News-Record.com

What a great column!
The N&R has once again found someone guilty without benefit of trial.
Well, at least you're consistent.

John

I am shocked that you picked Jerry Bledsoe to comment on. If there ever was a conflict of interest, you sure as hell have one now. Have you forgot how Bledsoe nailed you on Ethan Finesilver? This sure sounds like sour grapes.

Other than a pain in the rear end law suit, do you really think any jury in this area would award one- dollar for damages?

Mr. Robinson, just where were the N&R editors and your "fact checking" when the biased and inaccurate stories were (and continue to be) printed in your newspaper about the Wray case and the GPD?

Those of us who want the "facts" after reading something in the N &R go to Ben Holder and/or The Rhino to do our "fact checking".

Perhaps Sir, you and "It's just a matter of semantics" Green should just crawl back in your holes before you slather your faces with any more egg. BB

The Rhino serves red meat - they have lead in their pencil and bark in their bite - unlike the N&R.

Don't be so sensitive, jaycee. No one has been found guilty. I've raised simple questions. I would think you would appreciate that.

Conflict with Jerry? How so? It's not even critical of him. He nailed us on Feinsilver only in some people's imaginations.

You didn't fact check Lorraine Ahearn on this very same story, nor Ethan Feinsilver on the false story he wrote. Then you refuse to answer questions about either.

"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." - John Robinson, 10/3/07

No quarter to the Rhino, huh?

You should be embarrassed that you ever wrote this editorial.

Samuel, you write as if you know anything about what and how we fact-checked either story. You shouldn't do that.

We fact-checked them all well. No substantive fact we've reported has been proved wrong, despite what you might want to believe.

But back to the point of the post: If the Rhino's editor isn't editing the ongoing series, who is? And -- you're a lawyer -- do you think Jerry should have his own representation, if the Rhino is characterizing Jerry as being like a wire service? That just sounds to me as if they are distancing themselves from him.

John, when you've been asked to comment on something the Rhino reported that was absent from or conflicted with something reported in the N&R, you insisted it wasn't your job to comment on the reporting of other papers. Why the change of heart?

Mr. Robinson, it's not so much about whether the N&R used facts to construct it's story, it's about how Lorraine Ahearn twisted, parsed, finagled, and restated the "facts" to make things sound like something they weren't.

Example:
The US and Russia were head-to-head in an Olympic event. US won, Russia lost.
US newspaper: "US Beats Russia"
Russian newspaper: "Russia Finishes Second, US is Next to Last"

You did a real fine job fact checking the "black book" story. Even today, when actual documents have been released showing the purpose behind the black book and its lawful purpose, you still haven't commented on how you got it wrong.

A little fact checking behind Ahearn may have cleared that up.

Your paper is primarily responsible for the myth of the black book as a racist tool being conveyed to the public and you have refused to backtrack. Further, you let that inflammatory story go to print without fact checking it and now have the nerve to write "First, on a story of this magnitude and with these sorts of allegations, the SOP at traditional newspapers is for a variety of editors to review primary source materials. If we are going to publish the story we want to understand exactly what we have....and what we don't have. We want ensure we're fair and accurate."

The message I am getting is that it is okay to trust your "fine" reporters like Ahearn, but Hammer was negligent for trusting Bledsoe.

Roch is right. You whine about the Rhino and Bledsoe today, but when Jerry gave you the opportunity to go on the record with him directly to correct errors in your reporting - and where you could challenge him- you ducked. Now you hide behind your keyboard tossing grenades and then running for cover. When will you be accountable for all of the numerous mistakes and inflammatory allegations your paper printed in this whole affair?

It's much easier to attack the Rhino while maintaining a position of moral superiority when in fact Jerry (and Ben Holder for that matter) have gotten it right more than the N&R has. You can argue that is my subjective analysis, yet you expect us to accept your pontification in this column as some fair and objective analysis of where your opponents went wrong. It reeks of hypocrisy and a whole lot of desperation.

Like Keith Olbermann, perhaps you should have stuck with commenting on sports.

That last anonymous was me.

Roch, I'm not aware that I have commented on the Rhino's reporting, other than as it pertains to what Jerry purports the News & Record did. I don't believe I have in this post, either. Yes Weekly reported a comment of John Hammer's process about how he edits the publication that I think is interesting, and, I suggest, unusual. I don't consider that commenting about their reporting. (It's not just the Rhino. I resist commenting on the reporting done by any newspaper unless I have first-hand knowledge of the story they're reporting on. It's too easy to make false assumptions.)

jaycee, can we just agree to disagree about what you think Lorraine did or didn't do and move on?You have no evidence she did any of the things you continually say she did, and it is insulting that you continue to make the false charges.

I'm fascinated that you guys consider this post an attack on Jerry. Whining? You think this is whining? What are you all so defensive about? Go reread what I wrote. I'm not saying Hammer was negligent in trusting Jerry. He can do what he wants. I said it is unusual that he would make no effort to fact check it, particularly when people said the reports were wrong. I said that surprised me. But then, I think having editors is a good thing.

Go back and read the coverage. City Hall, not the News & Record, came out with the black book revelation at the press conference after Wray quit. And we didn't get it wrong.

But hey, we have several court cases coming up. Let's wait and see what the evidence shows.

But before we leave, what do you think, Samuel, about the same attorney representing the Rhino and Jerry in the libel suit? Don't they have independent interests?

They might. But I'm not convinced at all that this lawsuit is going anywhere. There is a strong First Amendment argument to be made that Bledsoe and the Rhino are well within their rights to characterize facts any way they see fit. The only problem occurs when the facts are wrong, and at this point I don't see that as having been proven in any way. We are still dealing with two or more groups with differing versions of events where only a few have been conclusive one way or another.

I also don't see how Hammer having a different attorney would make much difference. If there is a case to be made against Bledsoe, then the Hammers would be on the hook as well as a general rule- although as I'm sure you are aware there are exceptions.

If it were shown that Jerry is liable, what are the Hammer's going to do but say "we didn't know", and that doesn't present a conflict with Jerry at all- he's either liable or not. Similarly, if the Hammer's were to come out and say "it's all Jerry's fault" that wouldn't advance their defense or hurt Jerry's because Jerry's liability with or without the Hammer's is the key to the whole case anyhow.

They both have a common interest in proving that neither has any liability and pointing a finger at the other wouldn't make any difference in the end except as a possible defense for the Hammer's but by that point, Jerry would already have to be liable for it to matter so the damage to Jerry would already be done- but not by the Hammer's, but by the facts of the case.

As to the Black Book, your ace reporter characterized it as racist based on the statements of some disgruntled officers. Did your paper investigate whether those allegations were true or did you simply take the spin of those officers and run with it? Were these not defamatory accusations against David Wray that you reprinted without investigating whether the claims about the "black book" were true? We have learned a whole lot about the black book since then (but not from the N&R) which indicates those accusations were false. What has your paper done in response?

Was it too hard to make a FOIA request for the black book before printing the story? Who else did Ahearn talk to in an effort to corroborate those charges?

You fail to see that the very same claims made about the Rhino and Bledsoe and their coverage of this story could be made by Wray, Brady and others about the N&R.

Rather than trying to poke sticks at the Rhino, you should be on their side considering your common interests.

