News-Record.com

That's a good "perfect world" scenario. It's also the way it SHOULD be - but, for some reason - Greensboro city government seems to be too busy tripping over itself.

Perhaps a little too worried about making a mistake and too worried about admitting a mistake.

Besides, blog traffic would come to a screeching halt.

I'm thinking that sometimes the simplest solution is the best solution. This one isn't perfect world so much as it's pretty simple. And, because it doesn't involve a crime, best the DA can tell, it doesn't need a federal case made of it.

What you would have in a real, Robinsonian, simple world, with real leaders, is: you would have a mayor and the local DA appear(about three days ago), hold a joint news-conference. The DA would state if a crime occured or not. That's his job. If "not", the Mayor would simply say: (In Mr. Robinson's Simple World, mind you) "There you have it fans. No crime. Thank you for your time. Ya'll go on home. The city will no longer waste any time or resources on this matter."

In The Boro, there's no tellin'.

John,
You keep thinking like that, and you'll *never* get a job with the City of Greensboro. (;-} Seriously, that is a great idea, and that's precisely why it won't be put into action. Meanwhile, the federal case that needn't be made of it ... I expect the Feds to descend (at the NAACP's behest, at a minimum) any minute now. Sigh ...

Nah, SCS, that's not the Robinsonian world you describe. In mine, the city "describes what did or did not happen." What you outline isn't doesn't fit my definition of "describes."

Sam, I fully expect the feds to say this isn't a matter for them -- not their jurisdiction and no initial evidence a crime has occurred.

But then I neither studied law or slept in a Holiday Inn Express last night.

One thing you're missing is the rights of the officers involved, who stand accused now by the N&R and Nelson Johnson in an entirely unsubstantiated allegation.
With the N&R's track record of destroying police officers over racial issues I think I'd not answer the first question without competent legal counsel as protection from the N&R.
Cops don't trust you guys, JR, and for good reason.

C'mon jaycee, we've accused no one of anything.

Given your objection to this, are you thinking there are possibilities for criminal charges? That is, what rights need protecting?

Why does it seem that the N & R is accused of either NOT covering a story - or OVER covering a story all the time? I don't see where the paper accused anyone of anything here.

I can remember when I first started visiting these blogs and the Wray fiasco was the "talk of the town" and the News and Record were bashed and accused of being one sided, or not covering the story enough - now, since this topic appears to be tied to it - it's a waste of time.......I don't get it.....when did journalism become a catch 22?

Here's what I'm thinking:

1) Someone from the city administration goes to the police chief and demands some answers by midday.
2) The chief goes to Officer Fulmore and Lt. McMinn and asks the sort of impertinent yes and no questions that police officers know how to ask...at least they do on Law and Order.
3) The chief reports back to his boss, the city manager, and to the mayor what he has discovered.
4) The city goes public and explains what did or did not happen by the end of the day.

There is hope for JR, I actually agree with him! "Thud" that was the writer fainting! I really think this whole hoopla about the alledged missing files is nothing more than a smoke screen for CWP Johnson and company to get some media coverage. Of course, depending upon the outcome, and the media giving it life, it might be used as an ongoing saga and later some trivial leverage.

John, do you honestly think there is a living human being who actually knows what actually happened with this record business. Do you think anybody from the city will be able to "describe what actually happened"? Remember we are talking 3-5 yrs. ago. It's all going to be distorted by the mists of time, differential rates of brain cell deterioration, different political viewpoints and other subjective factors etc. That's why there are laws and you have to cling to that small kernal of objectivity with all your might. I wish there was a Robinson world and I could live in it.

If records are destroyed after 25-30 years and the statue is twenty years, it doesn't look like there is a crime no ways. Flat out as objective as you can get.

I wonder if this is all a ploy to aide Julius Fulmore's lawsuit against the COG. He has brought the Pulpit Forum into this for a reason. I also wonder why three council members voted against inviting the F B I into look at this mess.

Sorry, Skeet, I was busy picking myself up off the floor after Beau's comment.

You could be right, but I bet Fulmore knows who was tossing the records -- assuming it actually happened -- and they would remember tossing 50 boxes of records. I think I would. And, as you say, if it's not a crime, why would they worry about it or hide it?

