News-Record.com

Hmmm... Here's some breaking news that you are NOT likely to see in the N&R OR on the website (except perhaps hidden on Mark Binker's blog):

Edwards Refuses To Fire Webmasters
WASHINGTON (AP) - Democratic presidential candidate John Edwards said Thursday he was personally offended by the provocative messages two of his campaign bloggers wrote criticizing the Catholic church, but he’s not going to fire them.

Hmmm... would Edwards have kept them if they had such disparaging remarks about Islam? I seriously doubt it.

Will we see this story in the N&R or on the N&R's site? Doubtful. If so, it will be hidden inside the B section.. HIDDEN.

No, the N&R is too busy doing lite, fun stories about how SMART Edwards' web hiring is. Funny. It doesn't seem so smart now.

And, lest we forget one of the bloggers, Amanda's wonderful, non-maligning posts, courtesy of National Review:

Q: What if Mary had taken Plan B after the Lord filled her with his hot, white, sticky Holy Spirit?
A: You’d have to justify your misogyny with another ancient mythology.

I'm not sure what is more incredible: The double standard of Edwards had the criticism been about Islam OR the N&R's double standard of covering the smart hiring and then ignoring the controversy. Will this story (if it even runs) appear with as much visibility as the fawning story? Again, another double standard.

ah, I just saw the story BURIED on the "top news" page...

JR will try to argue that it WAS on the home page earlier today.. but, for how long? by my estimation, an hour or less than 90 minutes..

it seems with all the updates today -- categoriezed by TIME not importance -- that the story would have been bumped off in about one hour.

now, I ask you. had Jim Martin or Jesse Helms or Elizabeth Dole or been running for President (for the second time) and hired two people who criticized Islam REPEATEDLY, would the story have been higher on the page for longer? hmmm.. I'd bet my life on it.

now, the N&R has boxed itself in a corner by painting Edwards' web team as so brilliant that it certainly can't backtrack and make them look bad...

I also noticed the story was on the Mark Binker blog as a "close the loop" note... as if to say "that's the end of this chapter that we never covered."

how EMBARASSING for the N&R!! when are u just going to ADMIT you are BIASED????

The Edwards story has been on the Web site for most of the day Jim.

And I know it's been pointed out before, but the previous story that Mark Binker wrote about an Edwards' staffer involved a staffer who was, wait for it, from Greensboro.

Last I checked these two Edwards staffers were, wait for it, not from Greensboro.

A little time warp there. My last comment was written before Jim's second, so I'm glad he noticed the story that had been on our site most of the day. Must now apologize for pointing that out.

oh, and since the N&R -- and certainly Mark Binker -- won't tell you..

here are some WONDEFUL photos posted on Amanda Marcotte's personal photo blog..

Funny how she is stealing some copyrighted photos.. isn't THAT illegal? I mean, just putting down a whole religion won't get you fired, but stealing content.. shouldn't THAT? maybe Mark Binker could do a story about THAT?

This one what should tip us all off about her..
a gem!

take a look at the WHOLE blog before she deletes it, which I can't believe she hasnt already

nice, dramatic, pause for effect so that you can point out what an F-ing idiot I am JR. thanks.

I know I'm stupid. I'm a potential reader -- and don't work at the N&R so I MUST be a fool.

here's the thing, though, Edwards is STILL (sadly) from N.C. and if you do a story about how brilliant he is to hire sharp people (even from Greensboro) shouldn't you do a story when people are, wait for it, NOT from Greensboro?

and, yes, AGAIN, the story has been "on" the site for most of the day.. but tell me, how many views does the "top story" page get? how long was it on the homepage? really? what is the traffic to the story itself today?

and, please, tell me with a straight face if a Republican candidate from N.C. had two webmasters who had made similar comments about Islam you would have given it the same treatment.

I'll say in advance that I expect no answer from you. why should I? it's only, wait for it, a blog!

oh gosh.. I just noticed that post was NOT from JR but from Jonathan Jones.. sorry for the insult JR (although it wouldn't have surprised me if you had answered it that way)

and, sorry to Jonathan, too

I guess I should have been more shocked I thought that you actually replied JR...

apologies all around -- except for my original and second post above.. that all still stands..

No need to apologize to me, Jim.

I was being snarky.

We'll have to disagree on equating the Matthew Gross story with the bloggers story, though. I don't see the value in the N&R spending its resources on it.

There is a difference between having a reporter dedicated to presidential politics and having reporters who occasionally write about presidential political campaigns when there is a local angle, such as someone from the paper's coverage area holding an important position. The N&R does not have the former, but it does have the latter.

Does that mean the N&R shouldn't run the wire version? Absolutely not. I expect to see it in tomorrow's paper and have already seen it on the web site.