As to the Yes! story, if the following is the crux of the lawsuit, I see an early dismissal:

"My understanding is that Walt Jones will testify that he gave Bledsoe names of people who would refute the things he was about to write," Rossabi said. "It appears that he relied on Sanders and Brady - the guys I'm suing. Sanders has been indicted. I'm suing them in this intrusion case."

Another key witness expected to testify is Jim Coman, a special prosecutor for the NC Justice Department, who is heading the criminal prosecution of Sanders and co-defendant Sgt. Tom Fox. Sanders and Fox are white, while Fulmore and James are black. Race has played as a subtext through the controversy, determining battle lines in Greensboro and polarizing combatants.

"Jim Coman will testify that [Bledsoe's] purpose is A, to fire Mitch Johnson; B, to restore David Wray's reputation; and C, to prove that political correctness is more important than truth in Guilford County," Rossabi said. "If you're going to do that, then tell people what your purpose is, and don't purport to be an accurate news source."

Why? Because Bledsoe is under no obligation to take the version of events told by someone else especially when we don't know who they are. We also don't know specifically what the topic Walt Jones was referring to even is and whether it could even support a lawsuit.

Further, the second part about Wray, Johnson, etc, is missing a key element- the Plaintiff's. That could have very well been Jerry's agenda, but that alone presents no case for the Plaintiff's. Why hasn't Mitch Johnson sued? This is apples and oranges with no logical link to the harm alleged by the Plaintiff's. What is missing in the lawsuit is a lie and actual malice.

John...a fine job on being fair and balanced. My point is that it's not WHO said it... but what was said... what was reported. Hammer admitted... 1) with a story this long there was probably going to be some mistakes. 2) They didn't fact check and DON'T even have any fact checking systems in place. If the fundamental job of a newspaper is to report the "truth", it seems impossible a task at Hammer Publishing if they don't even know what they are reporting is fact or fiction? Whether Jordan Green KNOWS Lorraine Ahearn or you know Jerry Bledsoe has nothing to do with right and wrong. John, you and I were at the recent NC Press awards meeting talking... as was.. JOHN HAMMER, Scott Yost and Lorraine Ahearn..So...if I was to tell it like Jerry..."What were John Hammer and Lorraine Ahearn doing in the same room?"
People need to stop muddying the water and trying to distract and focus on the fact.

Mr. Womack, so many of the "facts" most of which were initially printed in the N&R, have been shown to be wrong.

The N&R has yet to report on the Walt Jones letter describing Linda Miles' determination to get some "dirt" on David Wray as far as I know, nor have they asked any questions.

It simply doesn't fit the narrative. Maybe I'd try to discredit the Rhino too if I had so much egg on my face. It's a good strategy to accuse your opponent of doing what you do yourself to try and distract attention.

After reading the Rhino for over a decade, I never thought I would be defending the News & Record. The Rhino has provided a good spoil to the N&R's coverage for years.

However, there are a lot of posters here who are raking John Robinson over the coals when the focus here is the credibility (or lack of) the articles that appeared in the Rhinocerous Times. After reading some of these stories about the Rhino's reporting and my own observations that the Rhino often lead with titillating details that sometimes were not key to the story, I have to wonder if the Rhino ignored evidence or sources that showed their reporting was false.

In contrast, I can't find anything in the N&R that was implicitly false or contained information that has been proven incorrect. People may not like the N&R's lack of coverage on local controversial issues, but I don't think they ever went with a story that they knew to be false.

Whether you read the Rhino, News & Record, Yes, or the High Point paper, there is an implicit trust between newspapers and readers that what they print is true. I wonder if the newspaper that says they have "all the rumors fit to print" didn't let the facts get in the way of a good story.

Samuel, you can say we got the story wrong as often as you want, but that simply won't make it so no matter how much you want it to.

It doesn't help me understand your thinking about the news media when you say it is OK to characterize facts any way we see fit. As we have discussed many times, being factual doesn't necessarily translate into being truthful.

Thanks for the legal opinion. One point to clarify: I wasn't suggesting the Hammers need their own lawyer or that they should protect themselves differently. I said that if I were Jerry, I would want my own representation looking out for my own interests.

John, are looking for a job yet ?

Looks like Rhino TImes is catching you.

Sqaulk if you will, your newspaper sucks.

John, what do you think Lorraine Ahearn did with the whole black book story but characterize it in a certain way to fit a narrative? Same thing with Feinsilver.

Was the black book used to target black officers? Answer the question, John, because your paper certainly reported that it did. Do you stand by that characterization?

Your disconnection with reality as it applies to your paper is astonishing.

Might as well face it. The Rhino series and the Ahearn series were BOTH constructed on largely hearsay. If hearsay is out of bounds then there would only be journalism AFTER trials are over.

Samuel, because you have a narrative you believe, that doesn't mean everyone does. You keep bringing up Ethan Feinsilver. What is your source on what you think you know about that?

The black book...let's see...I know that we reported Mitch Johnson saying that investigators reported there were numerous instances of the book being shown to criminal defendants in an attempt to target black officers. I know that we reported Chief Wray as saying that the book had nothing to do with racial profiling. I know that we reported that Mitch Johnson said the discovery of the black book was a cause for his loss of confidence in the chief's leadership.

Did we characterize it that way or were we reporting how the chief's boss characterized it? Reporting what people directly involved say and do is the traditional method of reporting a story like this.

Lorraine used hearsay from a host of characters, many of them the same ones who brought you the great Klan-CWP Record Disposal Scandal. Bledsoe used hearsay from mostly a variety of young women quoted in and out of police reports.

It doesn't seem hard to understand the motivation of people who Lorraine used as sources. It is somewhat more puzzling why the women who made allegations regarding members of the police force would do such a thing and piss off allegedly dirty cops and drug dealers-it just doesn't seem like something somebody would do for fun, for obvious health-related reasons.

Also in the wake of the subsequent "Party Van" scandal, again, do we have another young woman making up stuff just to screw over cops?

You decide! Put putting down Bledsoe when he did nothing different from the N&R is kind of questionable.

Skeet Club, why do you change your name on comments in the same thread?

All reporters use a mix of primary documentation and people who say they witnessed things. Always have and always will.

I'm still puzzled how you and others can read this post as putting down Bledsoe.

John, I think it's pretty clear that you are implying that Bledsoe possibly is writing fiction and or questionable hearsay and you are taking Hammer to task for lack of editorship. You apparently signed off on the use of similar type hearsay for the Ahearn series so people are just kind of wondering what the point is.

Also, what is this pre-occupation with names?
If somebody is libeling or threatening someone that's different. But you're right. From now on I'll use my real name, the one my mom gave me while still under the influence of natal anaesthesia-Skeet Club Savage.

I don't know how you could read into the post that I imply Jerry is writing fiction. The post refers solely to the editing of his work. And now here you are comparing the reporting techniques of Jerry and Lorraine and suggesting they are similar. There are people on this comment thread who will blast you for that.

As for names, I think people should be man enough to stand behind their opinions with their real identities. Failing that, a pseudonym will do so long as it is used consistently. I have to say that a pseudonym of a pseudonym sounds kind of desperate to me. But really, I don't want the same person coming onto the thread as different people saying the same sorts of things. It suggests to readers that your opinions are more widespread than they are...and that more people are commenting on the blog than really are.