It's possible or possibly even likely that neither McMinn or Fulmore knew the wording of the statute (20 yrs) and McMinn was simply following orders operating on a need-to-know-basis only. Fulmore knowing the historical controversy surrounding the records, assumed there was something shady going on. And...we're off to the races (bad...actually not a bad pun)

JR, criminal charges have nothing to do with protecting oneself from the devastation of public outcry when unsubstantiated and inflammatory accusations are made by Nelson Johnson and gleefully given front page exposure by the N&R.
I don't recall Chief Wray being charged with any crime...but the N&R's racially charged stories sure cost him his reputation and his career.

Do they have video cameras where they keep records? Or where they keep the dumpsters?

Gleefully? Where's the glee, jaycee? Inflammatory?

Our stories cost Chief Wray his career? That assigns us much more power than we have and absolves him of any responsibility in his departure.

We have named two police officers in our coverage of this story so far: the one who made the complaint and one he named. Neither, of course, will speak to the media. Both are still employed by the city and, presumably, have bosses to whom they are accountable.

If nothing happened as it seems you believe, then there aren't officers to have their reputations threatened. If something did happen, why shouldn't that be part of the public record?

John, I know from this and past posts that you seem to indicate that Wray fostered his own demise? Could you give more details? If it was because he wasn't forthcoming with his boss and you think this was sufficient for termination then you have to clamoring for Mitch's termination too(Mitch's boss=city council).

If you're just consistent, people won't go after ya.

Well, he resigned -- he wasn't terminated -- so, yes, I think he played a significant role in his departure from city employment.

John, you're still clinging to the "tent-pitching" scenario-that Wray should have pitched a tent outside his office building and continued to work.

Surely you can't be serious.

No. I'm trying to adhere to the known facts. He resigned. He may have been forced...he may not have been. But you refer to his termination as if he'd been fired.

I am taking leave of the common thread on the blogs and suggesting that his fate wasn't entirely thrust upon him by outsiders out to get him. I think there were reasons that things got to the point they got to and he contributed mightily to them.

Just my two cents worth - I think what should have happened is that Mitchell Johnson should have suspended Wray WITH pay - as seems to be the trend when someone in the PD is being "investigated". At the rate the city "investigates", Wray would still be collecting a paycheck and earning more seniority towards retirement.

Then, Mr. Johnson could have - yes, COULD have - conducted a professional, thorough investigation and Wray could well have been brought back as Chief of Police.

My guess -- and it is just a guess -- is that suspending the leaders of departments in a large organization like the city isn't done. It undercuts them in that same way that locking their office would.

John, wait now, you implied his office wasn't locked. Either his office was open or it was locked. Again your adherence to the theory that if he was locked out he should have pitched a tent and kept working, is evident.

Let's boil it down John, put it to rest. Semantics aside, if your boss locks you out of your office on purpose, would a resonable person consider themselves terminated?

Under Robithink, if I go out in the parking lot after work today and a guy holds a gun to my head and demands my wallet and I give it to him, I "surrendered" my wallet. (I mean, I guess I could have told the guy to f--- off. )

Apparently, I could read in the N&R the next day. "Skeet Club Savage Surrenders Wallet In Parking Lot to Passerby". Then maybe in fine print you could mention I had a gun to my head. Technically the N&R would not be lying. They would just look like they're warped.

Skeet Club, let's assume that you know your last message was absurd and work from the second to the last one.

No, of course, he was locked out of his office. But the fact is that he resigned. So let's start with that. Let's not say he was terminated because he wasn't, and wishing doesn't make it so.

OK, he was locked out of his office. Why was he locked out? Did anything he do contribute to things getting to the point that the city manager needed to preserve the records and files in the chief's office? I am saying that, yes, he did. Rather than recount it here, you can go back and read the coverage of it.

Whether that was cause for him to be ultimately terminated, I don't know. Some people might suggest that if he believed he was in the right and could justify everything he did, he should have stayed and fought for his job.

I don't think you will find me anywhere taking a position on whether he should have or shouldn't have. It doesn't matter; he did what he did.

My overall impression of the Wray saga is that the truth most likely lies somewhere in the middle.

It appears Wray was for all intents and purposes stripped of any real authority in his position, and ultimately had the locks changed on his office door. I personally think that was wrong of Johnson to do (on both counts); but that's my opinion.

