News-Record.com

Here's the excerpt from the N&O editorial that I think says it best:

"Andrew Taylor, political scientist and presidential politics-watcher at N.C. State University . . . (says) . . . readers should look to the nature of the coverage . . . whether there is "a sober, judicious assessment of his chances, comparing with 2000 and how he may be the same and how he may be different, analysis of his positions on substantive issues."

But there can be too much of a good thing. I think what a lot of us got sick of last time was the fawning, far-from-sober adoration of everything Edwards, simply because he was from North Carolina . . . never mind what he actually did NOT do for North Carolinians while he was in office (Rob Christensen was one of the worst offenders at the N&O). And there was virtually NO close media scrutiny of the Poverty Center business (which smells to high heaven in the wake of Edwards' resignation . . . given the top-heaviness of who oversees the creation of these things with Democrats). Ted Vaden & company needed to do more than just "wonder" about that.

Here's a suggestion before the campaign really gets started. You mention the "hard-core anti-Edwards sentiment, which is virulent in a state that voted for Bush-Cheney over Kerry-Edwards in 2004". I don't think you can brush this "sentiment" off as easily as your new-years resolution will brush off blog comments that sting. Between the puff pieces (which both the N&O and N&R are bound to deliver), why not do a story on that? Why is the anti-Edwards sentiment so "hard core"? Why is it so "virulent"? Scrutinize that.

And if you do something like that, try not to do it as a "hit piece" on the people who feel that way.

I daresay, you'd have a series there.

"Between the puff pieces (which both the N&O and N&R are bound to deliver), why not do a story on that? Why is the anti-Edwards sentiment so 'hard core'? Why is it so 'virulent'? Scrutinize that."

Why not, indeed?

I agree that a story on the hardcore anti-Edwards sentiment would be revealing. Shine a bright light on the mentality of it. Report statements like "[The Poverty Center Business] smells to high heaven in the wake of Edwards' resignation . . . given the top-heaviness of who oversees the creation of these things with Democrats" and let the public judge the rationale for the Edwards-hate. Do it, John. Please.

Yes, John. Do it. Please. Let's ask Erskine and Mike and Jim (Black) and the rest of that oh-so-noble and selfless Democratic (did I spell that right?) company in Raleigh how the state of North Carolina's educational system wound up propping up a former "favorite-son" Presidential candidate between elections.

Hi Roch. Pushing the buttons again, I see. As you not-so-subtly slam the "mentality" of anyone who might ask that kind of question, please note that my query is actually a variation of the same question asked by another Edwards critic (who lives in Chapel Hill) buried deep in the N&O editorial John cites. The N&O's Editors apparently "wondered" about that whole Poverty-Center thing, but did not delve deeply into it.

(I guess it's a good thing we got that lottery.)

By ALL means, let the public scrutinize the rationale behind all of the Edwardian "love".

Are you kidding? JR can't even muster the mustard to reply on his own blog, much less take your advice.

Good idea, Mary. We'll do it.

The comment above mine, by the way, is yet another from Fecund Stench. He can criticize me, but there's no need for that sort of ad hominem attack here in a post that has nothing to do with his dislike of the city manager. I've told him if he does it again, he'll have the honor of being the first I've banned.

God knows I've asked for it.

Maybe Ed will let you keep doing it, Fec. Or maybe you should just limit your unique brand of journalistic protest to posts related to that particular topic (which there aren't many of).

"We'll do it." Great, John. But in accepting your answer, would the interpretation be narrow (i.e. a story on the Poverty Center) or global (i.e. stories about people who have a legitimate axe to grind with Edwards' previous performance in public office)?

Whatever the case, I'll hold you to it. But mind you, I'll also hold you to the part about whatever you publish not being a "hit-piece" on the people who don't worship at Edwards' altar . . . people who dared ask the questions that journalists in this state have previously only "wondered" about.

I ask for decency, Dr. Johnson. That may be a protest, but effective it isn't.

I can't really answer your question. We'll need to do the reporting first. However, I can't imagine we would limit it at all or frame it the way you're framing it. The end result being that both would be included, I think, so perhaps I can answer the question.

It won't be a hit piece. We don't worship at the Edwards altar, although I know some of you aren't buying it. That's fair enough.

Fec has made it clear that what he's doing is a form of protest. As for "efficacy", perhaps he thought you were just going to ignore him. After all . . .

As I understand Fec's position (and he is free to correct me if I am wrong), he does not "dislike" Mitch Johnson. He dislikes your newspaper's coverage of the job Mitch Johnson has done as city manager. There is a big difference.

Back on topic, I accept your answer and look forward to the N&R's reporting on the "hard-core, virulent anti-Edwards sentiment" in North Carolina.

"'hard-core, virulent anti-Edwards sentiment' in North Carolina"

Reporting might just include that there isn't a statewide anti-Edwards sentiment. It could be real sentiment, but it might not be the majority. (Or it might...) Like JR said, the reporting has to come first.

It's amusing to consider what might happen if the truth doesn't fit a predetermined view or a distinct group's opinion, either way it goes.

The "anti-Edwards sentiment" certainly formed "the majority" both in North Carolina and nation-wide in 2004. Whether or not one can classify most of it as "hard-core" or "virulent" remains to be seen.

That being said, I certainly take issue with the notion that "the majority" opinion (one way or the other in ANY venue) is the only valid viewpoint . . . and the only one that should be reported. But I also take issue with a minority that might be (in some fashion) more powerful shoving their opinion down the majority's throats. Where Edwards was concerned, some of us felt like that was exactly what was going on with the major NC newspapers in 2004.

Let the reporting begin!

