News-Record.com

Mr. Robinson, you asked, "We would welcome suggestions for the next story we should pursue."

Here's some:

To what extent did Lorraine Ahearn's stories (rife with out of context quotes, misinformation, and racially inflammatory conjecture) influence the attitude and actions of Mitch Johnson and Linda Miles? (This is assuming that both read the N&R and use it as a source of info.)
To what extent did Lorraine Ahearn's stories influence Joe Williams and the Simpkins PAC to put pressure on Johnson and Miles, believing that the slant of Ahearn's stories would help their cause?
To what extent did Lorraine Ahearn's stories influence the general public who then put pressure on city government based on Ahearn's presumption that Chief Wray was a racist?
Did Ahearn's racially incendiary terms such as "Secret Police" and "Black Book" affect the attitude of any of the above groups/persons?
To what extent did the perception generated by Lorraine Ahearn's stories cause Johnson and Miles to influence the RMA group on what findings were expected by the City of GSO in the RMA report?
(Yes, I know Ahearn reported that "someone" in GPD used the term "Secret Police" which has now evolved into the N&R's claim that the rank and file of GPD used that term. No evidence was shown by Ahearn that numerous members used that term.)

Oh, c'mon, jaycee, quit joking around. I was serious.

Focus all you like on the News & Record as a villain here. Other than Wray's assumptions and beliefs, there's no evidence that anything we've done has been inaccurate or wrong.

Out of context quotes? Misinformation? Conjecture? Strong charges with zero basis of support. What the heck are you talking about? Where's your documentation? And don't use Bledsoe as your source. You already know what we think of that.

Well, you asked for suggestions, so I made some.

Mr. Robinson, if you think for one minute that the stories in your own newspaper don't shape the public perception of events then you're the most poorly qualified newspaperman in America. You dare to come on here and suggest that the N&R contributed absolutely nothing to the information learned by the public about these events??? You suggest that each and every word in Lorraine Ahearn's report was accurate, correct, unbiased, and without personal agenda?? And you would have us believe that none of the thousands of readers who have no other source of information on these events were not led to believe the "facts" in the article written by Ahearn, whether they were correct or not?? We're not fools, sir, though you may treat us as such.
As I've posted on here before, my information and views on this case and subsequent N&R racial hysteria are based mostly on my personal knowledge of the incidents and the persons involved, including Chief Wray whom I've known for 30 years. I learned long ago to disregard most of what I read in the N&R when I'm looking for facts. Having dealt with Lorraine Ahearn in the past (and having read her work when I knew the real truth behind her stories) I know her reputation for truthfulness, fairness, and objectivity is poor.
Just because you have some personal animosity toward Jerry Bledsoe does not negate the fundamental veracity of his writing on the subject, much to your chagrin, I'm sure.
Chief Wray's own statements of events and conversations with Lorraine Ahearn contradict many of Ahearn's statements, particularly those taken out of context by Ahearn. While Ahearn's statements were often vague, Chief Wray's were clear, concise, and reflected an accurate memory of statements made versus the "reporting" of Ahearn on the same statements.
Please provide evidence that the "rank and file" referred to the Intel unit as the Special Police. And I mean more than one disgruntled officer who talked to Lorraine. I submit this is largely a figment of Ahearn's literary imagination/license. One officer out of 700 employees isn't very damning, but to say the "rank and file" thinks such-and-such is much more devastating, eh?
Please reveal who coined the phrase "The Black Book." You and I both know it was Lorraine Ahearn in her zeal to spice up the story. To call it a photo lineup of suspects just wasn't interesting enough to her, I guess.
And lastly, anyone who knows Chief Wray could hardly recognize him in the role of bigoted racist as portrayed by Ahearn. Conjecture on her part? Darn right it was, and damnable journalism, too.
I believe Ahearn's reporting was an attempt to generate a racially motivated atmosphere around the GPD and Chief Wray. Her motivation in this scheme escapes me, but I guess you'll never tell us about that, will you?
My simple question: What impact did Ahearn's slanted reporting have on the main characters (Johnson, Miles, Joe Williams, RMA authors) and on the events that followed?

John,

Do you deny that Mitch Johnson was the one that slipped the RMA over your transom ?

John, I assume your story will also give us an update on whether it has been proven that the "black book" was used to discriminate on the basis of race as was originally reported in your paper and also whether it has been proven that the "secret police" were out to get black officers solely because of race as originally reported in your paper.

