News-Record.com

John
With the new assignments, are you now going to start covering the news? Such as the GPD scandal, and the Willow Oaks fiasco, Beverly Hinson and Pella Stokes cases, the Gang shootings ( which by the way, are now at a crisis point ) The incompetent City Council, Manager and Attorneys Office, The Federal Drug investigation. Just a few of the events that you chose not to cover.

By the way, where is Lorraine Ahearn?

Do you actually read the News & Record, wayne? It is certainly true that we haven't published a year-long series carrying the former chief's water. I'm well aware that you prefer the Rhino's coverage of these cases. You can have it. With them doing what they think they should -- and they're free -- why would you want both of us to go that way?

Yes John. I actually read the News and Record. As a matter of fact, I was reading it before you were born. Both the morning and afternoon editions. You broke the Homestead Story but what have you reported since then? The Townsend-Ahearn stories about the " Secret police" were a disgrace and filled with only partial truths and spins. Bledsoe has ruined your paper and you either can't or will not defend Townsend or Ahearn. Why? One can only believe Bledsoe. After all, he is very credible. I understand his book "Death by Journalism "- a book about the News & Record- is being used at certain schools as a model for newspaper reporting. Why don't you takes NEWS out of News and Record if you will not report the news. People in jail, federal investigations, bank rip offs, our police department and officers involved in multi law suits, discredited officers, major drug arrests and not a word from your paper. Why?

I was gonna comment...but, heck, Wayne pretty much said it all.

Not a word from our paper? You say you read it? We've written about all those topics you refer to...just not from the slant you like.

As I said, you've made it abundantly clear that you believe Bledsoe and not us. That's your right. I don't. I've been on the business end of Jerry's reporting both in the Rhino and that book and I know what's true and what's not. If you don't see his reporting on us as a thinly disquised venting of his spleen about the newspaper then there's nothing I could say to change your mind.

I mean, seriously, why are you so insistent that we do what the Rhino does? Do you ask John Hammer why he doesn't report on the stories that are in the News & Record?

We're different, Wayne. They have their style; we have ours.

"If you don't see his reporting on us as a thinly disquised venting of his spleen about the newspaper then there's nothing I could say to change your mind."

The skin keeps getting thinner, and the answers keep getting more exasperated.

I think we're beginning to see some results here.

Otherwise, the Stonewall would still be in place.

Hey Mr. Robinson,

I read the N&R every day.
I have been disappointed with your coverage of city government. I attend many council briefing sessions, city board meetings, etc.
I understand that the newspaper cannot cover everything in detail; but, I feel that many things that happen at city council metings and briefing sessions are not covered at all in the N&R reports. What is covered often looks like a press release directly from a publicity person at the city. Maybe a brief mention of more of the discussions that happen at briefing sessions would help me feel better about the reporting. I would also like to see more follow-up on current events.

Maybe this seems boring and old-fashioned to people who have been raised on isolated sound-bites and lengthy explanations of what the speaker meant to say. I think that real news junkies want more. I want to believe what I read in the local newspaper; but it is getting harder to do.

I very seldom watch local news reports on television because they seldom go into any detail about things I find interesting. I don't care which shampoo will make my hair shine or what media-made celebrity is in trouble. I care what the city council is doing to make my city better or worse. I care how my local representatives vote in Raleigh and in Washington.

Thanks for blogging. See ya in the paper,
diane

You guys are just so predictable. Always the same comments; always the same response. I've answered some version of the above several times over the months you've guys have come on. Why you keep asking the same questions hoping to get different answers is beyond me. Why, it reminds of the famous Einstein quote about doing the same thing over and over again expecting different results. What was he referring to? I forget.

It is fun, though, on a rainy Saturday afternoon.

John

Do I sense a deep resentment for Jerry Bledsoe and intense dislike for John Hammer? Is this effecting the "non" coverage. Sure seems that way to me.

It's just hard to understand why so many stories are not being covered by the N&R. Maybe I'm just too dumb to understand. Or is this beginning to get under your skin?

I know you will respond with sarcasm, so go ahead.

