News-Record.com

Wow--so the News and Record is now *obliterating* the illusion of a wall between objective reporting and actively working for the police. Finally!

So, um, are you guys actually on the payroll now, or do you get little plastic "Junior Police Achievers" badges or anything?

Pretty cool!

Dang! Should have asked for one of those badges!

I think that it actually says we're working for all the citizens who don't have outstanding warrants.

Was it Farenheit 451 or 1984 where the citizens were instructed to walk outside and look for a criminal (as defined by the state) and report him to the authorities? (I think it was the former, but it's been years...)

It's not the most-wanted list that's been vetted; rather, it's the slope we can fall down that this sort of thing greases.

I worry about stuff like this. Maybe I'm the only one.

Nice try. But it does show how much you believe the police's side of things that you unquestioningly accept their definition of who is and who isn't a "criminal". I'm guessing y'all just started to feel bad about having to report so much about the low-down nasty things the cops have been caught doing for the past year and a half or so, and wanted to do your buddies a little favor, you know, mend a few fences. Apologize for being reporters.

Believe me, you don't need a badge for people to know who you are.

Ta-ta for now...this little ping-pong isn't worth pursuing if it's just gonna be u'n'me...

You don't need to guess why we might do it. I'll tell you. It's valuable information....why wouldn't we publicize who is a fugitive from the law?

Warrants are out for their arrest. Who knows if they are criminals, as you call them? Only way we'll know is if they go through the justice system. With them on the lam, how do you think their alleged victims feel?

Don't go, though, maybe you get to the point where you aren't afraid to give your real name in this conversation. Besides, it's not just you and me....Sue's here, too.

So, Sue, do you think it is bad that we published the photos and some description of the crimes of these folks?

Any source that results in 20% of the most wanted criminals taken off the street in 2 days has to be a good thing.
Thanks for doing it.
I'm not sure if the list was limited to the city of Greensboro. If it was have you considered expanding it county wide?

It's countywide. We started with GSO because that's what we had immediately. Others will be included. Hey, maybe you can get the Fox News folks to do it, too, Tony! :)

I hope you took that with the humor in which it was intended.
I started to post:
News & Record Purchase Price: $400M
The look on JR's face when he finds out the buyer is Fox News: Priceless.

I'm just trying to figure out whether it is one of the signs of the Apocalypse that you approve of something the left-wing rage has done!

A direct result? Yes, according to a sergeant with the police department.

I think it's a fine idea and I hope it continues.

JR typed, "So, Sue, do you think it is bad that we published the photos and some description of the crimes of these folks?"

It's not "bad" that you published it and the result seems appreciable. I'm not sure that's a newspaper's job, though because it starts at the top of a very greasy slope.

I am not arguing that 'some of these might be innocent people...' I believe they're officially criminals and yes, I'd like them off the street. My point is where does this lead? If it's the most wanted today, is it child-support deadbeats tomorrow? People who hire prostitutes next week? [probably not; they're usually men and don't have breast implants] And then we slip down toward drunk drivers, speeders, shoplifters, peeping toms. Where does it stop? Should every lawbreaker's photo be in the paper? There is a right to some privacy (it's a nuance: most-wanted don't deserve it, I guess you're arguing. But I think that first-time non-violent offenders might just deserve it.)

(And let's not be tempted to allege that I don't support the police. That's absurd. And anonymous.)

Yes, I hear that.

I think the slippery slope argument is legitimate but weak. You can say that about so much of what we decide to publish. Sure we could start publishing those things, but I don't see the point....to say nothing of having the manpower or space.

But as you know, all that stuff with be accessible online, if it isn't already. We already know where sex offenders live. But, having it in the paper is different from having it online, I suppose.

But, having it in the paper is different from having it online, I suppose.

It better be different. And it is different. And I don't buy the "it's online anyway" meme. Most people, even geeks like me, would rarely look at that info and would have search reasonably hard to find it the first time. But having it on the front page with morning caffeine? How many readers do you have?

Hats off to the N&R for this public service, good job and please continue this worthwhile work.

Sue. You're the only one who can find this to be some sort of slippery slope. It's news reporting and a service to the community. For now you shall be scorned as lunatic fringe. If the circumstances warrant and it turns you were right all along, we'll hail you as our visionary new leader. Patience.

If I'm the lunatic fringe, I think we're in trouble. Worse, I think civil liberties are in trouble. No, I KNOW they are.

I'm down with the flu, but I thought I'd still chime in here.

Last week the High Point police circulated the name and driver's license photo of a man they been videotaped beating dogs at his home. He was wanted, warrants out for his arrest, and the police said he was evading them.

TV news ran with it, using his name and photo. We ran a brief item on it, doing the same.

When the man turned himself in it turned out he wasn't the man in the video -- oh, and the police admitted that that whole "evading police" thing was a case of mistaken identity. Having been arrested, he was released and charges dropped.

The mistake was fairly simple: the man was black (like the man in the video who couldn't be positively identified) and lived at that address a few years ago, though he didn't anymore.

We ran an item talking about the police mistake, and ran it as prominently as we had the item naming him.

I wrote both items and felt strange and uneasy after it was done.

If the police had been right media outlets would have been praised for helping flush him out. Because they weren't we were criticized for helping them slime and arrest an innocent man. But how much credit or blame do we really deserve?

Police make mistakes. Frequently. So do newspapers. So do people when they commit crimes. But beyond publicizing the mistakes police make when they do something like this as prominently as we do their victories I'm not sure what can be done.

When you write a story, you do have to start from certain assumptions. There's no way around it. As a cop reporter you often have to proceed from the asumption that the information the police give you is correct -- or at least that they believe it's correct. Any information we publish that comes from police or court documents is attributed that way. I'd personally prefer that we publish it and throw some light on the police screw ups when they happen that let the whole thing happen quietly, away from the public eye.

If any of the people on the most wanted list are arrested and turn out to be innocent or misidentified -- that's a newspaper story.