At least from what was portrayed to the public, all of this was based on rumor, suspicion and little, if any, evidence.

I think Wray should have fought for his job - had this been tried in the court of public opinion when it first happened, my guess is that Wray would have come out the victor. As it is now, everyone loses - including the citizens of Greensboro......all over our city manager and former Chief of Police being stubborn and too proud to resolve differences with the REAL best interests at heart.

As a result, the city's credibility has taken a major hit and little off shoots of this saga continue to plague Greensboro, and will probably do so for some time.

I wish I was a good writer; there's got to be a book deal in this mess somewhere.

So John, you're saying Wray should have fought for his job? How?

1. Set up a temporary office in the mens room?

2); Set up a tent outside

2)Picketed the building with a bullhorn shouting; "Mitch, let me back the f--- in!" and speak to passing pedestrians; "Look at this crap!"

3) Taken his case to the public via the press. (Right)

4) Go hire a lawyer and maybe after four years of legal wrangling get his job back.

5) Gone in front of the council and tell them their boss along with Joe Williams and The Pulpit Forum are F.O.S.

John, any viable ones here?

I don't know why you're asking me to tell you what he should have done....I wasn't there. And I don't know about you and this pitching a tent business. But I'll play.

The city manager changed the locks on the chief's office on Friday and told the chief he needed to gain access to his office through the city manager. On Monday morning, Wray resigned. Isn't there a No. 6:

Walk into Mitch Johnson's office. Say you're reporting to work. Get the keys and work. Or, if Mitch won't let him in the office, answer whatever questions Mitch has and then start the week?

So you're saying that in order to keep his job he should have put up with anything. No humiliation too great.

I don't know about you, but I don't think a guy this lacking in dignity is the guy I want for head cop of the Boro. And you are right, he probably resigned (just like the Savage in the parking lot above "resigned" his wallet)

I can see Mitch saying as he went out the door; "So, you're resigning then"?, probably knowing somewhere in the back of his mind that the bent cartel who run things here would publically say it was such with a straight face. And Wa-La!

JR said:
"If nothing happened as it seems you believe, then there aren't officers to have their reputations threatened. "

So it's your position that having a group of racially protagonist black preachers, vociferously anti-police, declare to the world that you're a crooked cop and have the N&R blast unsubstantiated allegations on the front page is NOT threatening to one's career?
What if some community leader held a press conference and declared that "someone" had said John Robinson was a violent child molester and a local newspaper printed it without substantiation? Would that be OK with you? You wouldn't feel your reputation was in jeopardy from this unsubstantiated and vague allegation? You wouldn't feel the need to protect yourself legally?

Sometimes, Mr. Robinson, I think you must live and work in fantasyland.

Oh, John, forgot to ask above, what Dominatrix do you use?

Mine's retiring and moving to Fla.

Well, maybe I do, jaycee, but I base my conclusions on the known information, not some imagined possibilities.

No one says a crime has occurred, even if the records were trashed, so that knocks your imagined scenario out of the water.

I read nothing in the ministers' statement that they said anyone was a crooked cop. Do you know something about it?

I appreciate how you don't want us to publish this kind of news. But a U.S. senator has asked the Justice Department to look into the claims of the ministers. The City Council has also taken official action on it. Blame the newspaper all you like, but it has gotten a bit larger than us publishing news about a news conference.

Skeet, what happened happened. Shade it however you like. Maybe the chief thought he was going to be fired and he wanted to resign first. Maybe he resigned to preserve his dignity as you suggest. Personally, if I believed I had done the right thing and had done a good job, I think I would have reported to work on Monday and fought for my job. But that's just me.

You guys and your imagined scenarios, both involving violent outcomes. You're starting to worry me.

What known information, Mr. Robinson?
Please point me to any "facts" in the allegations so freely repeated by the N&R.
Before you published did you establish:
1) That there were, in fact, fifty boxes of documents?
2) That McMinn was, in fact, working in the unit during the time he's alleged to have done this?
3) That any records were, in fact, destroyed?
4) If any records were destroyed, were they exclusively related to the Klan/CWP incident?
5) That any destruction was or wasn't illegal?