That last comment wasn't directed at you, Diane. I hear you. There are a lot of reasons we don't report everything that happens at government meetings. What would be helpful to me is on the day after those meetings you don't see something in the paper you think should have been, call me or e-mail me and let me know what you've missed. And let me know what you think needs a follow up. We don't know everything that happens. And you, as a rep of the LofWV could help us be better.

Through the shifts mentioned above, we're adding a person to our local government coverage so that we can go more deeply. So send me/us your thoughts. Feel free, too, to contact the reporters directly.

You're right, John. I keep asking the same question. Why no coverage?

I understand that you want to make it personal, Wayne, but it's not. You don't read any personal statements by me about Jerry or John. I'm not a fan of their reporting or the way they go about business. From what I read, they aren't a fan of the way we report or go about business either. Honestly, I think it is personal on Jerry's end, but I bear him no ill will. Perhaps you would pose the same question to them and draw the same conclusion you're drawing here? You see, Wayne, I'm asking you to hold them to the same standard. Are you?

You are saying we've not written about the police department? About Stokes? About Hinson? About gangs? Well, I say we have. So what you're really saying, I guess, is that we haven't written about it as much as you like or from the angle you want. OK. You have made up your mind that we are "a disgrace," the city council is incompetent, the police department is full of crooks. OK. I guess from all that perspective, we don't see the stories they way you do.

My question remains: why is it so important to you that we report the same thing the Rhino reports?

The important thing is that we have to read the Rhino Times to find out what you FAILED to report in your coverage. It's a shame we have to read two newspaper to get the whole story.

I've been enjoying this exchange so far.

Sayeth John Robinson, Editor of the GSO News & Record, " . . . we don't see stories the way you do."

And there we have it. Nuff said. The N&R "sees" stories in a certain way, as opposed to investigating and reporting the facts and letting its readers come to their own conclusions.

And you need to read the News & Record to find out what the Rhino failed to report in its coverage. That's why you have to read two newspapers, right? And what's wrong with having to read two newspapers?

Mary, yes, we see stories in a certain way. So does every news organization. It's called making choices. We have investigated and reported what we thought was appropriate in each of these stories. We're still investigating and reporting in some of them. I understand that you and the other commenters here don't like those choices. And so you can turn to the Rhino, Yes!, the Wall Street Journal, the magazines, the blogs, TV....isn't it nice to have choices so that if you don't like what one tells you, you can go to another.

At the risk of being on-topic, High Point? Joe Killian? Is this 'everyone gets all assignments for a while' or something specific? I look forward to Joe's Greensboro reporting.

Thanks for bringing us back "on-topic" Sue. You are the only one talking about " assignments". The rest of us have talking about reporting, or the lack of.

Pardon, should have said " The rest of us have been talking about reporting, or the lack of."

Sorry

I removed Ben Holder's last comment. He can use all the profanity on his own blog that he wants. It's not welcome here.

Thank you, Sue, for not using a post about the staff as an opportunity to bash the staff.

What we want in High Point is someone who can look broadly across all the stories there and write about the ones that will interest readers across the county. We want someone who has initiative and good judgment. We think we have the right person in Joe. The benefit to him is that he gets to work during the daytime and he has more freedom. Don't worry, if we do this right, you'll get to read him plenty.

N&R Editor John Robinson on Gangs.

July 6, 2007:"Maybe so. We've sniffed around before and couldn't find any real indication that gangs are quite the problem that some people think they are."

Today in the N&R:"Greensboro has a gang problem. The neighbors know it. The police know it. The City Council knows it."

Did anyone tell John? Did the gang problem grow in the last 23 days or is the N&R Editior out of touch with reality? The truth is the gang problem has been a problem for some time. It is now recognized because a few cops were shot at and one was stabbed.

How did the N&R Editor miss this one so badly? Did the Greensboro City Council just discover the gang issue?

Sandy Carmany claimed this issue had her attention in 2005: As a council member who is supposed to know about everything that's going on in town, I was shocked to learn how much I don't know about these problems. Captain Scott's observation that "we have a small fire now, but it could burn the city down" really got my attention. I highly recommend this program to every neighborhood and parent group in Greensboro so you will be better informed about what we and our children are facing. You can reach Detective Cuthbertson at 373-2216 to arrange for this presentation.

