News-Record.com

JR: "The best way to get them off the front page? Address them and move on."

Let the floodgates open.

the delay, stall & private meeting tatics of city of g'boro & council are not the way to resolve these issues. i applaude the efforts of the g'boro bloggers to hold council & city manager accountable. jim melvin is old school like me...back when he was mayor he just had to dodge a few letters to the editor now again. technology & internet now makes it so easy to express your views.. i think this is frustrating to jim melvin because these "bloggers" are serious about this business. they are serious about the facts and documentation to back-up any claim. city council, city manager & jim melvin better get used to it... these people are not going to go away and rightfully they shouldn't.

IMO, It is the N&R's civic responsibility to maintain an adversarial relationship with Government to insure the public are informed of the goings on in their community.

My interpretation of this column is that it is call to do just that.

I hope I am not mistaken.

"If nothing else, the stories indicate the city has a vibrant, engaged citizenry and responsive elected officials."

Can it really be called responsive when it comes after 2 years (or is it now 3 years?) of lies, cover-ups and half-truths on the part of "City Council" the "City Legal Department" and the "City Manager"?

The council voted to tell Mitch Johnson to do his job-- nothing more.

As for what the Bobblehead had to say: Of course he wants this to go away as he's as dirty as anyone else involved. This is coming from the same man who precided over the 1979 Klan-Nazi shootings and has raped Greensboro for 50 years.

I think your choice of wording should have been "reactionary" rather than "responsive" as that is exactly what City Council is doing at this very moment.

It's also known as CYOA!

Bobblehead said, "We've got to quit nitpicking about memos and all that kind of crap. If we don't, ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to get anywhere ... Let's not be pulled down by the naysayers. The best thing we can do with the naysayers is to give them positive-sayers."

The City of Greensboro can no longer afford to attempt to control the message. Why my blog alone has 80,000 readers and is growing with each passing day. Does the Bobblehead understand that my demographic is majority people earning over $70,000 per year and over 50% have a masters degree or higher? Does the Bobblehead understand that the vast majority of my readership comes from inside of corporate offices located for the most part in the eastern half of the United States and Silicone Valley? Does the Bobblehead understand that the majority of my readership takes place between the hours of 9-5 Monday-Friday? If the Bobblehead or his minions have even the slightest understanding of demographics they will understand that mu audience is THE audience they wish they could persuade to come to Greensboro.

And when you add in the 200,000 or so readers who read the rest of the Greensboro Blogosphere (Beth has 100,000) you'll quickly realize that the Bobblehead can't spend enough money to undo the damage.

My point: Only by going public with everything will this mess go away in the Bobblehead's lifetime.

Good column, John, but you've misused the term Greensboro Disease. Greensboro Disease is putting the desire for a perception of a genteel community ahead of a willingness to tackle head-on unpleasant issues.

It is often accompanied by If You Only Knew What I Know Syndrome, Sweeping Under the Rug Elbow, Ivory Tower Tunnel Vision and the hoi polloi psychic split, where the unwashed masses are loved if coming through the turnstiles of a baseball stadium, but despised and dismissed if they should dare to express an opinion.

"We've got to quit nitpicking about memos and all that kind of crap. If we don't, ladies and gentlemen, we're not going to get anywhere ... Let's not be pulled down by the naysayers. The best thing we can do with the naysayers is to give them positive-sayers."

I agree lets cut out all of this nitpicking and naysaying and let the various power bloc's in the City of Greensboro get back to their normal politic's of corruption!

How is it that the N&R's star reporter Mrs Ahearn has been at the center of this story an the N&R has never addressed it. She took the side of the criminals who are getting away with anything they want, and we are the complainers who "nitpick?" Secondly how is it that the largest newspaper is incapable of getting information about this story yet bloggers are able to? I think the thing that is flaming the fire so much, is that there seems to be an intentional effort to cover up the story. Espically by the N&R and the politicians who caused the majority of it. Just moving on does nothing for the community or our trust in the Police, City Council, or the Newspaper.

