will go on the editor's blog at the news and record and tell john robinson how to run his paper. and while i'm at it, i'll also make ugly accusations that a married reporter had an affair. this won't be constructive in any way or add any value to the world, but maybe i won't be bored for a minute while i'm doing it and maybe it will stir something up and it won't come back on me 'cuz i'm all anonymous and stuff and so, who cares, really? blogs are fun. i'm so cool.

And as you know, jaycee, it's simple to get around that.

Wendell, I guess I don't understand what you're asking. That same Jan. 15, 2006, story states: "At that same news conference, Wray also told the media that there was no credence to a complaint of continuing surveillance of Beverly Hinson. In the days after the botched surveillance incident at The Grande, she called police about a suspicious van parked two spaces from her front door in a brand-new town house development.

The van's driver was Art League, a retired police officer and private detective. Though he happened to employ Gerringer, the driver of the van the night at The Grande, League insisted he was outside the Hinson home on a completely unrelated investigation."

Are you wondering why Mitch Johnson's investigators cast doubt on it?

John,
In your own words..."two spaces from her front door".
Are you insinuating that Art League is such a rookie that he would park two spaces from a door of someone under surveillance? I believe he's been doing his job for many years and is very good at it.
Ask him. Ask his lawyer. Do your job.
Was your story RIGHT or was it WRONG?

Note to brave & cool- the question was not meant as an accusation. You chose to take it that way.

Beverly Hinson filed a complaint. We reported that. Chief Wray says he found no credence to her complaint. We reported that. Art League says he was there on an unrelated investigation. We reported that. What haven't we covered?

I think brave has a legitimate point, tony. As nothing has ever suggested a basis for your question, why would you ask it if you weren't trying to cast aspersions, particularly under the cloak of anonymity? I'm not looking for an answer from you. Just for you to give it some serious thought.

I think tony's question about the affair is as fair as some of Ahearns questions to Chief Wray.
"Is Ahearn still having an affair with Hinson?"
"Have you stopped beating your wife?"
"Are you still refusing to call in an outside agency to investigate?"
All seem fair to me...it's not about the question, folks, it's about how you ask it. And if you have free rein to inject your personal or political bias into HOW you report the answer, then you can make people thing what you will. Someone with no knowledge of Chief Wray or the GPD could have read Ahearn's reports and thought that Wray was a racist. I think we all realize now, partly through Bledsoe's exposure of how Ahearn twisted Wray's own words, that Wray is not a racist. But you sure wouldn't get that idea from reading Ahearn. Her intent was to paint Wray as a racist, for whatever reason, and she did a pretty good job of it. Was it accurate? By all accounts, no. Did it give many readers the impression Ahearn sought? Sadly, yes.
Report the facts and let us decide what they mean, don't try to tell us how to think.

So, Mr. Robinson, you're saying that if you checked the IP address of 3 or 4 anonymous posters and they were all the same you'd think someone was "counterfeiting" IP's to fool you and point fingers at an innocent person? Come on, now...give that tin-foil beanie back to Lex and get back to reality.

John:

The news story that appeared on 6/15/05 contained 19 paragraphs. Of those 19 paragraphs, 13 paragraphs were dedicated to the allegations from Ms. Hinson about the covert police surveillance and other offensive activity by the Greensboro Police Department. Only one sentence was dedicated to David Wray’s side of the story and it was not specifically in response to the allegations made in this incident. The sentence reads: “Police Chief David Wray denies that the unit was secret and says the department is not targeting black officers.”

It was a spectacular story: A police officer’s wife accuses the police department of spying on her near her home. Yet, the News & Record didn’t engage in some minimal investigative reporting by interviewing the alleged spy, Art League, or the attorney who hired him. What disturbed me about this article was not the contents of it but what was missing from it. Where was David Wray’s response to the specific allegations? Where were the comments from Art League? If such responses weren’t available at the time, wasn’t there an obligation by the newspaper to publish a follow-up article regarding the responses of Wray and League about these serious allegations?

In reference to the news story that was published by the News & Record on 1/15/06, Lorraine Ahearn wrote: “But last week, Johnson said his investigators cast doubt on the veracity of Wray's finding, saying it was "irregular" and that Wray had ordered it wrapped up in time for his news conference.” The words “cast doubt on the veracity” imply that Wray was not being truthful about his findings. That is a very serious allegation for a city manager to make about his police chief. At that point in time, it would seem to me that a newspaper would feel obligated to engage in some investigative reporting to determine what the truth may be. Was Mitch Johnson interviewed and asked to provide specific details to support his serious allegation that the police chief may be lying.