Sandy mentioned the problem on her blog but did she do anything about it besides leave the cops phone number?

Greensboro Troublemaker November 2005:

We at the Troublemaker have written several times about gangs forming in Greensboro and the truth about the violence it has produced. We believe that there is a gang problem. Because of this belief we bring to you an actual copy of the Greensboro Police Validated Gang list. The names of the known gang members have been removed.

However, one can still see: the race/age/gang/date validated/who validated them/ and when will they come off the gang list. If a member is validated they are put on the list. Their name is on the list for two years. If they get into trouble during that time, the court will know they have been validated as a gang member. If they stay clean for two years, their names are taken off the list. The list below is some what old and new kids are added and taken off all the time. However, this is a good indicator of what the police specifically know about the gangs we have, the races involved as well as the ages. Enjoy.

If all is kept secret and only once a year do we meet to talk about it then nothing will be solved. The public needs to know about their kids. We need to know about police. We need the facts on the table. Even if we have to steal them from secret police files we will. Government of the people, for the people, by the people.

Race Sex DOB Gang Date Validated Removal Date Validated By
Asian Male 1/23/1983 BIS 4/19/2004 4/19/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 6/16/1986 21st Crip 4/7/2005 4/7/2007 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/29/1986 Bloods 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Mexica Male 10/14/1972 MS-13 8/19/2004 8/19/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 3/7/1981 SSC 2/9/2004 2/9/2006 J.A.Fulmore
Black Male 11/28/1968 5% 5/26/2004 5/26/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/21/1981 BIS 3/7/2004 03/01/06 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 5/8/1982 BIS 9/22/2004 9/22/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 6/21/1983 BIS 3/7/2004 3/7/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 2/3/1988 BIS 2/25/2004 2/25/2006 R. E. Edwards
White Male 10/26/1977 Latin Kings 4/5/2004 4/5/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 9/17/1970 SSC 11/7/2003 11/7/2005 J.A.Fulmore
Hispanic Male 7/8/1988 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 4/23/1989 TRG 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 R. E. Edwards
White Male 9/22/1987 TRG 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 7/20/1985 BIS 4/30/2003 4/30/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Female 10/16/1987 ESC 1/21/2004 1/21/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 1/24/1985 Bloods 8/29/2003 8/29/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 6/29/1989 Bloods 3/15/2005 5/15/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 6/20/1981 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 12/12/1988 BIS 2/24/2004 2/24/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/7/1987 Bloods 4/19/2004 4/19/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 11/17/1983 Bloods 8/28/2003 8/28/2005 J.A.Fulmore
Black Male 1/6/1990 Bloods 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 7/31/1984 TRU 8/21/2003 8/21/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 3/29/1984 Bloods 5/12/2004 5/12/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Female 4/10/1986 TRG 6/11/2004 6/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 8/13/1982 Bloods 2/12/2004 2/12/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 11/20/1987 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Puerto Male 11/19/1976 Kings/NETA 8/27/2003 8/27/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/26/1984 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 4/5/1983 Crips 9/22/2004 9/22/2006 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 7/1/1986 MS-13 5/7/2003 5/7/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 8/31/1986 Bloods 2/4//2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 3/6/1980 SSC 3/10/2004 3/10/2006 J.A.Fulmore
Black Male 12/16/1987 ESC 1/21/2004 1/21/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 1/14/1983 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 12/10/1980 Marvara 10/12/2004 10/12/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/9/1984 Folk 4/28/2004 4/28/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 6/14/1985 Crips 1/9/2003 1/9/2005 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 9/20/1977 Sur 13 5/7/2003 5/7/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/12/1983 Crips 12/27/2002 PRISON E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 1/15/1984 TRG 9/22/2004 9/22/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 3/2/1986 ESC 1/21/2004 1/21/2006 J.A.Fulmore
Black Male 4/1/1970 Bloods 4/19/2004 4/19/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/16/1988 TRG 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/10/1982 SSC 10/21/2002 PRISON E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 6/5/1988 Folk 12/15/2003 12/15/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 10/10/1984 TRG 4/23/2003 4/23/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 8/7/1987 Bloods 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 4/1/1988 BIS 1/28/2004 1/28/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 5/20/1983 TRG 2/6/2003 2/6/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 9/30/1986 TRG 4/29/2004 4/29/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 9/8/1986 BIS 11/12/2003 11/12/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 3/12/1985 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 3/4/1986 BIS 4/19/2004 4/19/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 1/19/1983 TRG 5/24/2004 5/24/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/28/1988 Crips 2/4/2005 2/7/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 1/3/1982 BIS 4/19/2004 4/19/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 12/15/1984 TRG 1/26/2004 1/26/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/1/1987 BIS 2/12/2004 2/12/2006 R. E. Edwards
Indian Male 10/10/1983 BIS 7/22/2004 7/22/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/29/1980 SSC 3/19/2004 3/19/2006 J.A.Fulmore
Mexica Male 4/2/1980 42 LC 11/19/2002 11/19/2004 E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 1/30/1985 74 Folk 7/26/2004 7/26/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/16/1986 Bloods 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Hispanic Male 7/27/1989 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
White Male 1/15/1982 Folk 4/25/2003 4/25/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 1/21/1984 Tru 12/15/2003 12/15/2005 J.A.Fulmore