I am absolutely disappointed in some members of the City Council, namely the individuals that want to keep Mitch Johnson. Aside from the firing of David Wray, there are enough grounds to fire him. I think the citizens of Greensboro should be given the opportunity to vote either to keep Mitch or fire him. Then, whatever the outcome of the vote is, the citizens will accept him and move forward. Tom Phillips has certainly lost his creditability by saying ONLY A FEW citizens in Gsboro are for David Wray. Take a vote and you will find out how many citizens are for David Wray. What are the consequences for Mitch if he does not meet their commands or if he repeats the same things again in the future? I take exception to the members of the City Council that think the citizens are just stupid and will bow down to their lack of leadership.

I read somewhere many years ago- " A neurosis is always the result of the inability to deal with legitimate pain". I think our elected officials completely miss. Particularly our previous Mayor and City Council. They were advocating for Linda Miles and Mitchell Johnson instead of the people who elected them. NOT dealing with the pain which I believe was caused by the actions of Miles and Johnson, a neurosis began. It can only be cured and healed with total honesty and openess. Show us why David Wray was put in the position he was in by Mitch Johnson. Don't tell us "If you only knew what we know but we can't disclose because of legal matters"
A police department has almost been destroyed after 2 years we still don't know We have lost 10,000 jobs in this town in the last five years, our jails are overfilled with mostly crack addicts, kids are joining gangs, we need Water and we have waited twenty-five years for Randleman Dam, how much longer? An almost breakdown of law and order, roberies and murders almost every day.

What are the powers that be doing about these problems?

I am insulted to be called a naysayer. I am tired of incompetence. No one can be so naive to believe Mitchell Johnson should be our city manager. Fire him and move on.

Jerrold, Lorraine is not at the center of this story, and your accusation that she took the side of the criminals is not only ignorant, it is insulting.

Your second point is interesting. Have you asked the blogger, singular, where he gets his documents? I suggest you do. Meanwhile, do you think newspaper size has something to do with the ability of getting documents? I assure you it doesn't.

Finally, you think the newspaper is part of what you call a cover up? We sure are doing a lousy job of it.

Roch, I stole the definition directly from the first time it appeared in our paper in 2004 in a Cone column. I do like your corollary.

John Robinson said: "Jerrold, Lorraine is not at the center of this story, and your accusation that she took the side of the criminals is not only ignorant, it is insulting."

John, this is where I think you are having trouble getting a grasp on reality. As evidence continues to mount and be made public it certainly looks like this is at least a possibility (in no way saying it was intentional, just tremendously naive) and Lorraine Ahearn IS center stage.

I know it's hard for you to accept responsibility for assigning this story to a columnist but at some point you just have to take your lumps for that one.

John, does your newspaper have the courage to call Melvin out on the carpet for referring to the evidence that might support or contradict the case against David Wray as "crap"?

For a newspaper that claims to have such high ideals and interest in truth and justice, one would think that your paper would be appalled that Melvin believes that the facts don't matter nor does getting to the truth.

You then make this incredible statement:

"We aren't that interested in writing about missing memos, misunderstandings or council infighting."

The translation is that despite so much pontification in the past and preaching of high ideals and lectures about journalism being about getting to the truth, you really don't believe any of that. You confirm as much when you say that your interest is primarily financial in the next sentence.

You have seriously undermined the credibility of your paper with these remarks. From now on, the reader is justified in questioning whether the paper is telling us the truth or just trying to sell copies.

Neither you nor Melvin seem interested in the former as evidenced by your statements. I guess the truth is whatever sells. Isn't that what you accuse the Rhino of doing?

Perhaps one difference may be that the Rhino appears to be interested in both the truth and making money.

If someone dismissed inquiries into whether Iraq truly had WMD as "crap", I suspect your paper would consider that big news and rip apart the person who made that statement as not being interested in the truth and trying to cover up mistakes. But this is essentially what Melvin has said about the evidence in the Wray matter and you appear to find it not the least bit disturbing.

Nobody wants to upset Mr. Melvin, do they?

That's cowardice.

That last comment was written by me. I don't know why it posted as anonymous.

P.S. John, are you questioning the veracity of Ben Holder's documents?

Sorry, Tony, there may be a world in which Lorraine is centerstage in that story, but it's not the real one.

Anonymous, I apologize for being such a poor writer that you could misinterpret the meaning of everything I intended.

We don't feel the need to "call out" Melvin for voicing his opinion. He holds no public office. We believe citizens can come to whatever opinion they like of his comments. Many in the blogosphere already have.

