News-Record.com

John,

All things being equal don't you further wish that the series the Rhino has been printing had been in the NR?

My guess is that this series has brought many readers to the Rhino. I further guess that many readers believe there are two good papers in town ...now.

The great news is that competition makes us stronger.

Mr. Robinson, it's nice to see that you've drilled down through all the misinformation and discovered the REAL culprit in this mess---THE RHINO TIMES!!!
So does Lorraine write your stuff and you just review it, or do you write Lorraine's stuff and just have her review it?
Or are you two really the same person?? My God, can you prove that both of you have ever appeared in public at the same time??

I think the Rhino series is perfect for the Rhino and I wouldn't covet their content.

jaycee, it's interesting your interpret this post in that way. Well, maybe not all that interesting.

Would you allow a reporter to quote from the Rhino, e.g., "According to a report in the Rhino Times, Wray said...."? Or is that somehow off limits?

I agree with you that more sooner would have made a big difference.

Good points, John. I'm not glossing over the other aspects, but since this is the Editor's Log, allow me to comment on the media's role. The N&R has played a part in the fiasco caused by the (continuing) trickle of what should be public information. In my opinion, the N&R is a pussy cat instead of a bull dog when it comes to ferreting out the truth. It too easily acquiesces to the statements (or refusals to comment) of people in positions of power. The N&R is a stenographer, not a fact-finder. It lacks skepticism and a willingness to investigate thoroughly. Here is a current good example:
http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2007/10/the_walt_jones.shtml#comments

For all the N&R's expressed desire to see improvements in our community, more than anything else, the N&R could bring that about by taking a new and aggressive approach to investigative reporting -- so that issues don't fester with innuendo and speculation while the truth remains hidden from public view for years at a time. Commit yourself to the role of community watchdog with a heretofore absent vigor and persistence and our community will improve by leaps and bounds.

John Robinson wrote:
"I wouldn't covet their content."

Really? So you're satisfied that the N&R only covered one side of the issue while the public had to wait on The Rhino Times to give use the other side?
Are you embarrassed that Lorraine Ahearn's characterization of what he said was deemed so inaccurate by Chief Wray that he eventually quit talking to her?

Samuel, in some cases, we might do that. We like to be pretty darned sure of that the person actually made the quotes attributed to them.

Roch, what you're asking is much harder to do than you think. When everyone involved in something won't talk -- or when a key figure in a story will only talk with one publication -- then it is easy to speculate as to the meaning of a letter, but that's all it is. We have different standards of publication than bloggers, for better or worse. How would you suggest getting to the "truth," if no one will talk about it?

The other issue is the amount of time such investigations take. Our resources, like everyone else's are limited. There are a lot of things that deserve investigation. We try to evaluate how much we want to invest in the investigation.

If you go back to the beginning of the Wray case, our original reporting isn't that far off what is being reported now. Innuendo and speculation fester...and part of it may be because we didn't report well enough ... but much of it is because of other factors.

jaycee, I've asked before that you refrain from twisting my words. Your continued demonization of Lorraine, who is a fine reporter, is tiring and offensive. Especially from one who is afraid to sign his or her own name. I have no clue how much of what the Rhino reported is true. I'm glad you take it at face value. I can't.

"How would you suggest getting to the "truth," if no one will talk about it? "

John, you're too smart for that kind of excuse to be taken seriously. Have you determined that "no one" will talk about it? Seriously, have you?

Allow me to add, it's discouraging for average shmoes like me to have to keep pointing out the fallacy of these kinds of excuses you make. If you had the fire that I tried to describe above, you'd be asking yourself, your reporters, whether or not "no body" will talk instead of so easily rolling over when two people clam up. If you had a passion for great reporting, you'd be determined to exhaust every lead and inspire your reporters to do the same.

I'm sorry, John, especially sorry since the people I know at the N&R are nice people, you included, but people are telling you that your news paper is mediocre and you either reject that opinion or defend its causes. What's the point of answering your hypotheticals anymore when the predictable response is along the lines of, "I think we're doing okay and okay is okay with me?"