Black Male 11/27/1985 Crips 11/19/2002 PRISON E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 10/27/1986 Crips 2/7/2005 2/7/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 4/16/1988 Crips 2/7/2005 2/7/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 7/15/1980 Bloods 1/14/2003 1/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
White Male 8/24/1987 Bloods 7/4/2004 7/4/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/24/1980 SSC 10/21/2002 PRISON E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 3/27/1982 BIS 7/22/2004 7/22/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/5/1984 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Female 10/10/1985 TRG 5/20/2004 5/20/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 1051983 TRG 6/11/2004 6/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 1/25/1984 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/22/1985 BIS 12/30/2003 12/30/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 9/15/1988 MTC 1/5/2004 1/5/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male Crips 2/8/2005 2/8/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 8/5/1988 TRG 12/30/2004 12/30/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 2/7/1985 Bloods 11/19/2003 11/19/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 4/29/1983 BIS 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 9/22/1986 TRG 6/11/2004 6/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 8/17/1988 Crips 2/4/2005 2/7/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 3/19/1985 Crips 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 7/22/1989 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 3/21/1987 BIS 1/5/2004 1/5/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 12/6/1986 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/14/1981 TRG 2/11/2004 2/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Female 9/9/1984 TRG 2/11/2004 2/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/4/1983 Crips 11/19/2002 PRISON E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 2/6/1982 BIS 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/11/1984 Bloods 6/28/2004 6/28/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 6/1/1986 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Female 3/31/1984 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 3/1/1985 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 10/14/1989 Bloods/Crip 2/3/2005 2/3/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 10/2/1984 Crips 12/30/2004 12/30/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 9/18/1987 TRG 6/11/2004 6/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 9/9/1984 TRG 2/11/2004 2/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/15/1985 Bloods 6/17/2004 6/17/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 4/18/1989 Montangard Troop Crips 4/14/2003 4/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 10/28/1984 Bloods 5/15/2004 5/15/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 11/3/1986 BIS 7/26/2004 7/26/06 R. E. Edwards
White Male 1/7/1978 BIS 9/5/2004 9/5/2006 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 7/11/1988 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 9/8/1985 Folk 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 5/26/1985 Bloods 6/24/2003 6/24/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 2/9/1985 TRG 3/1/2004 3/1/2004 R. E. Edwards
White Male 12/1/1981 Latin Kings 11/8/2003 11/8/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Hispanic Male 2/17/1984 Las Vacas Locas, Sur 13 3/18/2005 3/18/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 10/26/1985 TRG 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 2/22/1985 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 5/30/1983 Bloods 6/24/2003 6/24/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 7/11/1986 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 1/3/1985 TRG 3/3/2004 3/3/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 2/16/1985 Bloods 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/20/1987 TRU 8/21/2003 8/21/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 7/16/1987 TRG 4/16/2004 4/16/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 4/30/1984 TRG 5/24/2004 5/24/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/24/1988 TRG 4/16/2004 4/16/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 3/10/1988 BIS 2/12/2004 2/12/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 11/14/1986 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 9/7/1983 Bloods 5/12/2004 5/12/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 12/25/1980 Bloods 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 7/27/1988 TRG 9/25/2003 9/25/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/25/1981 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 6/20/1983 TRG 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 2/5/1983 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 1/24/1984 TRG 2/11/2004 2/11/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/25/1985 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 3/12/1985 BIS 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 6/6/1977 TRG 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 7/10/1988 Sur 13 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 4/1/1982 SSC 9/5/03 9/5/05 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 10/29/1981 BIS 12/16/2003 12/16/2005 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 7/19/1988 SAF 12/13/200 12/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Puerto Male 6/22/1980 Latin Kings 7/11/2003 7/11/2005 R. E. Edwards
Hispanic Male 5/20/1985 Sur 13 12/30/2004 12/30/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Mexica Male 5/20/1985 Sur 13 11/25/2004 11/25/2006 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 2/3/1983 BIS 7/20/2004 7/20/2006 R. E. Edwards
Asian Male 10/4/1988 BIS 4/28/2004 4/28/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 6/6/1981 Bloods 8/29/2003 8/29/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 4/17/1982 8 Tre 9/23/2004 9/23/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 10/6/1990 Crips 1/4/2005 1/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 12/2/1981 Bloods 9/17/2004 9/17/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 6/16/1988 Crips 2/4/2005 2/7/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 5/9/1978 8 Trey 12/13/2004 12/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 4/16/1990 Eastside Crips 1/6/2005 1/6/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 4/1/1986 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 1/1/1987 Bloods 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 7/14/1989 Crips 2/4/2005 2/4/2007 E. L. Cuthbertson
Black Male 1/23/1986 BIS 3/17/2004 3/17/2006 R. E. Edwards
Black Male 11/25/1983 Bloods 7/14/2003 7/14/2005 E. L. Cuthbertson
Asian Male 8/13/1980 TRG 1/13/2004 1/13/2006 R. E. Edwards