Just so you don't think I'm faking it, I must say that the reporting won't begin this week or next. The election is 23 months away, and the primaries still more than a year away. We won't start reporting in earnest until people start paying a bit more attention.

So, when you don't see the stories you're looking for immediately, that's why.

And if Fec's position is that he doesn't like how we've covered Mitch, signing off the way he did is a stupid way of expressing it. And a good reason to ignore him.

Dude, I've got a blog, too. You should come around sometime when it's working.

We are having trouble communicating. I will not rehash it all here.

Maybe I'm stupid, but you're lazy.

C'mon, Fec. I didn't say you are stupid. I don't even know you. I said your action was. And childish would have been a better way of wording it. And you don't know me, so how about refraining from name-calling. It simply reflects badly on you.

For a guy who uses words for a living, you could spend a little more time choosing yours. I don't dislike Mitch and I don't dislike you. And no, we don't know each other.

I have paid for your paper for nearly 30 years and read it since I can remember. I have a right to protest your inaction regarding the City Mgr.

Hell John, just tell us why you won't report on Johnson and Hinson. Any candor on your part would be an improvement. Maybe you have and I missed it. I don't come around here much. And if you will simply address the issues, I'll go away.

I have no expectation that you or the others will take my words at face value. But I'll give it a shot. We have reported on Hinson. You don't like what we've reported. Fine by me. You also have the Rhino's version.

As for Mitch, I'm not sure what you want reported. But calling him a disease and calling me names on other blogs may make you feel better -- I assure you it doesn't bother me feelings -- but it is hardly adult discussion.

John, I'm not anyone but me. I have never accused you of lying or even having a bias.

As I have stated on my blog and elsewhere, I hold you accountable for the editorial decisions at the N&R.

Had you addressed me publicly, I would not have derided you publicly. I've said just about all I have to say to you and still you wonder what I want.

What is the current sit re Hinson's prosecution?

Who is leaking docs re Johnson to The Troublemaker and are you getting copies?

Your paper had plenty to say about Hinson and Johnson before allegations of wrongdoing were made. Why are you silent now?

Again, these are indictments of the paper and not of you, personally. But it really serves no purpose to accuse the N&R of wearing silk panties.

A lot of people enjoyed my humor. I didn't expect you to like it, but I did expect you to get it.

I suppose that's the difference between this being my hobby and your vocation.

No, I'm not a regular reader of your blog.

What's the current situation regarding Hinson's prosecution? He's not charged with anything as far as I know.

I have no clue who's leaking anything to Troublemaker and don't know why you think I would. I won't tell you what we do or don't have copies of. Sorry.

Allegations of wrongdoing? You mean those made in the Rhino and on the Troublemaker? That's for them to be responsible for. Why would you think that we're going to print what they print?

I'm not sure what purpose it serves to accuse anyone of wearing silk panties, but I guess that's your business.

Humor? If you say so. It is true that I don't think calling people names is all that funny.

When someone comes on my site with a problem, I check out their blog. Chances are, I'll have a better understanding of their gripe. But, that's just me.

Thank you for finally addressing my concerns. You have confirmed that you neither know nor care about these important issues. And so, I will continue my campaign to have you replaced, like a light bulb, only brighter.

I want more Duke basketball coverage!! Cover Duke basketball now!!

I'm sorry -- I shouldn't resort to parody. I think I've made my point.

Perhaps I should just offer a suggestion. Maybe JR should have a weekly open thread for suggestions and so forth. Then the threads on covering the Edwards campaign can be reserved for comments on covering the Edwards campaign. And so forth.

John, how do you stand all these lunatics? They're the very definition of Republican -- dishonest and nasty. You must be super-zen. I couldn't do it. I'm telling you, this nouveau web idea of helping your enemies attack you is pure wack!

Walter, although "raised Republican", I am a registered Independent. And I believe I have been very even-handed in this thread trying to keep John & company "honest".

You see, the partisianaspartisiangets politics in Randolph County did me in with regards to the Republican Party. But that's off topic . . . and another story . . . one John Edwards ignored and John Robinson won't tell.

At least not yet. Maybe my story will someday rate a second look because I'm so "hard-core and virulently anti-Edwards".

I'm sure I was offended somewhere in this whole thread, so I'll just imagine that I'm inserting the same played-out insult here:

______________________________

I hate it when I miss all the fun!

Impressive indeed. If you all knew how much the Raleigh N&O goes out of its way to continue to "pimp" John Edwards, you would be sickened. AS much as Edwards likes to align himself with John Kennedy, the closest he comes is maybe their respective hairstyles. Mr. Edwards, I didn't know John Kennedy, but I do know his history. Mr. Edwards, you are no John Kennedy.

Mr. Robinson, let me give you a good story that the NandO of Raleigh will never report. Look into the house the Mr. Edwards has built (or is building) on the other side of Jordan Lake in Chatham County. I sure your readers love to know, especially that 20 minute commute that Mr. Edwards has to make on the way to the Poverty Center. And just for kicks, thrown in a picture of the "cottage" down by the Carolina Shore.

And to the good people of Greensboro, I know one thing we all have in common. When we want a good laugh, all we have to do is think of Durham, NC.

Uncle Ruckus:

The N&O did, in fact, report on the Edwards' purchase of land in Carrboro when it first happened in summer 2004. I remember it distinctly -- I was working at The Daily Tar Heel at the time, and (lazy college students that we were) I'm pretty sure that's how we found out about it. I also seem to remember it causing some hullabaloo on a local politics blog, with Elizabeth Edwards joining the discussion.

The only scrutny perormed by the N&O on a political ad(oop) stort is whether or not "Democrat" is spelt correctly and the person being written about is praised to heeaven if he is truly a demo-rat.