I'd (again) argue that someone who holds such views for a religion (and we should hold the disdain for any religion equal to if it was for, gasp, Isalm) and was hired by an N.C. presidential candidate that the story should run at least on the B front AND should have been kept on the homepage longer than an hour..

for 9 hours today I'd venture to guess NO ONE saw the story because it was off the home page..

again, I will say this: had Lauch Faircloth hired two similar people who had such views of Islam would it been given such a quick stint on the site OR given whatever short shrift it will get tomorrow?

there IS a double standard.

again THIS IS IN HER PHOTO BLOG!

if she had a Muhammad characture (which caused rioting and death threats AND deaths last year) in her photo blog would she still be employed?

Jim and I have been having a strikingly similar conversation over at the Capital Beat blog. For those who are interested, this was my reply there.

-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=-=
Jim:

Obviously, I’m not in the business of trying to win you over. But I will summarize, one last time, for anyone else who might come across this comment thread:

• We wrote about Matt Gross, Edwards’ senior internet strategist, because he lives in Greensboro and is therefore local to us.
• Neither of these two ladies has terribly strong local connections, therefore they don’t make as compelling a local story.
• Just because I (or another staff writer) hasn’t written about this directly does not mean we haven’t run something in the paper about them.

I would be surprised if somewhere in the A section from the past few days we haven’t run a wire story or two about all this. However, being that I’m in Raleigh and typically see the paper on a 4-day time delay, I couldn’t swear to that.

I understand that you think this is a really big deal, that these two ladies bring great discredit to the Edwards campaign and say something profound about who he is as a candidate. I understand that in the echo chamber of the conservative blogsphere, this is all the rage and that it has gotten so noisy that political writers for mainstream media have now written on it.

Good. Fine. Everyone knows the story now. What I would have written really wouldn’t have been much different from what any of the other MSM types have done. At the end of the day, I somehow doubt that whether Edwards wins or looses will have much to do with this episode.

What have I been doing instead? In the past week I’ve written stories about the death penalty in North Carolina and local officials’ connections to the debate, the possibility of conservatives (including local legislators) getting certain pieces of legislation through the General Assembly, a potential change to the age at which Kindergarteners will go to school in North Carolina, and a few other stories that are cooking for this weekend and on down the line. All of those are stories that either would not have been done or would not have served our readers as well if I didn’t get to them.

That, in a nutshell, is the calculus that goes into our story selection. Sometimes it’s painful, but it’s how we do things. When spend our limited time and resources where we believe we can ad value and be most relevant to our readers.

But even after all that, I bet you still disagree with our choices. And that’s fine. You can come by here and rage and call me stupid and do whatever else, and as long as you don’t cuss in your comments or otherwise violate our community standards I’ll leave them up. Really, I’m happy to be over service if it makes you feel better. You want something covered and it’s not getting done and that makes you angry and I completely get that.

As open as the News & Record is to suggestions from the community, and as much as we like to hear from you folks, sometimes we’ve got to set our priorities and execute. At the end of the day, there’s no way those priorities are going to jibe with those of every one of our readers.

I'd point out this was BEFORE we knew the two women were criticizing a religion...

just using the F-word THOUSANDS of times in your posts is apparently not a problem..

but, criticising a religion IS (even Christianity)

I guess if Mr. Binker had been even LOOKING INTO the questionable posts of the wonderful Amanda earlier, he could have written a story about the more/most egregious comments and had a story...

so, when are u NOT going to do a story about the next gaffe by a Republican candidate for president who is not from Greensboro

essentially, your argument does NOT hold water... you know you cover Republicans and conservatives differently than you do liberals and Democrats.. it's obvious.

and, in case we forget:

The campaign worker has STOLEN photos!!!!! STOLEN!!!

and THIS IS ON HER PHOTO BLOG!!!

Jim, what message does that photo convey to you?

ah, so it's about how I interpret it.. riiiiiiiight...

I have to justify how I am offended?

ok, forget the photo.. I don't feel like explaining it... I'm just "offended" -- like so many who play the "victim" card daily in the mainstream media but never seem to have to explain themselves..

let's go back to the main points:

1) would a Republican candidate with campaign workers who had similar views against Islam have a story so glossed over on the N&R's site (a headline on the homepage for an hour -- tops)

2) would two campaign workers for Edwards who said similar things about Islam still have a job?

3) is stealing photos OK for a campaign worker?

The story was published in the newspaper this morning.

As stated, we wrote about one Edwards webhead because he lives here. The others don't. We publish a wire story about their past writings inside the paper. We'd have done the exact same thing had it been a Republican candidate.

"ok, forget the photo.. I don't feel like explaining it... I'm just "offended" -- like so many who play the "victim" card daily in the mainstream media but never seem to have to explain themselves.." -- Jim

Well, I was trying to understand, but if you'd rather disengage by deploying tactics you despise in others, that's your prerogative.

In 1997, we "broke" a story on the N&R site for the first time -- Tiger Woods wasn't going to play at the GGCC. (In those days, Tiger had not yet established the pattern of not playing in Greensboro, and people were actually wondering.)