Your not implying what Bledsoe wrote is not true??? John, you should run for office. "I did not have sex with this woman"

Also, let me get this right. As long as a fake name is used consistently it's okay? Hmmm....Makes sense....Ah...I guess, if you say so. Boy, sounds like somebody might be paranoid. Sure wouldn't want many people challenging your opinions, huh? Why should it matter if people post as Peter Pan??? Just shoot down whatever is said with a cogent counter-argument, who cares? That's the best way, not whining about fake names.

Skeet, the post is about a libel suit in which Jerry and the Rhino are being sued for publishing, well, stuff that isn't true. That's the context for this post. Where's the implication I am making that I agree with it?

As for the name issue, I'm old-fashioned. I think people should stand behind their words. I have been told that there are good reasons why they won't. But posting under three different names, making it appear as if three different people share the same opinion is simply a lie. I know you wouldn't want to imply something untrue. :)

You keep bringing up Ethan Feinsilver. What is your source on what you think you know about that?

John, I offered a few months ago for you to answer my questions about that incident and others to clear up the record on my blog. You never responded after I made that offer.

So for you to tell me that I don't know anything about Feinsilver, etc, while you REFUSE to answer any questions about that story even to this day is unbelievable.

If you are confident that your paper got it right along with the Black Book, etc, why not answer my questions about those stories and the reporting of them?

What stuff isn't true? That's a claim on your part that's not been established either way.

And John, would it not reflect better on your debating skill and verbal dexterity if it looked like you were meeting and besting multiple challengers here on the blog field? I would think it would be to your advantage, traffic wise, to have what appears to be more people on your blogs. Plus real names are kind of boring.

I have no memory of that request, Samuel. It was 10 years ago, and I wasn't the editor at that time. Aside from that, I don't know the point of my spending time rehashing it with you. That said, feel free to read this story done by an independent writer which seems to represent it fairly.

skeet, reread my comment. The libel suit against Jerry and the paper is alleging libel...not me.

You're right about the numbers, but then, it wouldn't be right, would it?

As for the black book questions, you have made up your mind, and I don't see the point in getting into an argument with you about them.

However, if you read our stories about it, we quote people by name about their thoughts on the black book. One of them was the chief's boss. Some of them were police officers. (Discounting their opinions because they may be "disgruntled" as you describe them would be like me discounting your opinions because you are disgruntled. I know you wouldn't want me to do that.:)) And who is to say that they didn't feel it was racist, whether it was intended to or not? Bearing in mind, of course, that we quoted the chief as saying it wasn't.

We were tracking a live news story at the time. Stories were breaking out all over. These weren't comments made by anonymous people. We named them. It might have been nice to hold off on stories awaiting a FOIA request....but, again, we have both the city manager and the chief talking about this book.

I, along with many other people, have most decidedly NOT made up our minds on this issue. On the contrary, I think most of the rancor on this issue is caused by the perception that the N&R did, a long time ago, and many of your readers' frustration with that.

Let's see: the black book was found to be imminently explainable, the same actors who claimed bias by Wray used the same hysterical behavior for THE GREAT CWP/ KLAN RECORD DISPOSAL SCANDAL OF 2008 which was a joke, the city mgr. has been shown to even deceive the N&R and council about a memo, and cops are now in trouble for the Party Van episode hinting that indeed the house needs to be cleaned and Wray was attempting to do that.

These last items have all been glossed over by the N&R editorially and not addessed at all investigationally in opposition to Lorraine's original series which was widely percieved as being sensationalized and quite brazen

To boot, it also seems you take every opportunity to put down somebody, like the Rhino, for trying to go deeper.

Problems.

I can't make you believe something you don't want to believe.

But to your points: We quoted the chief on what he was using the black book for two years ago. (I thought you said you read those stories.) Only one officer was involved in the report of the disposal of CWP records -- some of which were disposed -- when, of course, more than that talked about bias by the chief, including the city manager. The "party van episode?" You mean the one that occurred two years after Wray resigned? And you're connecting that to Wray? What, do you have a Back-to-the-Future DeLorean? I admit I've wondered why he, as chief, didn't clean house if he knew as much about things as people say.

Is the "party van episode" you say we glossed over and didn't address the same "party van episode" we sued the city over?

Hey, skeet, are you really John Hammer? I think he'd use his real name, but I ask because you're so sensitive to any mention of the Rhino or Jerry. If you compare the times I crack on the Rhino with the number of times the Rhino cracks on the N&R, there's no contest. I guess that because you're a fair-minded individual, you hold them to task for that.

But, really, skeet and Samuel, we have a lot of court cases involved in this. How about we withhold further judgment until we see what comes from them.

"But, really, skeet and Samuel, we have a lot of court cases involved in this. How about we withhold further judgment until we see what comes from them."

Well, Mr. Robinson, aren't you the guy who's always accusing me of demanding the N&R wait until the facts are in before you crucify someone? Seems now the shoe is on the other foot...

What CWP records were destroyed? CWP records or newspaper clippings? Which was it JR?

You're right. Newspaper clippings, which to be technical were stored for so many years because they were considered records.

So John, if Bob Guccione ran an article in Penthouse magazine about the Klan/CWP thing then Penthouse becomes police recs?

That's silly.

Also never met Hammer. I am also not blond or 24 so I don't think I could get in the Schmoozefests either.

Your statement above that you can't make me believe something I don't want to believe could easily be returned right back at ya, and you know this.

John, let me refresh your memory by directing you to this passage from January:

http://theconalt.wordpress.com/2008/01/09/yes-takes-on-bledsoe/#comment-24083

Then you say as expected "Aside from that, I don't know the point of my spending time rehashing it with you." Of course you don't. Not me or anyone else.

You don't want to answer those questions because you know where they lead. In fact, several reviews of Jerry's book pointed out that your paper refused to answer questions. That continues to this very day apparently. Yet, you throw rocks at the Rhino questioning their fact checking.

You really look ridiculous doing this.

I'll make the offer again. Answer some questions about Feinsilver and the Black Book on my blog. Q&A, I ask the question, you respond. Then I ask the next question. Or I could ask them all at once. However you want to do it.

Oh, you asked me questions on your blog. I don't know how I missed that!

You're right, I know where it will lead. I'll spend a lot of time answering questions -- as I already have -- and you will make false assumptions and put words in my mouth as you normally do.

If I thought you were actually curious about the answers and had an open mind about them that would be one thing. But you've decided already what the answers are. As a result, I have better things to do with my time.

John, tell the truth. I asked you those questions on my blog in a conversation that you were a direct party to. To act as if you didn't even know I asked makes you look desperate. All one needs to do is read the conversation and they can see that you were directly involved in it and my offer was made to you directly at that time and you chose not to answer.

And now, once again, you refuse to answer any questions. This time it is because you "have better things to do with your time". You have NEVER answered the questions about Feinsilver. There is always some excuse. All we get is that you "stand by your story" or have "better things to do".

If you won't answer questions because they are coming from me or Jerry, will you answer them if they come from someone else that you find more acceptable, or is that also a waste of your time? Tell me who you find acceptable, and then maybe we can make a deal, right?

Until you are willing to be questioned about your own editorial practices, you should stop complaining or commenting on those of others.

Samuel, you call me a liar, draw erroneous conclusions from answers you don't like, and you wonder why I don't want to spend the time answering your questions?