"I have no clue how much of what the Rhino reported is true." -- John

Then why in the world doesn't the N&R get on it and figure it out? Possible answers:

a. It's hard,
b. How would you suggest we do that?
c. Because the Rhino beat us to it and by not asking questions we will not have to conrfont the possibility that the Rhino scooped us. We can just thow up our hands when asked about the Rhino's reporting and ask "Who knows?"
d. We will.

The previous anonymous was me.

Oh, c'mon, Roch. Let's stay on point and not generalize if you're going to condemn me and, by extension, some of my staff that way.

My reference was to the specific case you referred to. Everyone involved with that letter has clammed up. There's no written record that we can find beyond that letter. That's lots of supposition out there about what is meant, but there are deadends. So where would you go?

This could be an exceptional story that will lead lots of places, but I don't see it. I feel the same way about Willow Oaks. As I tried to say, you figure out where to invest your resources. You want us to invest them elsewhere, which is certainly your prerogative.

Snark doesn't become you, Roch. As for your anonymous comment, it's not our job to verify the truth of the Rhino, anymore than it's their job to fact-check us.

I agree they have certainly presented a different view of the world of the police department than we have. I don't happen to believe much of it, myself.

"My reference was to the specific case you referred to." -- John

I offered a specific case to illustrate a point. You recognized that that example was part of a broader discussion when you wrote "When everyone involved in something won't talk -- or when a key figure in a story will only talk with one publication..." a reference to Wray, and different example that you offered as part of the broader discussion. You weren't confiining your comments to the specific example I offered, so please don't pretend I'm making generalizations

But on that my specific example, please tell me, when you write that "everyone" on that example has clammed up, how many are in that group? Two? Twelve? How many people have declined to comment?

Also, since you wrote "There's no written record that we can find beyond that letter," please tell me what attempts you made to find additional written records.

"So where would you go?"

Spell out for me where you've been (I'm aware of Maraget's attempts to talk to the two principals) and I'll tell you where I would go from there.

Finally, John, am I wrong to be astounded that a local weekly has published a plethora of information surrounding the police and city government, the accuracy of which the editor of the local daily admits he hasn't a clue yet seems completely disinterested in? Am I getting the wrong read on that?

Nah, I'm not going to play that game, Roch. If you have suggestions, make them.

Yes, I think you're wrong to be astounded by that. Why would you think we should fact-check them? (Maybe the blogosphere could do that? Nah.)

Gee, Roch -- I will say right now I'm being facetious so no one will think I'm serious -- you must think we have many more reporters than we have to not only follow up on the case of a letter AND check the accuracy of the Rhino every week.

This has reached the point of diminishing returns, but the issue is not fact-checking the Rhino. The issue is that the Rhino has provided what it calls facts (lots of them) surrounding a case of enormous local interest. The N&R has provided a few here and there, mostly sound bites regurgitated in print. By any objective measure, The Rhino has out-investigated and out-reported the N&R, if only by default.

That being the case, it sounds odd for an editor to complain that there isn't enough information for the simple reason that extracting that information through investigative reporting hasn't been a priority for his paper. When an editor relies on the government to release information, that's a problem.

"I'm glad you take it at face value. I can't."

Of course not.

You ignore it, despite the mounting embarrassment it must cause you.

And yet you blow off jaycee because his points are too uncomfortable for you to handle.

You and the paper are not handling this well, John.

Oh, please. Go back in the archives and see who first started reporting this. Go back and see who investigated, reporting the core information that kept people informed about what evolved how, as it was happening, not two years and longer after the events. Go back and see if it stands up. (It does; some of you just don't want it to.) Go back and see who found documents supporting its stories. Go back and check out who first reported the RMA report and Wray's statement in response to some of the initial stories.

Brian, I wasn't complaining about the city releasing the information so much as I was advising that more information released sooner would have served the city and the citizens better.

I mean, we reported all the investigations into Hinson two years ago -- investigations that revealed no criminal wrongdoing. So, what was released yesterday wasn't new, but the fact that it came from the city, with documents and commentary, was.

"I agree they (the Rhino) have certainly presented a different view of the world of the police department than we have. I don't happen to believe much of it, myself."

Really? Why not? I think you should answer that because the statement only fuels the sentiment that the N&R took sides early on. Yet, you admit to having no more evidence for that side than anyone else. Interesting.