These were the headlines when the story broke, we now have a lot more facts, you should give an update on how much of those headlines actually panned out in light of the ancillary charges filed against Fox & Sanders and the criminal and civil investigations that cleared Wray. I hope that you will make the effort to point out that those investigations concluded that Wray violated nobodys rights and committed no criminal acts and specifically that the allegations of disparate treatment of black officers was found to be unsubstantiated by the Feds.

Considering the headlines when the story broke, this follow up deserves equal attention in order to be fair.

Surveillance was a story the N&R did a very very poor job with. That is one JR.

Smoke and mirrors...

What was the first thing David Wray asked from City Council? What is the thing City Council still hasn't provided? Wray asked for 100 patrol officers. That was in 2005 and still we don't have those 100 officers. Add to that the 89 vacancies GPD has as of this week and you'll begin to understand why GPD is unmanageable. Could you run the N&R effectively if you were short 25-40% of your staff? Your employees would be at each other's throats if your paper were as short handed as the GPD was in '05 and remains today. I worked for lots of companies who were very understaffed and in every instance internal politics, moral and corruption became unmanageable. Want to see a business tank? Announce an austerity program. I've been through that so many times the word "austerity" scares me.

So why don't we look through the smoke and mirrors and ask ourselves who has profited from the entire Wray fray? Who gained when Chief White wrecked our city? Follow the money, John, connect the dots. Yeah, I believe there are some high level City employees who stand to gain a little from this mess but who's getting fat at our expense? Who's getting fat while I battle the Bloods gang across the street from my house?

Who in this city stands to gain from the losses my neighbors and I face? Who's sitting around their downtown offices snorting coke while little girls in my neighborhood are forced into prostitution and little boys become human shields for police bullets. Who are the men driving around my neighborhood in new Lincolns, Caddys, Lexus, MB and BMW automobiles day and night. This is a working class neighborhood, we don't own cars like that. You would not believe the number of $60,000.oo cars that come and go around here. Find those people and all will become clear.

Congratulations, Billy -- that's the first interesting comment, probably the first one not driven by some narrow agenda, I've seen in this whole saga.

More tripe today, Sensational headlines, sensational quotes. I will make you a bet that neither of the officers are convicted. Why no bond if they have comitted such shameful crimes? Reconized in their own recognamce. Worse yet, did you have to put Lorraine Ahearn back on this story, when most of us believe she writes with a poisoned pen? Jerry has kicked your ass again.

Lorraine Ahearn once told me...regarding Hinson..."F*** him..I aint helping him anymore" I thought her job was just to write the facts.

When I was in the editorial department and we ran low on letters to publish, we would write an editorial supporting gun control and letters would flow. Writing about this case reminds me of that.

Let me take these one at a time, and it may take a couple runs at it.

jaycee, a few things. First, it's nice to make all your charges under the cloak of anonymity. But I'll take you at your word that you are all the things you say.

No, I'm quite sure that our reporting had influence on the public perception. I defy you to show where I suggest otherwise. You charge that our report was full of inaccuracies, but you don't back it up with anything other than your long-time friendship with the former chief.

You find Wray's story clear and Ahearn's vague and out of context. Interesting, except that Ahearn never told her version of the conversation, other than reporting what Wray said in her news stories. How do you know what is in context and not? You know based on what the former chief suggests. One-sided, to be sure. Everything you seem to know seems to be based on The Rhino's version of events, which is most certainly one-sided.

Speaking of which, I have no personal animosity toward Jerry. I just take his reporting on the subject with a lot of salt. He's clearly representing the former chief's views on things, and that's limiting. So people who buy the whole story from that view must know that it's not the whole story.

You think we made up the black book and the special police?

Please cite the passages in our coverage in which we make Wray out to be "a bigoted racist." Your statement: "her motivation in this scheme escapes me" is telling. It escapes you because it makes no sense.

Fred, you finally cracked the case! Now people can get off Bellamy-Small's back about leaking it to us.

Thanks, Billy and Samuel.

More later.

Wayne, I can't answer for the charges or the bond, but I appreciate you suggesting we have responsibility for them. As for your other comment, you're imagining a fight -- I know you've encouraged me several times to get into one -- where one doesn't exist. Or at least, one of us didn't know we were in one.

Ben, coming from someone who has put all kinds of words never stated in my mouth, why would you think I'd believe you when you put some in Lorraine's?