I have written about the black book and spoken about the Feinsilver case. Your insistence that I have NEVER answered questions about Feinsilver tell me that you haven't bothered to read the AJR story linked above. What am I to make of that insistence of yours when the evidence to the contrary is one click away?

Thank you for telling me what I can and cannot blog about.

Just a side note here, directed at Sam:

I can't read the conversation on your old blog that you're talking about because it's password protected.

Maybe it's just me you're trying to keep out, which is fine, but it makes it harder to follow you when you're talking about something I can't get to.

JR:

I don't believe I have ever called you a liar. I have no personal axe to grind with you. My criticisms are about the way your paper handles stories, so to try and garner support for dismissing me by claiming that I have attacked you isn't a good tactic.

Second, below is from the AJR link you provided:

"Despite the growing public criticism, officials at the paper stayed mum, barely saying anything other than, "The N&R stands by the story." Feinsilver, too, said nothing. "I was a good little boy," he recalls. "I shouldn't have been. But the News & Record forbade me from talking to anyone in the media about this." The paper ran one correction on minor aspects of the coverage. However, after the first two stories, the word "happy" never again appeared. Instead, the paper used the terms "satisfied" and "content."

"It's true we changed the word," says John Robinson, the News & Record's editor since January 1999. "It distracted from the story. People were getting hung up on the word 'happy.' It distracted from the whole point of the story, which is what they were teaching."

Van King, publisher then and now, says, "I felt the stories we published were accurate, and they speak for themselves. Something that's very important is that the story ran on B1. What the other media did with the story was up to them, you know? Throughout, as questions were raised, we answered them or examined things. I'm comfortable with this. Very comfortable. That was also in 1998. That was a while ago."

Observation 1: Feinsilver says that he was told not to discuss the story.

Observation 2: What are your comments and Van King's comments other than another way of saying "we stand by our story"?

To claim that this article proves that you answered pointed questions about this story makes you look bad.

As to your other comment about "drawing conclusions", I have given you ample opportunity (and I am not the only one) to clear things up so I and others won't draw "erroneous conclusions". But you always decline. It's much easier to claim that I won't give you a break no matter what you say and continue to stonewall. That is simply not true. But your silence contributes greatly to my perception to the point where the silence itself appears to be revealing.

I am not out to get you (I reserve that privilege for Ed). I just want you to be accountable. You essentially claim that you are more accountable than the Hammer's, but when given the opportunity to explore that with regard to controversial issues, you punt.

In the same AJR piece you are quoted:

"If the people on one side won't talk, the reporter is still responsible to report the facts evenly and fairly, and I just don't think that the book did this."

Whether it be Feinsilver or the Black Book, what efforts did your paper make to honor that quote?

Finally, the AJR story contains this from the reviewer:

"Even now, with the exception of interviews with AJR, the newspaper has largely given the book the same silent treatment it adopted at the time of the controversy. When journalists call about the book, they're faxed a statement that essentially reiterates the paper's position, which is that it checked and rechecked the accuracy of the story in the years after it appeared, and it still sees no reason to correct it. "

So the own review you cite to back up your claims that you have answered substantive questions about the Feinsilver story actually accuses you of the "silent treatment" on the subject beyond restating "we stand by our story".

Jones, I lifted the privacy block. You can view the link now and see clearly that JR and I were discussing this very subject when I made him the offer and then he disappeared from the conversation.

Samual, for some reason, your post was caught in my spam filter, which Jonathan alerted me to.

When someone says to me after a long conversation on a topic: "tell the truth" I interpret that as a backhanded way of saying you haven't been doing it yet so please start now. I accept that you didn't intend that.

I spent four hours with the AJR reporter and answered every question she asked. All the references to the paper being silent about that book were true and past tense. You said I never answered questions.

Let me ask you this: What purpose do I have to gain by reviewing with you questions about a story written 10 years ago? Why do you care? You clearly believe the Bledsoe version and don't appear to me to have an open mind about it. That's fine by me. I don't care. I just don't see the point of trying to discuss it with someone who is here for a debate rather than to understand another side.

I have never claimed I am more accountable than the Hammers. I'm sure they answer every question in depth and in public they get about Cops in Black & White.

As for your post about it: No question, I often leave blog comment threads before they run their course, particularly on topics that seem to go on forever, such as this one, although I do try to keep up on my own blog. When I said I had no memory of your request, that is true. I did not say you never made such a request.

"You clearly believe the Bledsoe version and don't appear to me to have an open mind about it"

That's probably because due to your refusal to discuss some of the issues raised, the Bledsoe version is the only version out there.

Could be, but I do wonder if you question the Bledsoe version of things with quite the ferocity and doubt you question ours.

John Robinson said:
"You clearly believe the Bledsoe version and don't appear to me to have an open mind about it."

I've found the "Bledsoe version" as you call it to be more the "David Wray version," i.e., from the horse's mouth rather than run through the filter of Lorraine Ahearn's characterization of what she believes she heard. Bledsoe recounts long and detailed discussion by David Wray of his actual conversations with Ahearn, versus Ahearn's "version" that we read in the N&R.
Why is there so much inconsistency between what Wray said he told Ahearn and what Ahearn penned?
Why does it appear many comments to Ahearn by Wray were taken out of context, or molded by Ahearn to portray a meaning that Wray says he never intended?
Where is the explanation by Ahearn of how she initially tipped Wray off to Hinson's possible misconduct and then proceeded to crucify Wray in here N&R series for investigating Ahearn's information?
Where is the justification by the N&R of an apparent conflict of interest by allowing a reporter to start a story by giving information to the police and then reporting the same story herself?

The story here is not the story; it's the story behind the story: How the N&R and Lorraine Ahearn used "wordsmithing" to present facts in such a manner as to lead the reader down a path of the reporter's choice; a conclusion that may have been "factually" correct but still disingenuous.
Bottom line: Is the role of the N&R to report facts, or to subtly direct the reader in how to "feel" about the facts based on the personal biases and agenda of the reporter or the newspaper?

I have no basis to challenge Jerry's version, John. You wouldn't be interviewed for the book, you wouldn't answer specifics after it came out. On what basis would I have to challenge Jerry? If you say something that conflicts with him, then I would certainly expect him to answer it with the same ferocity and doubt. I have no allegiance to Jerry. I do think that he has raised serious and credible issues about the Feinsilver and Wray stories that conflict with the version printed in your paper. I am not choosing him over you, but when those issues go unanswered, I have little choice.

For the record, the AJR editor who assigned and edited the article to which John always refers people was a former N&R staffer who worked for John and was a friend of Feinsilver. The author accidentally sent me an e-mail addressed to this editor that clearly showed her bias.
I recommend the Columbia Journalism Review's review of the book, which, if I recall correctly, was written by the founding editor. I interviewed every member of that class, every instructor and every person at Randolph Community College who was involved with it. Every one said that what Feinsilver claimed did not happen. And videotapes proved it. Feinsilver did not attend the class in which he claimed it did happen. Not only did no News & Record editor check with any of these people to determine if what Feinsilver was reporting was true, they were rebuffed and insulted when they attempted to tell his editor that his claims were false.

Seeing as this discussion is about fact-checking, I would like to offer a fact-check to "Jaycee," whose name is John C. Appel.