You merely quoted the unsubstantiated blathering of Nelson Johnson without any independent fact-checking or research on the part of the N&R to determine if there was any truth in Johnson's claims.
I find that appalling; doesn't the N&R have any responsibility to present the truth to it's readers?

John, you lost me on the "violent outcomes".

ps Why would the chief think he was about to be fired?

Skeet, you refer above in your analogy to a guy holding a gun to your head. I consider that violent.

As for the ps, I thought that was your assumption. I'm the one who said I'd have gone to work.

I'm wondering where you get information that you believe, jaycee. Best I can tell, you have decided that what the ministers said did NOT happen, although a police officer said he witnessed it. A police officer's word is usually considered reliable.

The news media does not operate under the presumptions you state. If the police say they have found a body with a bullet wound, you would have us demand to see the body. If the police name the victim, you would have us contact the coroner and take fingerprints to make sure their id is correct. And if we can't? No story.

And it's not just crime-related stories, it applies to many things we and every media outlet reports on. We didn't see firefighters working at the chief's house, but he said they did. Is that good enough to report? Why would we believe him?

The City Council doesn't know the truth of the matter either, but its members know that it is their responsibility to get to it. They owe it to their constituents. In your world, at what point would you have us report this story? Ignore it until the police department said it was going to investigate? Ignore it until Sen. Burr called in the Justice Department? Ignore it until the City Council took its official action? Pretend it never happened at all?

John it was hypothethical thing -a parable about the misuse of authority, force, duress ie; by either gun or gov't/corporate fiat etc.

I apologize. I will try to stay more concrete in the future. Apparently that would be best. I most assuredly don't want to worry you.

Thanks for the explanation, Skeet. Dealing with hypotheticals as opposed to reality is always fraught with trouble.

Excuse my French, Mr. Robinson, but, "Bullfeathers."
If you sent Lorraine Ahearn (for example) to a GPD press conference and all the spokesman said was, "It didn't happen." are we to believe that you would print that statement verbatim, without question and without Lorraine asking for some evidence??
I'm betting you'd demand that GPD PROVE that it didn't happen.
What I see is an incredible double-standard. A black community "leader" (and I use that term loosely, the last thing Johnson led was the CWP) makes a totally unsubstantiated claim and you print it without question. If the GPD makes a claim in their defense you DEMAND proof of their innocence.
And you wonder why people go to The Rhino Times to get the "real" news and see answers to the questions the N&R won't ask??

jaycee, you make up these scenarios in which you say what we would do and then you draw conclusions based on your own scenario. How do I respond to that other than to say "bullfeathers?" We certainly would print what the GPD says. In fact, if you read the original post, I'm trying to get the GPD TO say SOMETHING. Why? So that we can print it.

Again, I ask you, when would you consider this story worth publishing? If not the press conference, would it be the police investigation? If not that, would it be official city council action? If not that, some decision by the Justice Department? Ever?

By the way, I don't wonder why people go to the Rhino, but I do appreciate you putting the word real in quotes.

Yeah, John, you're right. Ya gotta watch those hypotheticals and parables etc. I can just imagine you being at the Sermon on the Mount:

"Yo, Jesus, I'm John Robinson, from the N&R."

"The N& What?"

"I just wanted you to know you're on shaky ground here with these hypothetical parable things'. It's fraught with trouble.

"Really? Who were you again?"

You aren't comparing yourself to God, are you? :)

John, shucks, you're on to me.

When was your last VACATION?

Yes, Mr. Robinson, you've proved my point exactly:

Black leader makes an unsubstantiated allegation=N&R accepts it without further explanation.
GPD works to investigate=N&R demands explanation before the facts are known.

You lost me on that one, jaycee. But whatever.... Just so I understand what you're asking us to do: If you are the editor of your newspaper, at what point, if ever, do you publish anything about this story? Would you have published anything yet, knowing that there have been actions by a variety of public bodies -- the police, the city council, a senator and the justice department?

Along those lines, if you have an internal investigation into the actions of, say, three police officers whom a fourth officer says assaulted her, do you report that or do you await official action by the police and DA? You know that I'm asking that one because it has been more than two months on that case and the public still has no clue what, if anything, went on there.