I just read the story and it's written by Ahearn. I didn't expect her to report on the failure of the evidence to support the sensational claims she wrote when the story broke.

John, you need to pull her off this story. You should have done that a long time ago, and you owe it to your readers to do a follow up on how those accusations have been substantiated. If they haven't, you need to come clean and say so.

To say that you doubt your paper had any influence on the public perception of the case is the dumbest thing I have ever heard from an editor. Think about how ridiculous that sounds, John.

Everytime I give the N&R the benefit of the doubt that they will change their stripes instead I am greeted with more foolishness and denial.

Your paper printed bold headlines that Wray was being accused of being a racist, you now need to print in bold headlines that he was cleared by several agencies of those accusations. Same thing with the "black book" and "secret police".

And you have the nerve to accuse the Rhino of being a mouthpiece for Wray- who do you think you are being a mouthpiece for?

Beau Dure said: "Congratulations, Billy -- that's the first interesting comment, probably the first one not driven by some narrow agenda, I've seen in this whole saga."

Thank you but to be perfectly honest I do have a very narrow agenda-- I'm living with hundreds of street gang members, prostitutes, drug dealers and other nefarious types on the very block my family has lived on since 1958 and have never understood why we've been forced to live in fear since the 1970s. My agenda: to be able to walk one block to my brother's home and not carry a handgun, to be able to sleep with someone other than a sawed-off 12 gauge 3" magnum pump shotgun with 10 rounds in the tube. (She's really cold in bed and she always says no.) To be able to cross the city street in front of my house when traffic is traveling at less than 70 MPH. To not count 2-300 cars running the stop sign in front of my house on any given day. To not see children getting off the bus in front of the crack house...

Alas, I guess that is too much to expect from the City of Greensboro.

Samuel, you and I just disagree about "sensational claims." In fact, some were raising questions about Wray and black officers. And I don't see that that the investigations cleared him as you describe.

I will say to you what I said to jaycee: Find the instance where I said we didn't have influence on public perceptions. Two comments above yours I say that I know we do.

I don't know that the Rhino is a mouthpiece for Wray. I say it is telling the story from his viewpoint. That's been clear from the beginning. What I'm questioning are those who are taking that view as the bible.

"You charge that our report was full of inaccuracies, but you don't back it up with anything other than your long-time friendship with the former chief."

I don't believe I ever called Chief Wray a friend but have known him for 30 years, mostly professionally. I don't think I've spoken to him in ten or twelve years. My recognition of the inaccuracies, and I've told you this over and over, is from being in almost daily contact and discussion with current and former members of the GPD and others who have worked with and for Chief Wray. Many were involved in the events that led to Ahearn's reports. It was almost universally accepted that she was flat-out wrong on most of what she published by those who know the truth behind the events. Friendship has nothing to do with it, it's about facts. I believe that Ahearn continually skewed, twisted, misreported, and cherry picked things to pursue her agenda (and that of others who had political and fiduciary interests in city politics) of making a racial issue where none actually existed.

"Ahearn never told her version of the conversation, other than reporting what Wray said in her news stories. How do you know what is in context and not?"

Hmmm...tough one. On one side we have Chief Wray's own words, on the other we have Ahearn's characterization of what Chief Wray meant when he spoke those words viewed through her personal and professional bias. Sorry, I'm gonna have to go with the speaker of the words, not the one who sought to use them against him.

"Everything you seem to know seems to be based on The Rhino's version of events, which is most certainly one-sided."

Refer to my comments above; most of my info comes from direct contact with those involved long before Jerry Bledsoe's series. However, Bledsoe's articles do contain direct quotes from Chief Wray on what he did and didn't say to Ahearn. Ahearn's word is hearsay; Chief Wray's word is evidence.

"You think we made up the black book and the special police?"
Well, if you didn't, who did? If it wasn't Ahearn or the N&R please provide evidence of who made up these terms. You claim the "rank and file" used the term special police, but have presented no evidence. The black book was explained early on; it was a photo lineup legally constituted and used according to legal guidelines and departmental policies. No evidence has surfaced to prove otherwise. The continued use of that term by Ahearn ingrained a racial component in the minds of readers intended to sway them to accept Ahearn's theme that Chief Wray was engaged in a racial vendetta against black officers.

"Please cite the passages in our coverage in which we make Wray out to be "a bigoted racist.""