Although he has repeatedly stated on this site that he has dealt with me many times over the years professionally, and knows me socially, the fact is that we have never dealt with each other (I checked) and I've never heard of him.

Ms. Ahearn, you met me and interviewed me many times while I was a detective with the Guilford County Sheriff's Dept., and possibly before that when I was a police officer with High Point PD.
I see you and speak to you at the Pipe & Pint frequently when you come in to buy your cigars.
You and I have also spoken to each other at social gatherings over the years.
Perhaps I'm just not as memorable as you. :)

Mr. Appel, I have no idea who you are, and no record of having interviewed you for a story.

Ms. Ahearn, I'd find it remarkable if you remembered all of the hundreds of cops you've talked to over the years on the street on in the squadroom, either for feature stories or general info on a particular crime or police story. Just because you don't remember me doesn't mean I don't remember you.

Mr. Appel, "hundreds of cops" is many more than I have met, and I remember most people I interview quite clearly (particularly those I met and interviewed "many times," as you indicate) and if not, I can always check our database.

As far as the Sheriff's Department, I could probably count the on both hands the number, High Point PD, one hand.

So please do refresh my memory about when and where I dealt with you, or for which stories.

Ms. Ahearn, you were one of many reporters, print, TV, and radio, that I dealt with over many years. Hard to say exactly which story, crime, or scene. Many reporters were around and talked to many cops at the same time for specific stories or just for general info on crimes.
Many times someone will approach me in public that recalls dealing with me at some time in the past, but I don't remember them. I suspect the same is true with you and I. At any rate, it's probably not worth wasting bandwidth here since it's pretty unrelated to Mr. Robinson's original blog entry.

That editor never worked for me, Jerry. The author of the article was biased? Against you? And that makes her article suspect? Hmmm. Hey, I know how you feel.

I was hoping you might speak to the original post.

jaycee, I won't weigh in on whether you and Lorraine know each other. I do know that she's prefers a pinch of snuff to cigars.

John,
If she had left before you moved back over from editorial, I apologize. But once again you are evading the issue: that nobody checked Feinsilver's facts and editors rejected the people who tried to inform the paper otherwise. Some of them would be happy to come forward again. I can get them to call if you'd like.

Watched this whole thread as a spectator. Sam, great job in attempting to hold JR & the N&R accountable for the black book BS and the Finesilver atrocity. I could virtually imagine JR in a flop sweat , squirming in his cushy editors chair , haltingly pecking at his keyboard, ducking the questions now and from the past...." I don't recall "..Ah, yes the Brigadoon questions. In a battle of wits , if you come unarmed , be prepared to be embarrassed..jus' saying.

Jerry, of course, you did work for me, if that matters when it comes to bias.

As with Samuel, I see no point in rehashing a 10-year-old story with people who have made their minds up.

I was hoping you might speak to the original post.

Lorraine Ahearn said: "Seeing as this discussion is about fact-checking, I would like to offer a fact-check to "Jaycee," whose name is John C. Appel."

N&R privacy policy violation.

JR,

The compendium of N&R articles on the GPD is a valuable resource, but there are several broken links. It also seems to have stopped in 2007 and it would be helpful if the there was an indication of the year of the articles, not just month and day -- just some friendly suggestions.

Mr. Appel, on Sept. 22, you wrote here:

"Having dealt with Lorraine Ahearn in the past (and having read her work when I knew the real truth behind her stories) I know her reputation for truthfulness, fairness and objectivity is poor."

You say you remember dealing with me, and you suggest my stories in those dealings did not reflect the "real truth" as you knew it, but you don't recall a specific instance? I have had very limited dealings with the Sheriff's Dept., and no record of ever having interviewed you.

Please explain.

Ms Ahearn,

Why would you care what jaycee says about
you? He is a guy with so little self esteem he doesn't use his own name. Maybe he just can't remember it.
This guy was a cop? I say he has made your points for you

David Colin

OK
Everyone who thinks they know the answers.
"Exactly, Precisely" what facts has Ahearn reported wrong.

No generalities. Detailed examples of facts reported wrong.
jaycee or Mr Apple whatever?
Lead the way.

"Detailed examples of facts reported wrong."

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

The pushback here is simply amazing.....and disingenuous, at best.

This issue is not going away any time soon, John. It was just dormant for some time, but I suspect its return to active status will see it become larger and louder than ever before.

How about this one:

The "secret police" (no such thing) created a "black book" (no such thing) that was used to target black officers.

Please see Answer #20 to the lawsuit that Roch and I filed against the City wherein the City states that the "black book" (which is a photo array) was created and used to "solve a criminal investigation" not to target any black officers by the "secret police".

Of course, this isn't the first time that this information has come out. Ben Holder has posted the documents that went along with the "black book" on his website explaining the legitimate use of it to "solve a criminal investigation".

Did you report that Lorraine? No. Could you have found this out before writing such a sensational story? Almost certainly. Was there any evidence of a "secret police"? No.

So while John complains about the Rhino not exercising editorial control to confirm the veracity of such "serious" stories, his own paper is guilty of the same.

Has the N&R ever reported the other side (and might I add DOCUMENTED) of the story in the same big letters as the initial allegations? No. Has Lorraine ever endeavored to follow up as to why she was lied to about the existence of the "secret police" and "black book"? No, at least not that has been reported. Of course this begs the question that any journalist worth their salt would want answered- "Why did people lie about this?" "What is there motive?" This is where things like the Walt Jones memo about Linda Miles might be worthy of investigation by a reporter to explain the whole story. Has the N&R even addressed this memo? No.

So what we have is the N&R, mainly Ms. Ahearn thinking nothing of plastering unsubstantiated and sensational headlines across their paper, while ignoring the counter arguments that ARE substantiated by actual documents.

When Bledsoe writes a series that tells the other side of the story, he is attacked by the N&R. When Bledsoe offers the N&R an opportunity to answer questions about the variance between what they initially reported and subsequent disclosures, they decline.

And to top it off, rather than answer any questions about Feinsilver, John gives us the predictable "stand by our story" excuse with the added bonus of a ten year statute of limitations.

But we aren't supposed to be suspicious. We are just rabid ideologues out to attack the N&R for no reason. Doing to them what they do to others every day- which is simply asking questions, hopefully in an effort to find the truth- is something they are unwilling to entertain. Instead, we get the dismissals and brush off's, e.g., "you have already made up your mind that Bledsoe is the second coming" etc., as an excuse to avoid the issue.

Jerry knows a lot more about the actual details than I do, so maybe Ms. Ahearn will do here what John refuses to do, and that is answer Jerry's questions about the GPD story.

Don't hold your breath. Remember, the failure of the N&R to answer these questions is OUR fault for asking them. We are merely trolls here. Troublemakers (sorry Ben).

Now feel free to insert the predictable "we already answered them because we said we did" response below.

Good catch Roch on that privacy policy thing.

And once again, it's appropriate to ask why Lorraine Ahearn no longer reports on subsequent events concerning this ever-evolving story.

John refuses to answer that question. What say you in response to that question, Ms. Ahearn?

Ms. Ahearn, since you’ve decided to join this conversation, how about answering the questions that have been posed by many here.