Not surprisingly, Ben didn't include my entire comment.

The rest of it was: "A problem, yes. Pervasive, no. I've heard talk that the three homicides of teenagers lately were all gang-related. Police don't tell us that, though. Only one of them might be, they say.

"It's a sexy topic, though. I'm just not sure it is one of those overriding public interest issues. But we'll ask around some again."

This statement came a few weeks after the council approved a budget with nary a cent for a gang unit or any public outcry that money be spent that way. In the meantime, more gang-related violence occurs. And, true to my word, we asked around.

The rest of your statement is meaningless. If you sniffed around before and missed a problem that has been around for a long time then you do not know how to sniff.

The rest of your statement does not make you look like a good editor, John. You have ignored a problem that has been a major one in Greensboro's less affluent areas for a long time. Less than 30 days ago you stated the gang problem was not as big as some think.

Top Police Brass will readily say it is now becuase of the recent violence directed torwards police. The violence has always been here and it has been gang violence. It has been gang on gang violence. Black on black. Poor on poor.

Not suprisingly, you failed to address your silly statements. I didnt include the rest of your words because they were meaningless. Address how less than 30 days ago you said gangs were not as big a problem as some think. Can you do that?

Actually, I said that we had sniffed around before and couldn't find any indication that gangs are quite the problem some people think. And I said we'd ask some more.

Both of those were true then. We're writing about gangs now, too. We have written about gangs a lot over the years, which was also mentioned in that series of comments you referred to above.

I do appreciate you condoning stealing police files, though.

More John Robinson.
I posted my last post over at John Robinson's Blog and not surprisingly, he made a foolish comment. John responded to my post about him today. Below is his entire comment:

Not surprisingly, Ben didn't include my entire comment.