We aren't interested in writing about memos and misunderstandings...but we have and are. We'd prefer to write about the integrity of the process, about how successful the Wyndham is, how all these new jobs are popping up, how recession is low and how war is over. But we can't, can we? So we write almost daily about this issue because that's our responsibility.

My point about selling newspapers? If our No. 1 priority was to sell newspapers we would NOT be writing about the problems at City Hall. But here were are.

And, no, I accuse the Rhino of no such thing.

Question their veracity? Why do you ask? I presume they are legit, but I haven't seen the documents first hand, and I don't know where he got them.

John, I re-read your post after reading your response and I agree that I interpreted some parts incorrectly, and withdraw my remarks in that regard to the extent possible.

However, I stand by my assertion that Melvin's claim that the questions being raised are all "crap" deserved a stronger rebuke from the paper. Maybe you did and are just a lot nicer about it.

As a Greensboro native who knows of Jim Melvin's accomplishments and who has met him personally, I have a lot of respect for him. However, as a newspaper reporter, I believe that in this case, he is way off base.

His comment seems to assume that everyone in city government perhaps has the altruistic motives that he possesses. When I see a daily newspaper "of record" request two different memos and the city essentially can't find them or cites "legal" reasons, but other reporters are somehow able to obtain those very same memos with ease, there is a major problem.

The public simply has a right to know and even if there is no evil intent, "hiding the ball" undermines credibility and the public's trust.

As we have seen in the Roanoke Rapids "Randy Parton" fiasco, when a government starts hiding documents or practices less than open government, the results can be disastrous and costly. In such cases, when the public finds out, the damage is done.

Any Greensboro city council member who accepts the policy of denying the local daily newspaper (or any media outlet for that matter) of record access to PUBLIC DOCUMENTS, they should read again the North Carolina law on this matter, which seems to have been violated time and time again by the Greensboro city manager's office.

The public records and sunshine laws exists for a reason -- to keep the public informed and to keep government officials from hiding things. Calling a desire to know what's going on in the city you live in "a disease" is irresponsible at best.

Fair enough, Samuel. Thanks.

I won't speak for the editorial board, but I think we try to allow people who hold no public position of authority to voice their opinions without fear of rebuke. Particularly when their opinions may not jibe with ours. Our coverage has made it clear we don't feel the same way.

"Your second point is interesting. Have you asked the blogger, singular, where he gets his documents? I suggest you do." -- JR

I'm not sure what that's supposed to mean--that people who come into "secret" documents should explain how they got them, like the N&R did with the RMA report? Oh, wait, scratch that.

Oh, I'm not suggesting that the blogger reveal his sources. But the question was, how did he get it and we didn't? Only the blogger can answer that.

As a native of Greensboro, it startled me to see such corruption develop in our city. The people in charge, which includes Mitchell Johnson, have conventially turned and looked the other way. Consequently, the safety of Greensboro's children and adult citizens are at risk. We need to "clean house" and Mr. Johnson needs to be the first one to go. Please hand me the broom!!

John, "yes or no" question: Do you thing a reasonable person reading Lorraine Ahearns "black book" / tracking device column may conclude that David Wray was a racist?

That's a great question SCS.
Get ready for the squirm, wriggle, writhe, turn, and fidget of all time with no real answer.
Sometimes Thesaurus can be so fun.

No.

So, cutting through your squirming, wriggling, writhing, turning and fidgeting, what you are really saying is that only unreasonable people reading that column would conclude that you are saying that David Wray was a racist.

John, ah...I think it would have been a little less revealing if you just would have ignored the question above totally rather than giving an unqualified "no". Talk to Allen.

As has been shown many times, when you know they have you dead, don't say anything.

With due respect, I have no clue what that comment means.

My bad. I asked for a yes or no reply...and you gave me one!

I know you're busy and I do appreciate you taking your time. Do you think you could explain why you don't think somebody of normal intelligence reading Lorraine's BB column might come to the conclusion that David Wray was a racist?

You're asking me to explain a negative. Can't do it. I could respond to what it is about her column that makes you think someone might come to the conclusion that he is a racist.

Of course, your use of the term "might" means that my answer should be "Oh, sure, someone 'might' come to that conclusion." It might be better phrased if you purport that someone would come to that conclusion. Just a thought.