How do you explain the difference in the account by Chief Wray himself of your conversations versus what you wrote about the same conversations?
Which officer first used the term “Secret Police” to you?
How many other officers, independent of your prompting, actually used the term “Secret Police” during an interview?
What was the race of the officers who used that term?
Do you have any ethical qualms or see a conflict of interest in reporting to Chief Wray that James Hinson was “dirty” and then reporting on it later?
Why did you characterize the “black book” as you did when no evidence exists to suggest that?

In response to you claiming not to know me, here are a few examples of when you and I had contact:

In the N&R archives I found this article, a case in which I was involved. I don’t recall the date. We either spoke on this case or I was present:
$25,000 IN STOLEN GOODS RECOVERED; THREE CHARGED
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
The Guilford County Sheriff's Department made its largest single recovery of stolen goods Thursday and charged three men with breaking and entering and also firing weapons at occupied homes in Pleasant Garden last week.

The defendant in this case was a man I put in prison for drug offenses. Not sure if you quoted me in this article, but I do recall discussing it with reporters for “background.”:
Date: December 23, 1991
FATHER CHARGED IN DOG SHOOTING
NEIGHBOR'S PET BIT HIS DAUGHTER
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
A Greensboro man angry at his neighbor's chow dispatched the dog with a 9mm handgun Sunday and was charged with animal cruelty.

Richard Lowe of 5904 Pandora Drive was released after being charged.

Another example of case I was peripherally involved in and in which your reporting either omitted or mischaracterized the facts:
Date: January 25, 1992
ANOTHER LOOK AT `UNRESOLVED MURDERS'
Column: Letters to the Editor | Byline: SYLVESTER DAUGHTRY JR.
The story ``Unresolved Murders'' that appeared in the Dec. 22 News & Record omitted important facts that are essential to a balanced and objective representation of the issues addressed by reporter Lorraine Ahearn. Information omitted was readily available to Ahearn during her lengthy interviews with me and other members of the Greensboro Police Department.

I was also peripherally involved in this case, and your reporting either mischaracterized or omitted pertinent facts:
Date: March 23, 1992
CORRUPTION CASE WITH RACE OVERTONES STARTS JURY SELECTION
DEFENSE SAYS BLACKS SINGLED OUT
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
Undercover FBI agents called it ``Operation Mushroom Cloud.'' Black leaders called it political assassination. A federal jury in Greensboro will decide.

I knew much of the background on this case, and your reporting was not accurate:
Date: October 16, 1992
OFFICER WHO QUIT LINKED TO A PROSTITUTE
POLICE CRUISER SEX
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN AND KELLY SIMMONS Staff Writers
Reasons a Greensboro police officer quit were kept quiet.

I was very familiar with this case, and your reporting was not accurate:
Date: February 5, 1993
SBI INVESTIGATES CHARGES OF RAPE AGAINST CAPTAIN
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN and LIBBY LEWIS Staff Writers
A probe against a fourth Greensboro police officer is revealed _ this time a captain facing date-rape allegations from years ago. A high-profile Greensboro police captain is being investigated for date-rape allegations from 1986 and 1987, in an unusual probe forwarded to a special prosecutor two weeks ago.

I was very familiar with this case, and your reporting was not accurate:
Date: March 7, 1993
OFFICERS KEPT SILENT ABOUT RAPE ALLEGATIONS POLICE CAPTAIN INVESTIGATED
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN and LIBBY LEWIS Staff Writers
When a woman confided that she was allegedly raped by a high-ranking Greensboro police official, what was a street-level officer's duty?

I was involved in this case; don’t recall if you interviewed me personally or if I was just present with other officers when you were doing your research:
Date: March 31, 1993
HIDDEN BEDROOM ``EYES'' CAUSE A STIR
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
When an estranged husband finds a camera in his ceiling, police and lawyers descend. It may be just as a District Court judge suggested: much ado about nothing.

Another example of inaccurate reporting in a case I was very familiar with:
Date: February 20, 1994
REVIEW BOARD AIMED AT POLICE SURFACES AGAIN GREENSBORO DEPARTMENT
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN and THOMAS A. BARSTOW Staff Writers
The long-simmering issue of a police citizen review board heats up as Greensboro's police chief gets involved. Spurred by a bumpy year for the Greensboro Police Department, a citizen commission is moving to take the lead in the police review board debate.

More use of “wordsmithing” to stir up passion about a topic I was intimately involved with:
Date: May 31, 1994
BLACK RESIDENTS STILL MISTRUST POLICE OFFICERS
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
Many black city residents want a more open police review process. It's a relationship that carries the baggage of a history unique to Greensboro: a decade of racial unrest, lingering suspicion, a Nazi-Klan shoot-out that ended in tragedy and recriminations.

More use of “wordsmithing” to stir up passion about a topic I was intimately involved with:
Date: June 26, 1994
POLICE AT ODDS OVER DEBATE OF REVIEW BOARD
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
Greensboro adds new wrinkles to an old question: Do citizens have a right to review police? Greensboro isn't the first city to weigh the balance between citizen rights and police authority.

A case I was also involved with. Your reporting was less than accurate:
Date: September 16, 1994
POLICE CALL SHOOTING LAST RESORT
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN
As police wrap up an inquiry into the fatal shooting of a man who allegedly charged police with a knife, the man's family raises questions. The investigation of the fatal police shooting of a knife-wielding man last Thursday is nearly complete, and the man's family is raising questions about why he was killed.

A case I was also involved with. Your reporting was less than accurate:
October 30, 1994
AFTERMATH: DARK DAY HAUNTS GREENSBORO SHOTS STILL RINGING IN CITY'S EARS
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
Fifteen years after the Nazi-Klan killings at Morningside, the city gropes for perspective. What Walter Cronkite said about Greensboro that evening on the news makes Jim Melvin wince. Even to this day.

I was the lead investigator on this case. Since you quote “Guilford investigators” you probably interviewed me at some point. That was a hectic case, reporters near and far on the phone and many in the office, I don’t recall specifically sitting down with you and Pete but I’m sure we did:
Date: April 23, 1995 INTERSTATE KILLINGS DIFFICULT TO SOLVE BECAUSE OF TRANSIENCE, ANONYMITY
Byline: LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writer
There are scores of interstate killings that a jailed trucker could not have committed, detectives say. Flooded with calls from police around the country who want to question Sean Patrick Goble, Guilford investigators caution that the Asheboro truck driver can't possibly be responsible for killings that go back 15 years.

I was the lead investigator on this case. Since you quote “Guilford investigators” you probably interviewed me at some point. That was a hectic case, reporters near and far on the phone and many in the office, I don’t recall specifically sitting down with you and Pete but I’m sure we did:
Date: May 6, 1995
PROSECUTOR TO REVEAL TRIAL PLANS IN MURDER CASE AGAINST TRUCKER
Byline: PETER KHOURY ; LORRAINE AHEARN Staff Writers
Orange County's top prosecutor will announce Monday whether he'll try trucker Sean Goble for murder. Orange County prosecutors are questioning whether there's enough evidence to try Sean Patrick Goble, the truck driver charged with murdering a woman and dumping her body in Guilford County last winter.

Your thrust here seemed to be that police officers write tickets for profit or something. Way off base, you and I both know better:
Date: November 14, 1997
LEAD-FOOT DRIVERS PAVING THE WAY FOR STATE WINDFALL
Byline: Lorraine Ahearn
At that bleak hour of the evening when they all should have been on their way home to supper and Monday night football, 17 grown men and women crowded into a night school classroom in Greensboro to face their punishment.