The rest of it was: "A problem, yes. Pervasive, no. I've heard talk that the three homicides of teenagers lately were all gang-related. Police don't tell us that, though. Only one of them might be, they say."

It's a sexy topic, though. I'm just not sure it is one of those overriding public interest issues. But we'll ask around some again."

This statement came a few weeks after the council approved a budget with nary a cent for a gang unit or any public outcry that money be spent that way. In the meantime, more gang-related violence occurs. And, true to my word, we asked around.”

John reported today that I left important parts off his July 6, 2007 comment . However, the rest of his comment does nothing to show he is smart or has any business being in charge of anything and it certainly does not excuse what part of his comment I did include.

John’s July 6, 2007 comment included: "Maybe so. We've sniffed around before and couldn't find any real indication that gangs are quite the problem that some people think they are.” John wrote this after 9pm on July 6, 2007.

Less than six hours earlier, on the same thread at the same post on the same blog, John wrote: “In the past two months alone, we have written about gangs causing the county's violent crime rate to increase, gangs being accountable for the increase in robberies, graffiti vandalism being gang related, and gang activity in schools.”

Is that not a real indicator? John said the N&R has in fact written about gangs causing the county's violent crime rate to increase, gangs being accountable for the increase in robberies, graffiti vandalism being gang related, and gang activity in schools.

However, hours later he claims there are no real indicators that gangs are as serious as some think. The real indicators have been in place for a very long time. It was the real reporting that has been missing.

Before ben highjacked the thread, I was hoping wayne, jaycee or Bubba -- what is it you all have against capital letters? -- would answer your question, JR. Why would they want the N-R to report what the Rhino reported?

Only reason I can think of is that they want the credibility and influence of the paper on those topics. And why would they want that? It sure is not because they want to help you "be better."

On the topic of "assignments".
John, I'm sure you've been asked this many times before but I can not find the answer through searching the Internet.
Lorraine Ahearn is a columnist. Why was she assigned a news story with the significance of an alleged scandal in the GPD?
Was that by your authorization?

"no-name" I am continually amused at what the N&R does NOT report.
The Chief Wray fiasco is just a case in point. Ahearn, et. al., took a non-story and blew it into an "expose" complete with her invention of "code words" (secret police, black book) convincing the public that Chief Wray was a loose cannon racist, hunting down black officers for no reason. The public bought it, and you've seen the result. Ahearn injected her left leaning political activism into a "news" report and embarrassed the N&R with her one-sided story.
That, "no name," is why I'd like to see the N&R report the news instead of making it. It's a shame we have to rely on The Rhino Times to get "the rest of the story" but that's what happens when the N&R publishes one-sided, slanted, and sometimes baseless stories.
Does that answer your question?

The story started with a column by Lorraine. We kept her on it, teaming her with our police reporter. My question would be why not? It's common practice here and at other newspapers for columnists to take time off on news stories. Why, 20 years ago columnist Jerry Bledsoe took time off to write a newspaper serial called Bitter Blood here.

jaycee, I hardly know where to begin dissecting your post about our Wray coverage and, as I've done it many times before, I won't waste time with it now.

I will pick up "no name" ball though -- isn't it annoying when people won't give their name? -- and ask if you are saying that you'd give up the Rhino if we wrote more on the topics you state? I'm dubious. I think you like the Rhino because it reflects your political values. It seems as if you think that we publish one-sided, slanted and sometimes baseless stories and the Rhino doesn't. Am I wrong?

Mr. Robinson, I don't expect you to address the deficiencies or distortions in the Chief Wray story. You never have before.
But you know, as well as I, that had Ahearn written a scathing expose of corrupt black officers the public would have demanded that Wray take action. Instead, she chose the dark side (no racial pun intended) and the rest is history.
Mr. Robinson, if you truly believe that the *wordsmithing* used by a reporter has no effect on the public perception and opinion of an issue, and if you don't think that reporters can sway the public to their side of an issue without regard for truth or accuracy, then you're either genuinely stupid or professionally ignorant. I've seen no evidence you are either.