The Ahearn article on 1/15/06 stated, “…League insisted he was outside the Hinson home on a completely unrelated investigation.” Is that all? What kind of investigation? He “insisted?” Was there any reason to doubt League’s version of what happened? Readers might conclude from that brief insert that he was involved in some other covert police surveillance for Wray. It would have been a nice journalistic touch if the News & Record would have interviewed League AND the attorney who hired him and published their responses so that readers could determine who was right about this episode: Johnson or Wray.

Long after both of the N&R’s news stories were published and Wray was forced to resign, many of us have discovered that Art League, the alleged “spy” for the secret police, and the attorney who hired him have both verified Wray’s finding. They confirmed that League was in the area doing surveillance in an unrelated domestic case that had absolutely nothing to do with Beverly Hinson. Does anyone dispute these two gentlemen? Unfortunately, we didn’t find this information in the News & Record.

Mr. Sawyer, thanks for you detailed analysis. I don't have time to drill down to the specifics Mr. Robinson keeps asking for. Your comments about Ahearn's use of "insisted" in the quoted sentence to imply something shady was afoot is a good example of how her wordsmithing twists the truth and sways readers to her biased view.

Wendell, fair question and thanks for asking it. I'll tell you what I recall/know. Please bear in mind two key things, too. First, that June 15, 2005 story was written on deadline. It was a breaking news story based on Ms. Hinson filing an internal affairs report. That is the primary reason that so much of it dealt with her allegations. Second, and I'm going on memory here, which could be faulty, I don't believe that there was much information coming from the police department about the case. I'll check with the reporters on that. As you may have surmised from the Rhino series, the police department wasn't opening their files for us as we pursued this. My guess, and I'll have to check on this, is that Art League wasn't telling us what he was investigating. And, of course, like Ms. Hinson's contention, we take his word for what the investigators were and were not doing outside her place that night.

The same holds true for the city manager's office. We did do investigative reporting throughout, but don't publish until we can confirm things. Now, 12 to 18 months later, tongues are loosening at least in talking with Jerry. I doubt whether Chief Wray will talk with us now, though.

Bear in mind also that in the later inquest into Chief Wray's management of the department, the city produced internal police e-mails ordering that the handling of the complaint from Mrs. Hinson be wrapped up in time for the chief's press conference. The city's investigators concluded that the handling of the complaint had been rushed and unreliable.

Mrs. Hinson said she was later shown a dossier by the captain of Criminal Investigations indicating that she had been under investigation for five years. She based that conclusion on personal information in the file about her parents, her finances, her husband from a previous marriage,photographs of a tenant who is a nurse leaving one of the couple's rental properties, and a photograph of her and Lt. Hinson attending the circus with their two children. She estimated that the photo was taken in 2000.

As you might conclude, the whole part of this is controversial.

After doing a little checking and reading back again the stories you mention, Wendell, a couple other points.

When Beverly Hinson filed her citizen complaint, she did not know who the driver of the van was, and Matt Lojko, who was handling questions about this, did not tell us anything about the investigation. That was only announced at the chief's press conference.

As for whether anyone disputes League and his lawyer's contention, I imagine the answer is yes. Ms. Hinson, her lawyer, Amiel Rossabi, and the city investigators all appear to dispute it or at least question it. This is particularly a point of controversy in light of Ms. Hinson's more recent statement that the captain over the Criminal Investigation Division showed her that dossier I referred to above.

The word "insisted" doesn't necessarily suggest doubt so much as it conveys that League was asserting his point in no uncertain terms.

Again, I'd remind you that Chief Wray isn't talking with us and hasn't really talked with us other than basically saying that he won't talk with for more than a year. It makes it difficult to get his side of the story.

John:

Thanks for your quick response to my post. I do have a couple of other questions.

Today, you wrote:

“When Beverly Hinson filed her citizen complaint, she did not know who the driver of the van was…:”

However, when the News & Record published a news story on this incident on 6/15/05, the following sentence was included in the article:

“Beverly Hinson, though separated since last year from Lt. James Hinson, filed an internal affairs report Monday asking why the same retired police detective caught tailing her husband was apparently behind the wheel of a "suspicious vehicle" outside her home May 7…”

However, on 1/15/06, the News & Record published a news article about James Hinson and the GPD. In the article, Officer James Hinson said that, in June of 2005, he “once again noticed the tan Dodge van behind him.” James Hinson “recognized the van's driver. It was Randy Gerringer, a private investigator he knew had been rehired by the Greensboro Police Department to work in the Special Intelligence Division (SID).”

