News-Record.com

Thiscase (Kohanowich) reminds me of the arrest a couple years ago of the Middle Eastern woman in a K-Mart or Wal-Mart here in GSO.
The news media was absolutely outraged that such a travesty could occur...yada, yada, yada...this poor woman, yada, yada, yada...and it turned out the news media had once again been manipulated by the "victim" who was, in fact, a criminal. The facts showed it, the officers proved it, and Chief Wray set the record straight.

The Greensboro Police Department: Never wrong but always in doubt.

It's really a shame that Kohanowich isn't black. Otherwise, you could plaster more sensationalist headlines about racism by the GPD across the front page.

Who knows, maybe the arresting officer was hired by David Wray, and you could continue pushing that theme.

Assault! BULLFEATHERS. Where the law of common sense?

Well, you are the first, Sam, to try to slip race and Wray into this one.

Wrong, Mr. Robinson. I subtly slipped Chief Wray into my comment before Sam. :)
But this is another fine example of the N&R's propensity to take the any claim against GPD, however unverified, unsubstantiated, biased, or one sided it is, and vociferously use it to attack the GPD regardless of the facts.
Oh, yeah...and once again the N&R finds GPD guilty of misconduct before any criminal trial involving the charges in the case.
The only act left in this predictable tragedy is for Lorraine Ahearn to rush over to Mitch Johnson's office and get Officer Prescod locked out of the building.

Yes, we've had this discussion before, haven't we, jaycee. You want us to await the disposition of the case before it is reported in the media.

I think that a reasonable person can read our coverage of the case and the police department's statement and see that the differences come down to whether the officer was shoved or touched, and whether how the victim was "placed" on the ground. That's what a court will determine, presumably. We reported what the victim said and gave the police the opportunity to address it.

I know that you support the reluctance of the police to speak with the news media. But it took nearly two weeks for these details to be released. To me, that's nearly two weeks too long.

I think your coverage of this case is much different than some other topics.
Your "spin" on this is that, based on the claims of someone charged with a crime who has a vested interest in muddying the waters, the police were wrong, should drop charges, apologize, and if they don't they'll be excoriated in the court of public opinion. I feel you guys are basing your opinions on knee-jerk, anti-GPD sentiment and are once again stirring up the public before the facts are known.
Even with the press release by GPD you still stick by your guns that GPD was wrong. You originally took sides without knowing all the facts. Even after the facts are presented from both sides, you still take an anti-GPD stance, truth be damned.
Yes, we've had similar discussions. And you're still pursuing a course of action that has bitten you in the butt before when the facts are finally known, aren't you?
You've succeeded in drumming up public support for your position through careful wordsmithing of the incident, even garnering some national attention. So your interpretation of the incident must be right, correct?

No, Mr. Robinson, I don't think you ever have to "wait" until things are adjudicated in court before you report. What I'd like to see is unbiased, factual reporting. Report what both sides have to say, and continue reporting throughout the life of the story.
But what you have done, once again, is make this an editorial and emotional issue, slanting your reporting with anti-GPD editorials, stories written in such a way as to enhance possibly misleading statements by a person charged with a crime, and ignoring the fact that there are two sides to this story. You have facts from both sides, but continue to insist that the defendant is "right" and GPD is wrong and should let the N&R editorial writers dictate how crimes are prosecuted in our community.
You're out of your lane.

As we have had this discussion more times than I want to count, let's save ourselves some time and just disagree about how much information should be released, who should speak to the news media, how crime should be reported and how it is interpreted by different people.

Since our last comments overlapped, one final word from me (I hope) on your last comment.

I doubt that a reasonable person would read what I've written and say that I "continue to insist that the defendant is 'right' and GPD is wrong.

Jaycee ... or whatever your name is.

As the guy who covered this story, let me tell you what I know. And don't know.

You write: "... what you have done, once again, is make this an editorial and emotional issue, slanting your reporting with anti-GPD editorials, stories written in such a way as to enhance possibly misleading statements by a person charged with a crime, and ignoring the fact that there are two sides to this story.''

Short answer: Say what you will about your so-called bias at our print shop on East Market, but that's not the way it went down on my side. At all.

Now, for the long answer.