I was trying to give Lorraine the benefit of the doubt, sort of pretending there was a more objective slant to her piece.

It appears my effort was not appreciated. Nonetheless, the nature of your reply perhaps communicates all one would need to know.

Thank you, Socrates.

You called that one, Tony.

Don't taze me, bro! Let's review: You asked for a yes or no answer and I gave you one. You responded with something that I didn't understand. Then you asked a question that could not be reasonably answered without some sort of documentation on why the column DOES suggest that David Wray is a racist.

Bottom line, I was asking you to make your argument so I would know what I was debating. You asked me to to argue with a supposition without providing any evidence for that supposition.

Give me your argument that the column does what you think it does and let me respond. But don't make me respond to something that I don't think exists.

John, I would like to thank you for running that piece today about the bloggers end-running the mainstream Russian newspapers- who are nothing more than whitewashers and smoothers over of government policies.

Imagine newspapers just doing that.

Okay John. Let's stay gestalt.

I read Lorraine's column that I thought implied David Wray was a racist. Ah...John, it doesn't look like I'm alone. To date there has not been one shred of evidence that this is so. You implied you didn't think people would come to that conclusion when you answered "no" when I asked if you thought a resonable person would come to that conclusion after reading the piece.

You seem to be implying there is a "perception gap" between the intended tone and slant of the article and how it was perceived by many readers?

"Let's stay gestalt?"

You asked a simple question and demanded a simple answer. I gave it to you. You think the column implied David Wray was a racist. I asked why you think that. I'm still waiting.

But I'll start if you insist: She quoted the attorney for the police officers association as saying "There's been some very questionable discipline of African American officers." She quoted Wray as dismissing any suggestion of targeting of black officers. She makes no observation of her own. The reasonable reader can decide if he believes the chief or the attorney.

John, any chance of cutting and pasting Lorraine's article here?

I would, but I'm trying to do this in between my real job.

Maybe we can clear the air on this.

The link

Thanks, John. This article seems pretty objective. Was there an additional article on the "black book" by Lorraine?

Wait a minute. You aren't sure about what article you're thinking she wrote that you say implied Wray was a racist? We've written a lot about the "black book."

I don't have it in front of me, sorry John.

So, you're saying that no such memo er....I mean column exists?

Hold on...

Yo, Hammer...

How about this: How about you go here and find whatever you're using to make your case.

Do you want me to make your argument for you, too? (Just a little joke between friends.)

It appears I was referring to the lengthly article of 1/12/06 about the black book etc. After reading this and several other of the articles it appears that I have falsely accused Lorraine of injecting personal bias into the articles.

I suppose one could argue that the headline "Covert Tactics Brought Down Chief" was kind of silly because finding suspected crooked cops has to be covert. Are the investigating officers supposed to announce they are investigating then ride along in the car with the suspects?

It appears I was caught up in the hysteria like many others. I think I was feeling some type of collective effect since, along with the articles of 2/19 and 4/23, it seemed they all detailed the case against Wray and not much in his favor. The reason for this may simply be because Wray was not talking at that time (which begat the Rhino series.)

Nevertheless, each article taken individually shows the accusation of bias against Lorriane is unfounded and therefore I have to say you got me on this one, John

I would also like to apologize to Lorraine.

Skeet Club, thank you. Thank you for taking the time to read the stories, thank you for sticking with me during this exchange on the blog, and thank you most of all for your last comment.

The media sexed-up the possible racial implications through bad journalism. Among the sloppy reporting committed by the N&R are:

Use of the passive voice to avoid attribution:

The book, which contained 114 photos of black officers and civilians, was compiled by the unit dubbed the "secret police." Lorraine Ahern and Eric Townsend. Who dubbed the unit?

The "secret police" story went public in June after a black police lieutenant, James Hinson, discovered a tracking device on his police cruiser... Stories don't "go public," someone writes or tells a story.

He said/she said that relies on the assertions of individuals and leaves substantiating facts un-reported (this is a long-time shortcoming of the N&R, not just in this story):

Wray did not say why he claimed, according to the city manager, to have no knowledge that such a book existed.

and

But two Greensboro lawyers who represent officers said the photos had been shown to criminal suspects in an effort to implicate officers in exchange for leniency.

In fact, this entire article is mostly undocumented assertions.