I have addressed the Wray story many times. You guys just don't agree with me, which is your right. You seem to think that our story is wrong because the Rhino says it is. That's hogwash and the nut of our disagreement. I don't have any expectation of changing your mind, which is fine. What I've asked is that you bring the same skepticism to our reporting that you do to other reporting.

Still, why should we have the same stuff that's in the Rhino? We've written it -- the topics Wayne referred to -- and they've written it. We're supposed to write more because they've written more? They don't write about everything we write about; why should we write about everything they do?

Mr. Robinson, my basis for criticism of Ahearn's Chief Wray story existed prior to the Rhino stories by Jerry Bledsoe.
I've known and worked with David Wray for 30 years. He may have been many things, and he may not have been the greatest Chief GPD ever had, but he is NOT a racist. He's one of the most liberal police officers I've known. That's the most glaring paradox between reality and Ahearn's fantasy story. Many of the comments about Ahearn's story from those who know Wray consisted of laughs and shaking of heads. Nobody who knows and/or who's worked with Wray ever believed that nonsense, no matter how hard Ahearn tried to convince us. When she started with that false premise, everything else that followed was suspect, as it should have been.
The second "expose" was about Hinson and the tracking device. Ahearn made it sound like something underhanded, sneaky, or suspicious. Nothing could be further from the truth. But Ahearn's characterization of this entirely legal and valuable tool led the unknowingy public down the path she wanted them to take--that GPD was unfairly using *spy* techniques against black officers. Again, those in the law enforcement profession were dumbfouded that Ahearn could get it sooo wrong.
Thirdly, I was aware that Ahearn was the person who brought Hinson's suspicious and possibly corrupt activities to Wray's attention in the first place. I knew this before the truth came out in the Rhino about that conversation. Along with many others I had to question Ahearn's tactic of planting the seed for an investigation and then attacking Wray for pursuing that very investigation.
Much as you'd like to believe it, my life is not guided by The Rhino Times.

I'd just like to state for the record that I don't find Jerry Bledsoe the least credible, and any J-school class that uses his book is proving why journalists shouldn't go to J-school.

I've met John Hammer and find him friendly and credible but too willing to be unfair. If he knows something will appeal to his audience, he'll run it, fair or not. When I was in Greensboro, the things he wrote about the N&R were generally distorted half-truths. In person, he was an affable guy; in print, he was condescending and often just plain wrong.

I don't know Wray. I know Lorraine Ahearn and trust her work, but I have no problem with people who want to tell another side of the story. It's a pity his defenders rallied behind Bledsoe, who proved to me in his posts on the N&R site that he bears an overbearing grudge against the paper and has a less-than-sympathetic view toward race relations.

If you know Wray and think the N&R's picture of him is inaccurate, then perhaps you'll understand how those of us who know the N&R staff feel when we stop by the blog and read the garbage posted here about people we know.

So if you really want to discuss Wray, maybe everyone should back up a step and discuss him without all the Bledsoe muckity-muck and without all the "When did you stop beating your wife?" questions.

In the meantime, I'm looking forward to reading Lex's work on health/medicine and Margaret's GA work.

Beau Dure, I was discussing Chief Wray sans the Bledsoe articles. My info on the situation was from personal involvement long before Bledsoe chose to publish what really happened.
I also know Ahearn, and do NOT trust her work. In my opinion she pursues a political agenda through her "news" reporting and that makes her news articles little more than thinly disguised social activism.

Beau,
On a blog several months ago Jerry Bledsoe stated that he had never met or talked to you. If he is correct, How can you possibly know that he is a racist or has an overbearing grudge against the N&R? What a cheapshot. What kind of a journalist are you?

Beau,
On a blog several months ago Jerry Bledsoe stated that he had never met or talked to you. If he is correct, How can you possibly know that he is a racist or has an overbearing grudge against the N&R? What a cheapshot. What kind of a journalist are you?