Re: The bloggers- some of them have scooped you quite a few times, so I wouldn't dismiss that genre so readily.

People have learned more about this case through the Rhino and the blogs than your paper. The Rhino states what the City's position is and then provides the rebuttal. It may not be fair, but at least they are putting both positions in the paper. You report on what the city says and ignore the rebuttal because it appeared in the Rhino. I doubt you would hold any other story of importance printed in another paper other than the Rhino to the same standard of disregard, hence my initial question.

George W. Bush could be interviewed by Jerry Bledsoe and say "we found Osama Bin Laden" and you wouldn't print the quote because it appeared in the Rhino, and if you would- why won't you extend the same courtesy to Wray?

You sound bitter because he wouldn't give you guys an interview and then had the nerve to challenge the objectivity of Lorraine Ahearn. It's not like you guys sensationalized the increasingly unproven racial allegations against him or anything.

P.S., Jaycee says you banned him from this blog.

I have written many times of my personal experience being quoted and, I believe, misrepresented in the Rhino. That informs my belief that I am justified in making that statement, Samuel.

I've never said we haven't been scooped by bloggers. Reread what I said. I welcome the blogosphere to fact-check the Rhino with the enthusiasm they bring to fact-checking the N&R. I haven't seen it yet.

You and I disagree over your evaluation of how the Rhino has reported this story. I doubt that we will resolve that.

Comparing Wray with President Bush? Interesting. Why would I trust the Rhino or Jerry Bledsoe to get the quote right? After all, if I don't trust them -- as I have said many times -- why would I pick up a quote from them?

I'm really not bitter about it. Just pragmatic. The Rhino has reported whatever it wants about the newspaper without worrying about whether it was right or fair. It's done that for its entire existence. There's little it could report about us that would surprise its readers, except saying that they LIKE us. I'm pretty blase about it. It's just you guys who keep referring to it as if it has done something important, and then you get riled when I don't agree with you.

Yes or No:

Have you banned jaycee from this blog?

So you don't believe The Rhino Times prints the truth...well I don't believe the N&R is capable of printing the truth! I plan on cancelling my subscription to the N&R and get my news from The Rhino Times!

I can't imagine how you read my post as suggesting that you were complaining that the city released the information. You were complaining that it took so long (I agree), and that the delay forced your competitor to have "1000" segments (instead of 10) or so devoted to that information. It's odd, IMO, if you view the dissemination of that information as important but fail to try to extract it yourselves. To adapt a phrase, Roch is Right.

If the issue is resources, then you might consider reallocating some from the N&R's consideration of the desirability of MILFs and erotic corn dog eating contests.

Bubba, jaycee knows how to reach me if he wants to discuss his status on this blog.

Brian, my point was that most of what has been released has already been in our paper, much of it through investigative reporting. But it was two years ago and people don't seem to remember that. Roch's point is on a letter that he and a few others think is a big deal. I don't see it.

Hey, I'm glad you visit Unbuttoned! People seem to like that blog -- it's the third most visited -- so I don't know why we would drop that content. But gee, if we did, that would give us, oh, about 15 minutes. Not much digging we can do there.

I had to click when I saw the tag line on MILFs. I won't be going back. If you posted actual pornographic pictures of MILFs, it would probably get even more hits. Fifteen minutes of investigative digging, IMO, is more valuable than fifteen minutes of crudity, but hey, journalism is changing, right?

"Bubba, jaycee knows how to reach me if he wants to discuss his status on this blog."

I would rather you answer the question I asked of you.

Am I expecting too much here?

Somethings aren't any of your business, Bubba. This is one of them.

If you are refusing to be held accountable for your words and actions, it is very much my business, John.

That's pretty funny, Bubba. I am refusing to be held accountable by you on this topic. It remains none of your business...unless you are jaycee. With both of you hiding behind pseudonymns, it's hard to know.

Ah, the paranoid response, and the "hiding behind psuedonyms" diversion.

What specific offense on this thread did jaycee commit?

What line did he cross?

i thought my answer was pretty clear. What is it about "none of your business" do you not understand?

That was rhetorical. You don't need to answer it. I think this thread has reached the point of diminishing returns.