You said that Ms. Hinson “did not know who the driver of the van was…” However, as mentioned before, your newspaper stated that Ms. Hinson was “asking why the same retired police detective caught tailing her husband was apparently behind the wheel of a "suspicious vehicle" outside her home May 7…”

Randy Gerringer was identified as the man following James Hinson, not Art League. How can Art League be the “same retired police detective caught tailing her husband?”

I know that Art League is a former GPD officer. But, since his retirement, has League ever been enlisted to perform services for the Special Intelligence Division (SID)? Has anyone alleged that Art League was involved in the surveillance of James Hinson?

My apologies. I was reading the word "apparently" differently, but I suspect now that you're correct.

As for the League-Gerringer discrepancy, I don't know how that occurred. Again, the June 05 story was a "live" news story based on the specific complaint Ms. Hinson filed. Our information was based primarily on what she said. As you know, Art League employed Randy Gerringer, who had requested the "bird dog" tracker be placed on Hinson's cruiser during this time period.

Mr. Robinson, that's another failing of a reporter anxious to use anythinge to prove their point. Often it's one-sided, unsubstantiated, and wrong. It appears it was more important to "get it first" than to "get it right." In this case, it was just plain wrong and grossly unfair to League, Gerringer, and Wray. It did, however, help the reporter push the view that Wray was a racist. And that, after all, was the intention.

I'm sure I'll regret entering in this with you, but there's little in your last comment that is true.

Well, Mr. Robinson, which part is untrue? You admitted that you were presenting a one-sided story, based only on Mrs. Hinson's complaint without regard to the facts of all parties or sides involved. That's "getting it first" rather than "getting it right." It's fair to present the facts from all sides, and unfair to present one side as "fact" without reporting the other side.
It's my "opinion" that the portrayal was unfair. It certainly added to the biased tenor of the whole series of articles, that being that Chief Wray pursued racist policies and persecuted blacks.

I'll play along to this extent, jaycee. You accuse us so often of twisting words. Show me where I "admitted" that we were presenting a one-sided story. You won't find it. in the same way you couldn't cite where Bledsoe had acknowledged he was writing opinion from one point of view, or where Lorraine called Wray racist, both of which you wrote as fact.

John,

My friends and coworkers all wonder why Wray didnt fire Hinson if all of the information written in the Rhino were true. The comments submitted thus far would have you beleive that ALL of Greensboro is wondering about the injustice done to Chief Wray. Hogwash... Most citizens of Greenboro are oblivious to any of this situation besides bits and pieces. They are worrying about paying the bills, raising family, trying to make a living. If you sent a man out on the streets to ask them the name of the Mayor, County or City Manager and at least 3 or 4 commissioners or council members, most would fail miserably. In fact, ask them also if they can name "1" local blogger.

This is the same crowd using the same arguments and posts over and over again. Thanks for explaining your side of things but nothing you can say will change their minds. You are damned if you do and damned if you dont. Anything you say can and will be used against you by these self coronated judge and jury types.

illegitimus non carborundum

Mr. Robinson, you said, "Again, the June 05 story was a "live" news story based on the specific complaint Ms. Hinson filed. Our information was based primarily on what she said."
That's one-sided. You just admitted that you took the unsubstantiated allegations of one side (later proved to be untrue) and reported them without checking into the facts of the incident.
Give me time to dig back into the Rhino archives (if they ahve them online) and I'll try to quote where Bledsoe says his incentive to write this story was to get Wray's side out in the open.
Also, as I and others have pointed out, Ahearn does not out-and-out call Wray a racist. Instead, she used thousands of words to say it without using the actual word. That's what you people DO, or didn't you pay attention in journalist school??

jaycee embodies the term "loyal opposition" so I don't pay him/her much attention. But W. Sawyer is another matter and did a great job of articulating my main concern about the N&R's Hinson/Wray coverage that has arisen from Jerry's reporting. That being: ...what did Beverly Hinson know about who was in front of her house?

The way I read it, she lied to N&R reporters about that incident and they ran with the lie without near enough follow-up.

jaycee, I "admitted" no such thing. A complaint was made to the police department and we reported it. We spoke with the police department and its representative told us what he told us, which was not much. Your suggestion that we not report the complaint until we have the complete story is nice, but unrealistic. In this case, when the police department declines to discuss any details of the incident, we'd never report anything. My point to you -- and it'll be the last I make here -- is that you are guilty of the same word-twisting you accuse us of.