On my first column, after I talked with Alexander Kohanowich, I called the police right away and told them what I heard and I needed to hear their side. I figured this arrest would turn into what I call a journalistic red ball, and I knew I wanted to get as much information out there.

Facts, not opinion. Facts.

Nearly four hours later, after I filed my column, I got a call from Capt. Robert Flynt. He's the guy who heads up special operations for the department. He wasn't there and didn't see it go down. But he gave me the 411 on what the police knew at that time.

When Capt. Flynt called back, I crowbarred his comments into the column. And quite honestly I measured it. I had five inches on the arrest from Kohanowich and four inches on the arrest from Capt. Flynt.

Now, I structured the column in such a way so readers could get Kohanowich's story as well as the cop's side because I figured this would blow up because of the various buttons it pushed. Elderly defendant. Patriotism. Free speech. You name it.

Plus, the interesting take from where I sit was that Kohanowich had done this all around the city. He had been seen by many folks. And three years ago, one of our writers corraled him and talked to him about what he thought of the war. So, that's why I lead the column the way I did before I dovetailed into what happened March 26 in the median on Coliseum Drive.

Now, I thought Capt. Flynt gave me what he could that day. I had interviewed him before on something else, and I always found him to be forthright with what he felt comfortable giving me.

Now, about the arresting officer.

I declined to name him because I knew I wouldn't be able to talk to him and get his side of the story. Oh, I asked. But I was told that couldn't happen. It's classic protocol with any organization. Then, I talked to my editor on whether to name him or not. We both decided no, go with the supervisor. So, I did.

Another thing we discussed was that if we named him -- and hadn't talked to him -- the guy could get blistered unnecessarily in cyberspace and the court of public opinion.

Well, that happened.

Now, to my second column.

This was a basic tone piece. After my first column ran, I had gotten nearly 50 calls and e-mails in two days. That's a lot. Also, Kohanowich had gone on with Fox News Channel as two other local affiliates. Folks wanted to cover his court costs, pay his legal expenses, send him flowers, get him to talk to their college class. Anything.

So, I sat down with Alexander Kohanowich again because I wanted to get a handle on the fallout of what happened.

Now, I had two days to report and write this thing. Remember, I'm slated to write three columns a week. So, with that little extra cushion, I tried to track down two witnesses independent of either Kohanowich and the police.

I talked with the reporter from WFDD, and tried to track down the vendor from Baltimore, an eyewitness, who e-mailed me a few days before. WFDD reporter declined to talk on the record. After five phone calls and an e-mail, I didn't hear back from the vendor.

But I did talk to a retired Episcopal chaplain who saw some of the fracas go down. He told me he saw Kohanowich arguing loudly when he was surrounded by three to four cops and the next thing he knew he saw Kohanowich on the ground.

Now, I didn't add his comments to the story because of space. I didn't have a lot of room. In hindsight, I wish I had added his viewpoint into the piece. But I knew I needed extra space because I wanted to give readers some straight-from-document information -- you know, no spin zone kind of stuff - so they could decipher for themselves what went down. That was:

-- the definition of "assault" from the N.C. General Statutes

-- The training that officers go through. I got the 88-page training manual from the N.C. Justice Academy, and I pored through that to pluck some things that I hoped would help readers understand.

Now, to the the police.

Again, on Wednesday morning, I implored them to give me their side. I told them -- and I quote --"You all are getting crucified in the court of ublic opinion, and I need to talk to someone who was there. I need to get your side.''

Also, I told them I was going to name Officer Prescod in my column because his name was out there in cyberspace. A conservative blogger in Tennessee lambasted Prescod. Plus, with the way the case was playing out, I felt readers -- bottom line, we the taxpayers -- needed to know the officer's name because we help pay his salary.

So, I wanted the police to give me their side. Prescod's side. Any side of a cop who saw it go down. But they declined because I was told the Kohanowich arrest was under investigation.

Fair enough. I figured that would happen.

So, I told them I'd like to talk to someone in the department who helps train officers. I wanted them to talk in general about the problems with making arrests and what local cops are taught. They asked for a list of questions, and I gave them seven at around 3 p.m.