It was read, unattributed, on a local TV station's 6 p.m. newscast.

That set us back a year or so. But the site probably had one-tenth the readership it has today, if that. Now, it's no different than a radio station flipping through the paper in the morning.

Oh ... and Jim? Here's a napkin. You've got a little egg on your face.

Beau.. what egg would I have on my face?

I was correct.

The story was BURIED inside the newspaper -- just as I predicted.

It enjoyed a fleeting, passing moment on the homepage and was essentially not published anywhere on the site that the average reader could find it... My original post in which I didn't notice that the story was even on the site actually CONFIRMS my assertion that it was not on the site -- because I sure looked where I expected it to be (the homepage) before posting what I did.

(Sadly, yes, I did originally think it wasn't posted at all -- but it may as well not have been. To prove that, I'd ask JR to produce stats of page views to the story when it was on the homepage and then when it wasn't. My guess is that it did 99 percent of all of its views during the time it was posted on the homepage and NONE to very few while elsewhere -- meaning it was essentially not findable and therefore not "posted." It was only technically posted... how convenient... it was posted just enough to make me technically wrong.. the only step below this would have been posting it so it was only findable in a site search!)

And, if the egg you refer to is JR insisting that the story would have been played the same if it were a Republican candidate? HA! What the &^%$ did you expect him to say? That I was right? The batting average for ANYONE on the blogs to have JR come around to their side of an issue is about ZERO -- so why did we expect it to happen this time?

In fact, I would LOVE to have egg on my face. I would LOVE to actually be wrong in the predictions about the rag that passes for a newspaper that serves this part of the world. It's sooooo unbelievably sad when I make what are the worst predictions based on the most biased of viewpoints (the N&R's) and have them turn out to be true over and over and over. I'd LOVE some egg sometime. It would be great!

"Closing the loop" here, Beau, I will NEVER for the life of me understand why the hell you are such an apologist for the News & Record.. I guess your pension plan depends on their survival and you'll prop it up any way you can.

(We won't even get into everyone ignoring my assertion about had the religion the campaign workers criticised been Muslim... I guess since no one disputed that so they must agree with it... oh no! more egg! whatever will I do but be embarassed by the wimp Beau Dure on a blog 25 people read a day???)

Oh, and the stealing of photos by one of the Edwards' campaign workers?

It's true. Yes, she posted without permission copyrighted material on her blog. That is stealing.

Again, no egg to speak of here. Sadly.

I'm not sure why the N&R -- and anyone else --doesn't seem to care that a person who WORKS in the web for a presidential candidate and former senator (Amanda Marcotte) is allowed to steal someone else's work on the web... I mean, it's not as if she doesn't understand how the web and copyrights work.

I guess unethical and illegal behavior from a Democratic campaign worker is not newsworthy to the N&R. And, demeaning, hateful writings about Christianity are only barely a story...

oh, and the Charlotte Observer has seen fit to run the Edwards story as THE LEAD story on their website...

why is that? no one involved is from Charlotte...

heck, Edwards is from Robbins, which is on the edge of the N&R's circulation area (at least it used to be -- back in the day a friend of mine subscribed to the N&R in Moore County)

Why would the Charlotte Observer write such a lengthy story (with two staffers) AND put it in such a prominent position on the homepage (with a photo) when the link to the Observer is even more tenuous than the N&R's?

I'll answer: because they recognize it's a Big Deal!

heck, the Observer even used some snippets from each woman's blog to show the outrageous hatred...

but, I guess the Observer is incompetent.. yes, that must be it... the News & Record knows much more and is far wiser... that is the only way to explain it.

I know that you think this is a huge story worthy of the No. 1 position in the paper. We don't. No big conspiracy. You don't believe we would play the story the same way if it involved a Republican. That's fine. No way to prove it one way or the other. I have no clue why the Observer thought the Edwards story was the most important story of the day. That's why people have media choices.

Here's the thing JR: These stories RIGHT NOW about Edwards are the ONLY chance people have to get a real sense of what the man is about.

Think about that.

Because he's going to go out and run and make speeches that are total BULL---. All politicians do. He'll lie, he'll tell half truths and he'll say ANYTHING to get elected (something about how people will rise from wheelchairs if we get elected sounds familiar)

So, how do we know what kind of a decision maker or person someone like Edwards is? We keenly study and REPORT and SHOW voters what he is doing when it matters.

And, so far, when it matters, Edwards has made some goofs.. One after another after another.

Yet, for some reason this glimpse into how he operates and what kind of a man he is goes under the radar at your newspaper.

Look, I don't think the story is a lead 1A story. But, the B-front makes sense and certainly keeping the story on the homepage longer than 1 hour as a headline is under-playing it.

And, your last sentence about media choices is remarkable because it's exactly why you need to think more about what you're doing.