I hear your point on Beverly Hinson, although I don't agree it does or should throw our reporting on the whole matter into question.

OK, insert "explained" for "admitted"; no matter. You "explained" that you took the unsubstantiated allegations of one side (later proved to be untrue) and reported them without checking into the facts of the incident. Same thing. A bombshell tidbit of info came out that Ahearn could use to push forward her conclusion and she jumped on it without regard to whether it was true or not. Turns out it was not true. You knowingly published an allegation by someone who claimed to be "wronged" by the Police Dept. without knowing whether or not it was true. I find that reprehensible. If I call down to your office and start making wild accusations about criminal behavior by a member of your staff will a reporter write an article and publish it in the N&R? Probably not. But if someone makes wild accusations to a reporter who's actively trying to destroy the subject of the allegations then it'll get coverage, right? Is that how it works?
Mr. Hoggard, I pointed on the same things Mr. Sawyer did, although he did it in a more thorough manner.
Mr. Robinson, your position on this whole matter has merely confirmed what most of us suspect: You stand by your biased, one-sided, and unfair reporting of this incident. You seem to adopt the "Who, me?" attitude when you innocently claim you do not see the bias of your reporter starting with a conclusion, i.e., that Chief Wray is a racist, and neatly shading and twisting the truth until she can write her articles in such a way as to sway the reader to her inevitable conclusion. Ahearn didn't "report" this situation, she "sold" us her opinion of the situation.
If Ahearn had written, "Chief Wray is a racist." it would have been a very short story, indeed. Instead, she did what you guys do...she wrote thousands of words bordering on the truth that lead the reader to no other conclusion except that Wray is a racist.
It's called "journalism."

John

Thank you for all the interesting responses. I feel like we have best this to death. But one thing keeps coming back to me. You sure would be a heck of a lawyer or a painter. I've read all of the above and I admire your courage to stand up and either spin or paint a picture. You have defended very,very well. But I still disagree with you.

I have enjoyed all of the "debates" this year and I wish you and all of the bloggers a HAPPY NEW YEAR.

John:

Thanks for looking into this and responding to my questions. I know that we don't see eye to eye on the Wray controversy but I do appreciate your willingness to discuss the topic.

I really don't know who is "right" or who is "wrong" in this controversy. I simply hope that the truth will ultimately prevail and the chips will fall where they may.

I disagree with those folks who think that an ongoing discussion of this matter is "beating a dead horse." Since this controversy has caused deep divisions among the citizens in our city, I think that it is important to continue the dialogue. Hopefully, when all (or most) of the facts involving this controversy are finally revealed, most of us can reach a consensus as to the best course of action to take.

I've read a number of the articles from the N&R and the Rhino Times, as well as, some blog responces by John Robinson with regard to the David wray matter, and Lorraine Ahearns involvement. Seems John has been very good at being "coy" about answering the "content" of articles written by Lorraine Ahearn by asking for pin pointed specific's. Now John that's all fine an dandy if you in a court of law with a witness on the stand under oath, but that's not the case here as we're taking about a reporter who took poetic license to "spin" the contents of a story that she already had preconcieved notions of what the outcome would be. The "specific's" you request are in the article! And this very tactic is done day in and day out by the media via insinuation, half-truths, omissions, and sometimes a down right fabrication. For example: Prior to the implosion of the GPD over the David wray matter Lorraine Ahearn had written a sparkling article about James Hinsom and his Comunity Based Projects picturing James Hinson as a prince of a Greensboro Police Officer, and accolades abounded! However Lorraine Ahearn failed to tell the "whole" story in context. True James Hinson was a fine project organizer and fund raiser for the young and old of Greensboro, but, and this is a BIG but, James Hinson was terrible at his follow thru. Seems all these programs were short lived and there was never any accountability. Seems monies and materials were donated to the numerous CBP's and funds raised went into James Hinson's private checking account and nobody know's where it went from there. This is very troubling and why hasn't the N&R written and opinion about James Hinson's accountability, sounds like the bases of a good op-ed article to me! This matter alone raised my eyebrow as to whom is really the bad cop in Greensboro.

No comments since January 4th?
Has this blog died?
What's up?

No..it's just moved to
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2007/01/reference_jerry.html#comments