Was this when you realized Hinson was “dirty” as you later reported to Chief Wray? Why did you not make that the focus of your article?
Date: August 8, 1999
THE TALL ORDER? ON BEING BLACK AND BEING A COP
Column: LORRAINE AHEARN |
On any summer evening, when he puts on his Greensboro police uniform and begins a 10-hour shift with his squad, you might say Sgt. James Hinson is already packing enough weight and enough heat.

Bubba,Spagnola

There you go again. ( "Ronald Regan to Jimmie Carter" )

Bubba.
Just more facts no pontification

Spagnola

"secret police" What exactly did Ahearn say.
quote her. Bet you can't. Look
up her original article.

Same for "black book"

Now "Did you report that Lorraine? No."
I am really
confused first you accuse her of false reporting now
not reporting. I'm really confused.

I don't recall an instance of Ms Ahearn attacking the Rhino. Please clarify.
"Don't hold your breath. Remember, the failure of the N&R to answer these questions is OUR fault for asking them. We are merely trolls here. Troublemakers (sorry Ben)"
Why would you expect a newspaper to answer an individuals questions. Makes no sense. Most news papers ask questions and report the answers they get. The readers make up their own minds. No?

jaycee or Mr Apple whatever? Where are you.
Some specifics please.
Bloggers! What happened journalism.
Every time I see their names in print I think of the Rubber Ducky CB "Handle"
Hell you can't tell the players without a score card.

Oh jacee whats bandwidth?

Have a good day

"Your thrust here seemed to be that police officers write tickets for profit or something. Way off base, you and I both know better:
Date: November 14, 1997
LEAD-FOOT DRIVERS PAVING THE WAY FOR STATE WINDFALL
Byline: Lorraine Ahearn
At that bleak hour of the evening when they all should have been on their way home to supper and Monday night football, 17 grown men and women crowded into a night school classroom in Greensboro to face their punishment"

jaycee or Mr Apple whatever?

"Your thrust here seemed to be that police officers write tickets for profit or something"

I think its humor and satire, No.

Ms Ahearn Why would you let this guy bother you?
You have bigger fish to fry.

Worry about the cognitive ones.

By the way.

As I remember there is actually a police officer recorded on tape telling a citizen his squad is similar to the CIA. That is on tape. A definite fact.

Given that mind set it does not surprise me that some officers would use the term "secret police"
Obviously they were not very good at being secret if
other cops were calling them that.

But imagine an officer saying we are like the CIA..
He meets the Peter Principle

Hey what would I know I'm not even an amateur let alone professional Journalist/blogger.

This is fun..
However.
The fact that I'm not qualified to have opinion makes no difference.

Isn't that the beauty of "Blogging"

If my old Civics teacher Ms Lannie could see me now.

I see the whole thing as Marx Brothers movie.

Johnson, Wray, Hinson, Bradey
Groucho, Harpo, Chico, Zeppo.

Assign them as you see them

Maybe the Keystone cops

"Hell you can't tell the players without a score card."

It's apparent that you can't even do it with one.

Go do a little research and come back when you have something substantive to add to the discussion.

Mr. Appel, I did not interview you on the trucker case, the police reporter did, and he quoted you in that story. I assisted by doing a phone interview with the accused from jail while filling in on the city desk, and later did a write-through, because of my coverage of unsolved homicides and a suspected serial killer in Greensboro.

Yes, I have apparently written stories you were peripherally involved in, or were familiar with, but you have never dealt with me, not "many times," and as far as I can tell, not at all.

If there are factual inaccuracies or omissions, as you state, please let me know what they are.

Joining the marathon late.

JR, two quick questions please, and my apologies if they have previously been answered.
Who wrote the headline, "Secret Police' use black ops on black cop"?
And what was the reasoning for not reporting on the Walt Jones letter?

Lorraine will need a few days off. I'm sure she can't sit down after that spanking jaycee just gave her in front of her friends.

Mr. Colin, you wrote, "I'm really confused." Sir you needn't have informed the readers of that fact as it has been apparent from your first comment thru to your last. It is however refreshing for someone to finally admit publicly the reason for their many inane statements. Sincerely, Brenda Bowers

Ms. Ahearn, beside the cases I was involved in, you and I have crossed paths, chatted, said "Hi" and such over the years in the hallways of the Sheriff's Office, in public, etc., many times.
I know your reputation among the officers in our community from observing you work, watching you with other officers, and hearing their comments about you. Your conduct has been the subject of discussion many times in the past, even in the 1990's before the Chief Wray articles you wrote.
You do not have a reputation for accuracy, truthfulness, or fairness. Many officers will not talk to you unless forced.
You asked for examples where I knew "the real truth" and you did not report it. Those examples are cited above. The facts of those cases I know from personal knowledge, and your reporting was not accurate.
If you'd like to take each and every single article you ever wrote on any case whatsoever in which I played a part over a span of a couple of decades and dissect it paragraph by paragraph I guess that would be possible, but time consuming and probably a waste of time.

Will you please answer the questions I asked,
"How do you explain the difference in the account by Chief Wray himself of your conversations versus what you wrote about the same conversations?
Which officer first used the term “Secret Police” to you?
How many other officers, independent of your prompting, actually used the term “Secret Police” during an interview?
What was the race of the officers who used that term?
Do you have any ethical qualms or see a conflict of interest in reporting to Chief Wray that James Hinson was “dirty” and then reporting on it later?
Why did you characterize the “black book” as you did when no evidence exists to suggest that?"

Also, please answer the questions posed by Mr. Spagnola and Bubba.
Thanks, and I look forward to your responses to the questions about your Chief Wray articles.

Brenda, Bubba

Why are you attacking me personally.
Just the facts.
Can't I have my opinion.

I realize I'm not necessarily qualified to have an opinion.

What are your credentials? I don't know enough about either of you to attack you personally. Please elaborate. Brenda, Explain what I have said that is inane. Which Statements?

Mr. Wilkins
You are refreshing.
You understand that the reporter does not normally
write the headline. Many times they have not seen it until it is actually in print.

News papers and Blogs are very different.
The headline is to get your attention.
Thats the editors job.
The article gives you the details.
Blogs don't have editors.
Facts ( "best available version of the truth" ).
Thats the reporters job. Ahearn reported.facts
Mitch Johnsons actions were his doing not Ahearns.

What of Ahearn facts do you dispute?
Just tell.me

Whats in dispute not what do you or I think she should have done.

The Rhino had a Headline "The Mitch got Me"
So. Who cares. It got me to read the piece.

Every news agency in the world bar none does this.

It's like movies a teaser.

The fact that you or I don't like how things played out does not make what she ( Ahearn ) did wrong.

I think I just heard LA scream.. OUCH !!!

And who are you Colin ? Some JR loyalist on the N&R payroll. Punk !

Mr. Colin:

When the "facts" are proven to be wrong, isn't it the papers job to correct them with equal fervor?

Better still, isn't the paper under an obligation to verify the accuracy of the "facts" before printing the story?

If Mitch Johnson got the "facts" wrong, as the evidence (as opposed to mere statements and opinions) show that he did, shouldn't the paper be just as concerned about that as they were the "facts" as claimed by Mr. Johnson in the first place?

