News-Record.com

"It is worth noting that Wendell isn't objective here."

Not pertinent to the point most of us were discussing in the other thread, John.

However, the following passage by Ted Vaden is EXACTLY on point:

"Still, I wish The N&O had included that information, which Guilford DA J. Douglas Henderson had told to N&O reporters in an interview. It would have given readers better perspective to understand Hunter's record."

We now know the error was one of omission, done on purpose, and gave the story a decided slant.

I find that unacceptable.

Indeed, Mr. Robinson, the article in question was not a work-product of your shop, so to speak. That said, I used it as a forum to comment on reporting in general and express my opinions.
Thanks for the bandwidth for comments by all, I feel this is an important subject worthy of discussion.

John:

Why is my post being blocked on the thread about Judge Hunter?

Shouldn't be. What is happening? Are you getting a message screen? Feel free to shoot me an e-mail telling me if it is easier than doing it here.

OK. Got that cleaned up and Wendell's post is on the previous blog entry where he wanted it. Sorry about that, everyone.

John:

Thanks. It wasn't for a lack of trying on my part. I tried to post it several times. It must be a glitch of some type.

Thanks for your comments and I do appreciate you checking into this with the N&O. The comments of Mr. Vaden shed some light on the articles.

John:

Now, my post is showing up twice on the Judge Hunter thread. Computers are fascinating; aren't they?

I'm afraid that the same post might keep appearing on the thread since I tried several times. Please remove any excess entries of the same post. Thanks.

Sorry again, Wendell. I wish I knew enough to explain what happened. I only know enough to call someone else who can fix it. Thanks for your posts and your diligence.

While I'm at it, I'll say this: One of the reasons I dislike fake e-mail addresses is that it prevents private conversation. As a result, I'm going to take a risk and say this directly to jaycee. For the past three days, we've had a fruitful conversation about bias in the newspaper without the usual sniping and sarcasm that comments here often devolve to. I want you to know that I have appreciated -- no, enjoyed -- it and have learned from it. Thanks.

Mr. Robinson, one reason I use a pseudonym is because I don't care to have anyone pester me privately about things on which I comment publicly. I wouldn't say anything in a private conversation that I wouldn't post here. I don't want to get into a one-on-one argument with someone in private email, I prefer to disagree publicly. That's where it started and that's where it needs to stay.
Anything I say on a blog is for public consumption and I prefer to keep it that way.

I saw in the opinion section today there was more mention of this story...yet no mention of the important facts that have been unearthed here...I don't get how you let the same mistake through twice?

Even in the opinion section there should be more accountability than this shouldn't there? This would be like me saying over and over again in a story...
"I caught the biggest Lobster you have ever seen yesterday with my bare hands...you seriously won't believe ho big this lobster is...and seriously I caught this with my BARE hands!!!"

(And failing to mention that I had reached in the tank at Red Lobster, bot the Atlantic ocean)

If I were telling you that story wouldn't you want all the details...it changes the story doesn't it?

Link:
http://www.newsandrecord.com/apps/pbcs.dll/article?AID=/20070523/NEWSREC010201/705230309

I responded to the N&R editorial about Judge Hunter that appeared in today's newspaper in the comments section of the News & Record online edition. Here it is:

This editorial assessment about Judge Pete Hunter is unfair. Unfortunately, the writer of the editorial was relying on a flawed news article that appeared in The Raleigh News & Observer and was later published in the News & Record.

The N&O article told only half of the story. Any fair person who reads the whole story about this topic will realize that a real injustice has been done to Judge Hunter. The N&O story simply lacked balance by failing to include critical facts about the disposition of high-speed cases in other counties in comparison to the disposition of such cases in Guilford County.

If the purpose of the N&O article was to give readers the impression that Judge Hunter was exceptionally lenient on high-speed defendants by allowing PJCs in their cases, the reporter wouldn't want to mention in the story that the district attorneys in Cumberland County DISMISSED 64% of the 90-plus mph cases in that county.

And, the reporter wouldn't want to include in the story the fact that 50% of the 90-plus mph cases in New Hanover/Pender Counties were reduced to Improper Equipment by the district attorneys.

And, the reporter wouldn't want to include in the story the fact that 45% of the 90-plus mph speeding cases in Davidson/Alexander/Iredell/Davie Counties were reduced in speed to 10 miles or less over the speed limit.

And, the reporter wouldn't want to include in the story the fact that the large number of dismissals handed out by the district attorneys in Fayetteville and the large number of Improper Equipments permitted by the district attorneys in Wilmington do NOT appear on the high speed defendants' driving records with DMV while the PJCs from Guilford are recorded on the driving records.

And, the reporter wouldn't include in the story the fact that, unlike dismissals and improper equipment, state law has placed limitations on the use of PJCs for both insurance points and DMV purposes.

And, the reporter wouldn't report in the story the fact that the District Attorney's office in Guilford has a policy, and has so for years, that prohibits the district attorneys in Guilford from reducing 90-plus mph speeding cases like their counterparts do in all these other counties.

No, a reporter wouldn't report all these other vital facts in the story if the purpose of the article was to target one county, Guilford, and one judge, in particular, as being uniquely different from the other counties and the other judges in the state by being exceptionally lenient on persons accused of excessive speeding.

Once the missing facts are known, a reasonable person may conclude that that this article was more of an opinion commentary than a balanced news article. The problem was that it was published as a "news article" on the front page of the News & Record. Don't you think that it is only fair that the N&R publish the critical missing facts so that readers can take them into consideration in drawing conclusions about Judge Hunter and making judgments about his reputation?

"Don't you think that it is only fair that the N&R publish the critical missing facts so that readers can take them into consideration in drawing conclusions about Judge Hunter and making judgments about his reputation?"

It's pretty obvious the paper has no interest in providing the rest of the facts of this story.

I'm having great difficulty understanding the reasoning for that being the case here.

By the way, the first post on nthis thread is mine. I just noticed the ommission.

I am not alone.

I found it interesting in the other post that the N&O told you they're not getting the same feedback from bloggers that you're getting.

Does the Triangle simply have a sleepier blogosphere? That would be interesting.

I commented a couple of times on Melanie Sill's blog (anonymously -- sorry, John, but it was one of those discussions in which my identity would simply confuse the matter), and I was not impressed with her responses. They may have a public editor, and they certainly have their share of critics, but I'm not sure they have the hang of responding to readers.

I don't think the Triangle's blogosphere is quieter, but they may have a different view of the paper's blogs. Or they may not have a Wendell Sawyer keeping watch.

I have a lot of respect for Melanie as a journalist and editor. She uses her blog differently than I use mine, which is fine. I think she's a bit thin-skinned in her responses to commenters, myself.