Mr,. Robinson, how about some research or actual reporting (i.e., WORK) by your reporters, instead of just regurgitating the unsubstantiated claims of radical black activists?
I detailed above the questions that could be asked by a competent reporter.
In other words, do some WORK and give your readers some information instead of just publishing wild claims with no validation.
I'll reiterate:
1) That there were, in fact, fifty boxes of documents?
2) That McMinn was, in fact, working in the unit during the time he's alleged to have done this?
3) That any records were, in fact, destroyed?
4) If any records were destroyed, were they exclusively related to the Klan/CWP incident?
5) That any destruction was or wasn't illegal?

This is the kind of balanced reporting that I'd like to see. Background, facts, both sides, whatever you want to call it. Don't just act as a front man for every anti-police radical that has an ax to grind. You come off as having taken sides against those on one side of the issue instead of being an impartial reporter.

Ignoring my question? OK. That's fair.

I understand your questions. Are you saying don't publish until we have those answers? What is your level of proof? For instance, what satisfies you as to the number of boxes? Do we need to see them ourselves in the landfill? And if we can't find them, does that signify to you that they weren't trashed?

I believe the police have spent a couple weeks now trying to get the answers to those questions. As they haven't reported to the public -- as requested in this post -- should I assume that in your world, we should not have published anything about this yet?

You miss my point entirely, just as you often miss the points your blog posters and readers try to make. Give us objective news reporting, not one-sided editorials masquerading as news!!
Nobody suggests that you wait until the conclusion of anything before publishing a story. Just that you quit siding with every loonie that has an ax to grind against the GPD instead of giving your readers objective facts. Give us both sides, stop being a mouthpiece for anyone who wants to attack the city government.
Do your reporters know how to do background on stories? Do they have a telephone to call people and ask questions? How about an internet connection so they can research facts?
Are you saying your position involves merely printing press releases given to you by Nelson Johnson without regard to fact or motivation? No fact-checking, no background, no objective reporting? If so, you should quit publishing a newspaper and just be the PR arm of the GSO Pulpit Forum.

Oh, that point. I thought you were saying something new. What do you think about the Rhino's reporting on the GPD and city government?

Yeah, that same old point about the N&R giving us objective and balanced reporting by professional journalists.
Sorry to beat that dead horse, I know you'll never do that for your readers. Ciao!

Whoa, hold on there. You haven't pointed out anything we've reported that isn't objective or balanced. You just don't like the people who called the news conference.

Mr. Robinson, have you been present during this conversation?? Nelson Johnson may well have a valid complaint, but the N&R has done nothing to substantiate anything he said.You've merely presented what he said without any further information to help the reader understand both sides of the issue. You, as a newsman, are about BOTH sides, aren't you??
I'll refer you back to the post I made above about someone claiming you were a child molester. You wouldn't feel another newspaper would have any responsibility to substantiate any outrageous allegations against you personally??

I'll reiterate some of the things missing from your "balanced" coverage:
-No substantiation of anything said by Nelson Johnson
-No substantiation that there were, in fact, fifty boxes of documents
-No information as to whether McMinn was, in fact, working in the unit during the time he's alleged to have done this
-No indication, beyond the unsubstantiated allegation of Nelson Johnson, that any records were, in fact, destroyed
-No information that any records involving the Klan/CWP incident were involved
-No research into state law or SOP's from any other PD's about purging or destruction of decades-old records

Your coverage was from one viewpoint, and one viewpoint only--that of Nelson Johnson. No independent information from research by your reporter, nothing else. Why didn't he just FAX the info straight to your desk instead of wasting time holding a press conference?

OK, Mr. Robinson, this has evolved into a private conversation between you and me without any other participants, and probably serves no useful purpose here anymore.
'Nuff said, good day!

Well, jaycee, I understand how you would want to get out of this conversation, but I, like you, wonder where you've been in this conversation.

We gave everyone the chance to dispute the ministers' comments. You know what they did. Said nothing. (It is so far afield from your analogy, a point I've made before but you've ignored so I'll make it again. The ministers did not accuse anyone of a crime, as your analogy did. They did not personalize it; they questioned the actions of a public institution, and their source was a police officer.)

You also avoid answering the question about when, if ever, this becomes a story. So, in your world, it's never a story unless we find the supposed missing file.

Many comments ago, you raise the credibility of the Rhino. Are you saying that everything it writes meets your standards of publication? Can't be. So how is it different?