I also called the AG's office and asked them if I could talk to the director of the N.C. Justice Academy. That's the protocol you gotta follow to talk to anyone from the academy. I wanted to hear from the director about the difficulty officers face in making an arrest. I figured I wouldn't get much from the GSO police because of how this case was playing out. So I chose to go to a third-party source.

I remained at the N&R until almost 7:30 p.m. I got nothing from the cops or the N.C. Justice Academy.

Now, I was told their review of the case would take two weeks or less. Well, the day my second column ran, the GSO police came out with a detailed two-page statement about what went down.

Now, I ask this: "Why could I not have gotten that information the day before? And couldn't they even tell me, even off the record, that they were close to finishing it?''

I believe this whole affair could have been easily diffused if the police were more forthcoming this week with what their officers saw. It would help them and our paper. But more importantly, it would help us -- the folks who live in this city and pay our police to protect us.

We all need to understand both sides of what went down. Then, let a judge decide.

This is something I told JR Friday. Yeah, I'm frustrated.

I felt the police were simply circling the wagons when some transparency this week would have helped their case immensely.

Now, Jaycee -- or whatever your name is -- I don't see that as biased at all. Yeah, I'm a columnist, I often write from a point of view, and I'm going to till the journalistic grist of emotion. That is what I do. But this was a hot-button issue revolving around patriotism, free-speech rights and police officer judgement. And I wanted to get as much information, as much fact, out there so readers like yourself could form your own opinion.

Obviously, you already have. And we can agree to disagree. That's cool. But there is no so-called conspiracy from my side about, as you say, "attacking the cops regardless of the facts.''

That's just bull.

I mean, our police department has gotten a black eye from numerous controversies. This is just another one. The sad thing? This particular public-relations problem -- at least from where I sit -- could have been easily avoided this week.

Hope this helps.

Mr. Rowe, the N&R coverage proceeded quickly downhill from your well-written story to an editorial about how GPD had done something wrong and sarcastic N&R blog comments apparently intended to embarrass or shame the GPD into throwing their officer under the bus for doing what has yet to be shown was improper. That's a far cry from your original story. I don't hold you responsible, I believe those things were done outside of your area of responsibility.
From a practical and liability standpoint it's usually suicide for a governmental agency representative to immediately state for the record just exactly what took place before even he knows all the facts. This usually results in backtracking, retractions from the agency, and egg on the face of someone who was trying to set the record straight. I fully understand why GPD was not able to immediately give you each and every fact and know that it was accurate and the final answer to your questions. GPD and many other police departments have hundreds of officers answering thousands of calls and making thousands of arrests on a continuing basis and it's sometimes difficult for one person to know every detail of every arrest. Capt. Flynt supervises many officers and has hundreds of tasks to perform every day in an administrative capacity, and I feel he would have to do some investigating on his own to dig out the details when asked for specific information "right now" on a particular arrest.
A common ploy by reporters is to gin up public outcry and then use that as a lever to force public officials to make a statement before the facts are known, because the reporter wants to know everything "right now" and will crucify the agency if it doesn't give the reporter what he wants "right now." I'm not accusing you of that, but your own statement above indicates you used a bit of that pressure in your actions when you demanded to talk to "someone who was there" because the news media was again hot on the trail of suspected GPD misconduct.
Public record laws state what information a police agency MUST release, anything else you get as a reporter is gravy. Typically, police give more info out than they have to, but just because a reporter (or a citizen) has an interest or curiosity in something does not obligate the agency to release any info they're not required to release.
In this case, I'm sure Mr. Kohanowich had a compelling story, and I believe you reported his side in a very thorough manner. As I said before, I believe in Doug Clark's blog, many defendants will spin any tale in an attempt to minimize, trivialize, or sway public opinion to his innocence. He has that right. However, an officer is under no obligation, and may in fact be prohibited from discussing the specifics of a case with news media before it goes to trial. To do this would leave an officer and his department open to criticism of trying to sway the case in their favor instead of letting a court/jury decide the case based on evidence produced under oath in a court proceeding. Look back on DA Nifong's troubles for discussing details of the case a bit too early for a hard-hitting lesson on making that mistake.
You're one of the best writers at the N&R, and as such your powerful words have the ability to sway public opinion. I see your columns as more on the editorial side than straight reporting, though you're an exceptional straight reporter as well.