I've noted similar problems, especially unattributed racially charged characterizations in other Ahern, Townsend and Swenson stories on this topic. That's not to deny that their reports were, at times, revealing and offered meaningful insight, but there were failings of basic journalism that contributed to a unfounded perception of what role race played.

Somehow I missed this thread, I moved out of town recently and don't visit as often as I once did.
At any rate, rather than add any more comments I'll just affirm that Roch 101's insightful comments are right on the money.

Roch, interesting observations that lead to the wrong conclusions. You need to watch that.

We used the term "secret police" since our original reporting the previous June. We attributed it to anonymous officers. As you know, just because the comments aren't attributed doesn't mean it's not true.

Stories don't go public? Since when? OK, if you prefer, we could have said "The story was reported by the News & Record...." Of course, the point is still the same. A lot more people knew about it when it was published in the N&R than before.

I don't know what you're talking about when you talk about he said/she said and unsubstantiated assertions. How about substantiating your assertions?

So, that's it. In all the reporting, that's what your problems are?

Feel free to help Roch out, jaycee, if you can.

Whenever I've tried to bring the systemic problems of the reporting at the N&R to your attention, John, they are met with these kinds of defenses. So, I don't try too hard any more. The single article I used above was a sufficient example. Your refutations speak for themselves.

As for not understanding the he said/she said, let me try again. The N&R is notorious for using quotations instead of the facts.

I'll give you a recent example. From this article:

But after 2000, the Triad lost 30,000 jobs, more than any other region in the country, said Don Kirkman, president of the Piedmont Triad Partnership.

And there you have it. The N&R doesn't verify that easy-to-check claim and thereby gives it a stamp of credibility it doesn't deserve. A quick check of the actual data would show that the exact opposite it true. The Triad gained over 30,000 jobs during the period.

This is but one example. I've observed this reliance on quoted assertions without fact-checking over and over again for years. It's one thing to report an opinion. It's just bad journalism to report an opinion that pretends to represent something factual and not check the facts. Don't you agree?

Do you have substantiation for that 30,000 jobs gained since 2000? :)

I'm sorry that you read my response to your first two points as "defenses." I, too, am happy to let them speak for themselves.

Back to the original story in question: So, given that Chief Wray wasn't talking with us, that we did not have a copy of the black book, and that we didn't know which suspects had been shown the book -- meaning that we didn't have first-hand knowledge of the example you cited -- would you have us not report anything about any of that?

Traditionally, when someone like the city manager or the attorneys for the police association comment, we quote them. When we can't confirm the truth of what they say -- which happens often -- we must take their word for it. We print it with their name attached. We aren't the only news organization that does this.

You say the article is mostly undocumented assertions? Under your ground rules, as I understand them, it would be next to impossible to publish a daily newspaper because without primary documentation to support what we have been told, we couldn't report. Do I understand that correctly?

"Do you have substantiation for that 30,000 jobs gained since 2000? :)"

I'm sorry, do you mean to tell me that the editor is unaware of, apparently even uninterested in, whether or not someone was allowed to make an incorrect assertion of fact in his newspaper?

"would you have us not report anything about any of that?"

No, I would have asked the people making the assertions if they had anything to back them up, and if they didn't, I would have reported that they couldn't substantiate the claims they were making.

"We print it with their name attached."

Some times you do, sometimes you don't.

"...without primary documentation to support what we have been told, we couldn't report. Do I understand that correctly?"

You should raise the bar. If you are going to print an unsubstantiated assertion (and those should indeed be rare) they should be followed by reporting of what efforts were made to back those up, you might then end ups adding sentences like these:

"The N&R asked Johnson for copies of communications between him and Wray, but he declined to produce them."

or

"The N&R asked the attorneys for documentation of their claims, but they did not produce any."

That does three important things, it assures the reader that the N&R is not simply taking people at their word, it reminds sources that assertions will not go unchallenged and, when documentation is lacking, it emphasizes to the reader that the claims are unsubstantiated.

Roch is right--about everything. "We're just reporting" is just as liable to abuse as "we're just following orders." The failure to investigate empirical claims is the core failure of American journalism. The problem is compounded when the "fair and balanced" logic of he said/she said is compromised by he or she not talking, thereby leaving the talking points solely to one side.