Well, if Ahearn had simply written a one-word article stating that Chief Wray was a bigoted racist it wouldn't have taken up many column inches, would it? The whole thrust, intent, and general attitude of Ahearn's article is designed to lead the reader to the conclusion that Chief Wray was persecuting black officers because of his racist bigotry. I don't think you can argue any other possible intent. It's what you reporters DO, Mr. Robinson, shape the thoughts of the readers. Ahearn's technique was to mount a one-person smear campaign against Chief Wray by publishing everything negative that could be thrown at Chief Wray by those who sought to destroy him and make this a racial issue where none existed.

Back to my original question at the start of this thread. In today’s issue, a story by Lorraine Ahearn contains the following paragraph:
“He trusted Wray implicitly at first, Johnson said. But the tide turned as new pieces of information came to light that showed serious problems did exist, Johnson said.”

How much did Ahearn’s articles in the N&R contribute to the "new information" Johnson used to make his decisions? The above paragraph indicates to me that Johnson may have well relied on the N&R for some of the info which he used to form opinions. If Johnson’s source of information was flawed, so was his conclusion based on that info.

Let me make one thing clear. I have never said that Chief Wray was a stellar police chief for Greensboro. It may well have been best for GPD had Chief Wray been moved out of that position long ago. However, his failings were not racial in nature. My only gripe is that Chief Wray was skewered in the public's eyes as a racial bigot by the N&R and Lorraine Ahearn when that simply was not the case.
Bad chief, maybe; racist, no.
Had the N&R pursued his real failings instead of helping to invent a racially biased whirlwind in this case the final result may well have been the same.

John.

You asked , so here goes:

Dorothy's House Has been Picked Up By A Big Wind So Where Will It Land ?

I give up. It is useless to try and reason with idealogues. The N&R will never admit they made a mistake on a racial story and will never refrain from finding a race angle regardless of the veracity of the evidence.

They have made it clear they have no intention of coming clean and that we can expect more of the same. Guess what, John? You are no longer the paper of record around here. As much as you might deny it, you are no different than the Rhino, Yes! or the blogs, worthy of no more credibility than those outlets.

The N&R is playing willfully blind, and John has the nerve to say Wray wasn't cleared. Where are the charges, John? Where are the civil rights violations, John? What about the Feds finding no disparate treatment against black officers, John? Instead, you run bold headlines written by the hippie wannabe Lorraine Ahearn who thinks she came down south to save everyone from their own ignorance proclaiming Wray as a racist because some officers don't like him- but the federal investigation finding otherwise is of no consequence.

You are like the National Enquirer on racial issues- a tabloid looking for sensational headlines regardless of the facts.

There is no point in me continuing this discussion with you any further. Your white guilt has apparently overcome your reason and sense of fairness.

John,

At this point, there doesn't seem to be much reason not to reveal who slipped you the pirated copy of the RMA report. Everyone has let Diane Bellamy-Small take the heat for it, even though she says that she didn't do it. It seems to be a fact that the copy you received was made from her copy, but then she said that her copy was at her desk and someone could have taken it to copy and later return.. Originally, that story seemed to be questionable, but now, I, for one, am beginning to believe her. Has Ms. Bellamy-Small been allowed to be the fall guy, or rather person?

As I said, there is no source to protect anymore in not revealing the name of the person that gave you the copy. You certainly know who it was, so why not let your public know who it was? Fred Gregory raised an interesting possibility that it was Mitch Johnson. You didn't confirm or deny that. Mr. Johnson surely had something to gain by getting the report into the public eye to strengthen his hand with the public that David Wray had to go. I can't really think how it benefited Ms. Bellamy-Small to do it.

Could not agree with Samuel more.
Your paper did not carry the case in Tennesse where blacks killed two young people. ( To be fair neither did most Tenn. papers) your claim was this was not local news. Yet when a white was involved in a West Va. crime it made your paper big time. The last time I checked Tenn. was nearer NC. than WV. I know nothing of this case, however I told Doug Clark and Allen Johnson that your paper and WFMY was being blamed by people in Greensboro for this.The hearsay is that the so called black leaders came to your paper and WFMY because Wray would not let them run the police dept. Of course this is just street talk and should not be taken as a fact.

jaycee, we have been here before, haven't we. Your generalities and hyperbole make discussion difficult. You say, "It was almost universally accepted that she was flat-out wrong on most of what she published by those who know the truth behind the events." Wow. Where is the back up for that?

