News-Record.com

"We get a little information from one source and publish it. The institution takes a while to respond. We get a little more information from another source and publish it. The institution takes a while to respond."

And therein lies the problem. The N&R gets misinformation and rushes to publish it. The institution knows it's wrong, and has to expend time and effort to counter the lies before they've finished their own investigation. Pretty soon they're forced to put more resources into countering the N&R's BS than they are in finding out the facts. Before long the public doesn't know what's fact and what's fiction, and the N&R says, "Well, we had to go with what we were told." and thereby absolves itself of any blame.
If I was A&T I wouldn't tell you squat until we knew the facts of the case.

Just my $.02, and you know what that's worth, Mr. Robinson. :)

The problem with that scenario is that A&T rarely quibbles with the facts of what we report, other than asking us to emphasize one thing over something else. Both the audit and the fight after the football game are examples, not of inaccurate reporting, but little, or incomplete, information being released.

It is difficult to read the political correctness that currently permeates the News and Record in regard to anything A&T. Readers see young men taught to give it up on the field but not taught sportsmanship display a lack of it after the game. Any accountability for the coaches? Just WHO is responsible? Do you remember the reporting of how Renick handled the firings of Hayes and other longtime coaches/staff? He had no regard for any of them. The N&R glossed it over. I remember the article giving Renick a glowing review of his A&T tenure upon his departure. Has the N&R no inate sense regarding investigating someones character based on their actions. How does one ignore the careless disregard Renick showed toward A&T staff. It is difficult to trust the information as published by the N&R relative to A&T as credible. It is just too politically correct.

So that I'm clear, David, your point is that the students don't know what they are talking about and that we should be harder on A&T?

Your questions about the football game are exactly correct. This post is about the difficulty in getting answers to those questions and others. As for the Hayes firing, I don't recall it the way you do.

A day after the firing, columnist Ed Hardin started a column this way:

"The dirty little mess over at A&T is worse than it looks.

"Apparently, the school doesn't even have a clue what it's done or what it does next.

"They fired the football coach, the best football coach the school has ever had, the best football coach the school could ever hope to have. And they can't even tell us why.

"In the end, they didn't even know how to do it. Poor Charlie Davis was sent into a breach to break the silence, and all he could say was ``I don't know.''

"And he was telling the truth. He really doesn't know. Apparently, only Chancellor James Renick knows, and he's not saying.

"The dirty little mess at A&T must be worse than we can imagine."

I wouldn't call that glossing it over.

I'm unclear relative to your comment regarding "students don't know what they are talking about". Not sure where that came from. Being harder on A&T isn't it either. It is about the investigative reporting of the N&R. I agree with you, "glossing it over" was a poor choice of words to describe my thinking. Getting to the core cause of the issue(s) at A&T. Finalizing an investigation with factual conclusions. It seems so difficult for the N&R to get there. This is about getting information from the leadership (past & present) of a public university. Firings, audits, arrests, breaking verbal contracts, misappropriating funds, state investigation, lawsuits. Hopefully this has clarified my thoughts to a degree.

I gotcha. It sounds much easier to get to than it is, if people don't want you to get to it. For instance, firings are a private matter between employer and employee. Tough to get clean information on those. Audits and arrests are easier, and I'd say that with arrests -- from the officials at A&T to the students -- we've been pretty complete. Have we missed someone? We have reported on both the internal audit and state audit. It's pretty complete. But if you know of something we've missed on it, please let me know, either here or privately.

My point is that these things don't come delivered most of the time. You have to dig. And they don't come fully-baked. Stories dribble out bit by bit most of the time. It's difficult and not always possible or even desired to finalize an investigation with factual conclusions.

If you have specific knowledge about something happening, let us know. We'll take a look.

Back to the main transparency question: I'll give you a simple example of where A&T keeps itself from getting the positive stories that are handed to it.

About a year ago, a friendly professor called me about some innovative research he was doing with various types of materials.

I went over and talked to him and we published an interesting story that pointed to research leading to possible jobs for the region.

When he got a grant not long after that, he called me and I did a story on that as well.

But not long after that, he was admonished by university information officials not to call the press directly, but to pass any information he had through the information officials.

I haven't heard anything about the program since, and while it's my responsibility to call and check on it as well, I point out that clunky bureaucratic ideas can stifle transparency in an instant, even if they have benign goals.

Often, readers forget or fail to realize that reporters and editors have to balance the relationships they have with institutions so that they are getting needed information to the public and holding those institutions accountable over the long term without making the next story more difficult to report. We aim to get our scoops through skill (such as "combing our sources"). Other times we are just lucky.

For example, I cover K-12 education and some administrators will return every call and even offer you story ideas or leads; others will refer every call, no matter how benign, to media relations. Not only that, but public institutions, although in theory should be as open to the public as possible, only have to release what the law requires them to release. And without a public record, such as an arrest warrant, we could open ourselves to liability.

Reporters depend on editors to stick up for them when they encounter a closed door (sometimes this involves a lawsuit). But sometimes you have to lose a battle to win the war.