Wayne -- We've never met beyond the virtual world. So that would be what I'd call a half-truth. He used to participate in discussions on this site, often drawing derision from people other than me.
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/lexblog/archives/2004/09/sing_with_me_we.html
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/outloud/archives/2005/10/alumni_update.html

And the one in which he lectures me on my sense of humor:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/outloud/archives/2005/02/davenports_scre_1.html

If that's not Jerry Bledsoe, he fooled everyone, including those who agreed with him.

Jaycee -- I know you've raised some points beyond Bledsoe, and I know you're less prone to interject the "When will you stop beating your wife?" questions into random blog posts than some people here. We'll agree to disagree on Ahearn. I'll say again that I can see plenty of room to disagree on the Wray coverage in general. It's just a pity any chance for reasonable discussion on it has been tainted.

To clarify -- I mean a "half-truth" in the sense that when he says he's never "talked to me," he's being just a little too literal.

And in any case, I had no opinion of him until he started posting here. He said enough to make quite an impression.

If everyone -- allies, N&R staff, etc. -- has been fooled by some impostor with some unfathomable motive, I'll retract. But given the interactions here, that would be quite an act.

Can someone catch me up? What happened after Gary Cooper found out that Frank Miller got out of jail?

While I'd love for Mark's comment to be the last on this string, I must point out that the relationship between personally knowing a reporter and using that as a basis for deciding whether to believe that reporter's reporting is suspect, at best.

Of all the places a person gets news, the chances of knowing every reporter are pretty slim. So, aside for personal knowledge of the reporter, what do you use to judge believability?

I know all of our reporters, many of them very well, but that doesn't factor into whether we believe their work to be true. We use a variety of fact checking mechanisms, including asking sources whether they were quoted correctly, in context and whether anything about the story is, in their opinion, wrong. Given that I've already raised factual and contextual questions about some of the reporting in the Rhino about this newspaper, it leads me to wonder about the rest of the reporting. I've also raised questions about his intent as he writes about the paper, including showing you our email exchange concerning an interview. Many of you in this comment thread have made a decision that I'm not believable on this topic. That's your right.

How you make such a decision the Rhino is correct about things involving this paper and I'm not is beyond me, but it's something that I can live with.

I have known Ahearn for many years, though she may not know me. She's interviewed me and plenty of my fellow workers over the years for news stories.
My gripe with her is not the factual accuracy, but the manner in which she reports the "facts." They're flavored, slanted, and biased in such a way as to lead the reader to a conclusion that she desires even though that conclusion may not be accurate. In The Rhino Times stories we've seen Chief Wray explain his comments made to her and it appears there's a great disparity between what Chief Wray meant and the context in which Ahearn reported what he said. Heck, anybody can take a statement out of context and make it sound like whatever they want. As I've said before, Mr. Robinson, you and I could each write a news article on an event in such a way that a reader would hardly know we'd both written about the same event.
It appears to me (personally knowing a lot of the things that actually happened) that Ahearn took the "facts" of the Chief Wray story and twisted them to support a preordained conclusion.
That's not "reporting" in the strictest sense, it's editorial comment.

jaycee -- There's an in-between state as well. Sometimes, even an honest reporter can see the quotes in a different context than the speaker. In school, we did an interesting exercise along those lines, interviewing each other and writing stories, then exchanging to see how we came across. At that age in particular, it was easy to get the context wrong, even if there was absolutely no editorial comment intended.

So that's a mistake rooted in negligence rather than malice.

And yes, sometimes a reporter can be so convinced he or she has flushed out an evildoer that the perception overwhelms the quotes. See the Duke lacrosse case circa April 2006.

That's still not necessarily an editorial comment, nor is it necessarily even "bias" in a strict sense. But it's a mistake, sometimes a harmful one. (Note that I'm not saying Ahearn did this -- I can't possibly pass judgment on the facts of the Wray case from this distant vantage point.)

That's why I think it's good to have different perspectives on news stories, but only as long as everyone is at least attempting to report honestly. When someone is outright dishonest, it's harder to get the truth.

Mark -- I heard one paper reported that Cooper nobly discharged his responsibility and walked away with his head held high, while another wants to try him for manslaughter and another wants to sue for breach of contract.