You take the word of the former chief over the reporting that's been done. I can accept that. I might suggest it's one side, but that's your call.

You get into dangerous territory when you start drawing conclusions about our intent, given that you don't know, weren't here and ignore our own explanations. Again, where is the evidence that we make Wray out to be a "bigoted racist"?

Thanks for your story suggestion about the role our reporting played in the case. You seem to think it played a great deal. I'll let it stand at that.

Samuel, we agree on one thing: It is useless to try and reason with idealogues.

One point of clarification. You said this, "Wray was being accused of being a racist, you now need to print in bold headlines that he was cleared by several agencies of those accusations." My statement in response was that he was not cleared by several agencies of being a racist.

Stormy, we don't reveal our sources, period.

Doug, you're getting into silly territory. No meeting was held as you suggest.

John Robinson says:
"My statement in response was that he was not cleared by several agencies of being a racist."

Really? Then can you point us to the agencies that still DO believe he is a racist?

On the points you raised about my comments.
""It was almost universally accepted that she was flat-out wrong on most of what she published by those who know the truth behind the events." Wow. Where is the back up for that?"

Are you now calling me a liar because the N&R hasn't yet written a news article that will validate my truthfulness?? The "back-up" is me. I told you, and it's the truth. That is the opinion of the people I talk to on a regular basis who were involved in the incidents and investigations. Dude, look beyond your word-processor, the world is bigger than your little empire. There are real people out here, we're involved in the things you only write about, we talk to each other about it, and we don't rely on the N&R for our "facts" because we know better.

"You take the word of the former chief over the reporting that's been done. I can accept that. I might suggest it's one side, but that's your call."

So, you believe the words out of Chief Wray's own mouth are not as reliable as a news article recounting the impression Lorraine Ahearn got of those words in light of her personal and professional bias? Please tell me you're joking about this. I shudder to think you're serious, but that would explain why you believe none of the commenters on here.
Do you disbelieve what you hear your wife and children say unless a N&R reporter validates it? Must be some interesting times around the dinner table over at your place...

jaycee, sorry I wasn't clearer on the charges. I haven't read every public document that's been released but does one state that Wray is not a racist?

I appreciate your opinion about things and when I ask for supporting documentation, I'm trying to find out where they come from. Now I know that you assume your circle of acquaintances represents widespread opinion.

I'm not calling Wray or you a liar. But I also know that one person's view of things isn't necessarily 100 percent accurate of what happened or of how others feel.

So you'll continue to believe Chief Wray is a racist until someone shows you a "public document" that says he isn't?? My God, is this how you view our world, guilty until proven innocent? Unfortunately, that appears to have been Ahearn's position on Chief Wray---she continued to write about him as if he were a racist and has yet to be disavowed of that notion.

Your comment about "widespread opinion" is disturbing. Are you saying that widespread opinion, even if it's been influenced by slanted, biased, and unreliable reporting, is more important than the truth? If several people know the truth but a large part of the public has been led to believe something false then does that false belief trump the truth? Wow, I think I'm beginning to understand this whole newspaper business...

I apologize for daring to have private conversations with acquaintances without the presence of a N&R reporter to mis-interpret and mis-report our words to use as "proof" to you later that we actually talked about the disparity between what they know to be the facts and Ahearn's published BS. Mea culpa.

jaycee, really, don't put words in my mouth and don't make assumptions without any basis. Read what I wrote. I never said Wray was a racist and don't think I've offered an opinion on his racial views at all.

You stated that all the people you talk to think one way and concluded, if I read your comments right, that that opinion is almost universally accepted. I doubt you've talked to enough people to draw that conclusion.

Mr point, Mr. Robinson, is that this opinion is almost universally accepted by those who know the truth. Ahearn's reports were not accurate as determined by those who know the truth. How much clearer can I make it? The N&R didn't tell the real story, it told the story it wanted the readers to believe, regardless of the facts. In my opinion, Ahearn is a biased, slanted, politically motivated liberal reporter who sees racists hiding behind every tree, probably with a noose hanging from it.

You seem to think that "universal opinion" is more important than the truth, and that those who know the truth should not be believed over a reporter's characterization of what she would have us believe to be the truth.
I'm sorry, but your logic defies...well, logic.

jaycee, you toss out this statements that are no more than tossed out statements. We don't know who you are and you say that your opinion is almost universally accepted by those who know the truth. Who are they? You won't say.

Then you make these sweeping statements based on nothing more than your knowledge of the former chief and these people "who know the truth."

Then you accuse us of all sorts of insulting things with, again, no supporting evidence other than yourself.

That's not good enough. And I'm tired of your baseless, demeaning and slanderous comments about one of our reporters.

Thanks for sharing, but we're getting nowhere. Let's move on.

John
I think you are the one that needs to get out and talk. Most of the people at the places I go are almost polorized. The main anger I hear is for Mitch Johnson, Lorraine Ahearn, Linda Miles and for the City Council, excepting Mike Barber. The main thing I am hearing is how they tried to destroy a good man and of course, Jerry bledsoe is the hero,

If you think I am wrong, visit certain cafes in town and you will find petetions to remove Mitch Johnson and its only going to get worse.

I would hate to be an incumbent trying to get re-elected.

Wayne, can you provide a little more information on where those petitions are? Thanks.

Margaret

I think there are several, but the Coliseum Cafe is one place, If you are interested, I'll find out where the others are. But will John allow you to write a story on them?

Mr. Robinson, I've said at least 3 times in my previous comments on this thread that my information comes from the facts as known by present and former police officers and other GPD employees who were involved in the incidents reported by Lorraine Ahearn. Their strong position is that Ahearn's articles were not (and are not currently) accurate.
If you feel I'm alone in my belief that Ahearn's work on this subject was poor journalism then you haven't read the comments by other posters, and you don't know what's going on in our community. As Wayne above said, it's to the point where petitions are circulating for Johnson's removal based on the actions he took.
My question, and I've asked you several times now after you requested suggestions, is how much influence did Ahearn's articles have on Johnson in making his decisions? I think that's a fair question. If Johnson used any of Ahearn's slanted information as a basis for any of his actions, would you agree that Johnson's decisions were tainted as well?
Since you're refused to comment on my question after several opportunities, and since you refuse to accept what others see plainly about Ahearn's poor reporting, I, too, believe our discussion is at an end.

On the contrary: He's most likely to come over to my desk, conk me on the head with his cast and say, "Hey, why haven't you checked on that petition yet?"

Margaret,

Please do keep in mind that if you read one of the petitions you're immediately qualified as a racist. If you read & sign you get promoted to rabid racist.

Margret

I checked at the Coliseum Cafe on the Petition to remove Mitchell Johnson. They have 15 full pages of signatures so far and I was told they are signing like hot cakes. please take John with you since he dosen't seem to believe any of us,

Thanks

By the way, isn't the Coliseum Cafe in Sandy Carmanys district?

Thanks for the info, Wayne. Much obliged.

Hi Margaret,
There is no provision in the City Charter to remove a City Manager by petition but it would certainly make a statement to incumbents to see hundreds of signatures stating their request to remove Johnson. And contrary to what the mayor said it IS a campaign issue.
Here's what I want to know.
Why doesn't JR conk you on the head with his cast and say, "Have you checked out that letter from Walt Jones yet about Linda Miles' covert basement operations and her refusal to forward this memo to the Council?"
My council representative (Sandy Carmany) told me to ask Miles myself but I don't want to. I want you to do it Margaret because you ask nicer.
How about it?

I would like to state unequivocally that I have not conked on the head any of the newspaper staff even though I've been tempted.

Margaret is covering the forum. She get over to the Cafe in the next day or so. Thanks for the tip.

From what I read JR and MB the real story is to send a reporter to Billy's house and view first hand gangs in Greensboro.

I think I've finally found some common ground among local bloggers and News & Record editors: You both maniacally assign stories to me with complete disregard for my personal life!

Just kidding. But not really.

I've finally found some common ground among local bloggers and News & Record editors: You both maniacally assign stories to me with complete disregard for my personal life!

Just kidding. But not really.

To Jaycee and others:
I think the hed "Secret police use black ops on black cop" is all the argument you need.

Margaret,
It's because you are so versatile!
Now, what is the N&R's official stance on the letter?
Is it news?
And are you on the case?

Tony Wilkins - the one person in Greensboro who can't get enough of my work!

Today I'm working on the story about the petition at Coliseum Cafe. The rest of the week, I'll be working on profiles of all the candidates whose races have primaries. Those stories are running Thursday (District 1), Friday (District 3), Saturday (District 5) and Sunday (at-large).

I'll take a look at the letter next week. If I do much more this week, you'll find me disoriented and confused, walking the streets with my friends the space aliens.