What we have here is the glorification of the racist version of events as proclaimed by Mitch Johnson and Ms. Ahearn's other sources and a near complete dismissal of the volume of evidence to the contrary.

There have been no bold headlines to the effect that "City Manager's Theory of Racism by Wray Discredited". No, the N&R only pushed the story when they had a good race angle. Then later when they got their hands on the RMA, they pushed the most damning parts of that report. Subsequent documents discredited the RMA, but the N&R was again not interested.

They had an angle that they have stuck to and are not big enough to admit they got it wrong, or even concede that there is a volume of evidence to suggest the initial story was wrong.

This simply fits the pattern of the N&R picking up on every "victim of racism" story they can find and running with it regardless of the facts. They did the same thing with the Guilford College incident even though Joe Killian's reporting indicated that there was more to the story that had nothing to do with race.

For some reason, they have some sick agenda to portray this area as a hotbed of racism regardless of the facts.

One would think they would go after Mitch Johnson for not telling them the whole story and making them look bad with the same passion that they went after David Wray. But that doesn't fit the agenda.

Let's try this one more time, Ms. Ahearn:

WHY do you no longer report on subsequent events concerning this ever-evolving story?

In the early years of jurisprudence a novice attorney waited years for an oppurtunity to observe a judge who was known for great wisdom and precedent setting decisions. In session, after hearing the plaintiff's side the judge said "you are right". After hearing the defendant's side the judge said, "you, too, are right". Then the judge instructed the bailiff to take both parties outside and cut them in half with a sword. The novice litigator found the righteous judge after session and argued, "there is no way both parties could be right". The judge replied, "you are right".

In the early years of jurisprudence a novice attorney waited years for an oppurtunity to observe a judge who was known for great wisdom and precedent setting decisions. In session, after hearing the plaintiff's side the judge said "you are right". After hearing the defendant's side the judge said, "you, too, are right". Then the judge instructed the bailiff to take both parties outside and cut them in half with a sword. The novice litigator found the righteous judge after session and argued, "there is no way both parties could be right". The judge replied, "you are right".

In the early years of jurisprudence a novice attorney waited years for an oppurtunity to observe a judge who was known for great wisdom and precedent setting decisions. In session, after hearing the plaintiff's side the judge said "you are right". After hearing the defendant's side the judge said, "you, too, are right". Then the judge instructed the bailiff to take both parties outside and cut them in half with a sword. The novice litigator found the righteous judge after session and argued, "there is no way both parties could be right". The judge replied, "you are right".

Mr. Schultz
I'm a punk? Why are you attacking me personally?
You don't know me.
All concerned. All I have asked is that you tell me what
in Ms Ahearns reporting was not a fact.

No one will do that.

Just infer I am stupid, inane, and a punk.
Thank you for your confidence.

I think this says more about you ( the group ) than
me.

I have not taken a position on the New-Record.reporting of the issue.

Make me a list. Reference the articles etc.
What was reported incorrectly ( By Ms Ahearn)

Then I will respond. Seems fair to me.
As Bubba says, why not answer the question

"All I have asked is that you tell me what
in Ms Ahearns reporting was not a fact.

No one will do that."

(sigh)

Never mind.

John,

As Roach pointed out, Lorraine Ahearn's disclosure of a News and Record website user's real name earlier in this thread is a violation of the Newspaper's Privacy Policy and is highly unprofessional.

From the News & Record Privacy Policy for Electronic Publications and Interfaces
As of April 18, 2001:

"Remember the Risks Whenever You Use the Internet

You should know that when you voluntarily disclose personal information to the public on the News & Record web sites and its affiliated sites (for example, in electronic forums, chat rooms, and other public posting areas such as Bidzilla), that information can be collected and used by others and may result in unsolicited messages from other people. While we do our best to protect your personal information, we cannot be responsible for information that you choose to publicly disclose. Further, you are solely responsible for maintaining the secrecy of any passwords or other account information."

Should we expect the disclosure of personal information to be future practice of the N&R editorial staff and will the Privacy Policy be updated to reflect this change?

Mr. Schultz

I'll give everyone a pass on stupid and inane.
You can even add obnoxious, grouchy, stubborn,ornery, some say crazy/dementia

However:
"Punk"

1archaic : prostitute
2[probably partly from 3punk] : nonsense, foolishness
3 a: a young inexperienced person : beginner, novice; especially : a young man b: a usually petty gangster, hoodlum, or ruffian cslang : a young man used as a homosexual partner especially in a prison"

If I was a prostitute I would have starved to death long ago.

Certainly not young. My grand children consider me older than dirt

Even a homosexual partner would not want me.

Petty gangster hoodlum, ruffian, prostitute, homosexual partner,prison, come now.

Mr. Schultz I am insulted.

An apology is in order. You don't have like me.
Many ( maybe most ) don't.

But to insult that way.

How do you other readers feel?
Is this type of attack what bloggers do.
I hope not..

"Never Mind".

Look I'm a guy that thinks Hinson is a phony and would not trust Mitch Johnson with the job of dog
catcher let alone city manager.

I think Mr. Bledsoe makes for exciting print.
Pimps Whores, Drugs, Undercover etc

I have read it religiously until it just became a rehash of early chapters.

However none of that makes Ms Ahearns reporting
false.

Now:
Bubba

"All I have asked is that you tell me what
in Ms Ahearns reporting was not a fact.

No one will do that."

By the way I do not know John Robinson however I
doubt he would like me either.

I have complained to his paper numerous times.

Boy, Roch and Hugh, you're reaching. jaycee told me he didn't care or something to that effect.

As with many of the questions posed here, I have answered the one about Lorraine's status on the story before. She is a columnist who drops in to do projects on occasion. (Jerry did the same, by the way.) Sometimes projects become breaking stories and she stays on them. But she is ultimately a columnist. Various people have reported on the follow up to the story.

I do not know David Colin except by his letters to the editor. (I don't judge whether I would like people by what they say about the newspaper, David.)

Mr. Colin.

You and Robinson are right. I apologize for the personal insult. You may choose not to acept it but it is sincerly offered. I thought you were a troll. I 'll leave it up to Sag and others to answer your question. But how about asking Ahearn to answer those asked to her. Thus far she has ducked them. Again sorry.

Joe

The News and Record people aren't the only ones ducking good questions. Did no one else notice that Mr. Bledsoe didn't answer a simple question posed to him twice? He was able, however, to accuse Mr. Robinson of being evasive. Seems hypecritical.

I can accept the N&R claiming they just reported what others told them and did not slant the news. Of course Ahearn and others did indeed do a huge word-smithing job, but just for arguments sake we will let that stand. Why then did they not report the "news" when their original story was proven inaccurate? Mr. Robinson claims others did report these stories. This is simply not the case. The N&R has never in the four years I have been a subscriber followed up on a story or recanted a story.

Spag has reasonably and in as elementary fashion as possible stated why most of us find fault with the N&R's reporting, pointed out specific instances of bias and race baiting reporting and explained what they can do to rectify their errors. Mr. Colin this was, and is, precisely why I labeled your comments inane, You obviously were not reading others comments. You were in fact acting the troll as Mr. Schlitz understood you to be doing. I had hoped my comment would give you pause to examine your comments. Instead you choose now to act the insulted and injured troll.

I am only making this comment to verify for Mr. Schlitz that his first impression was correct and he had no need to apologize. Also to point out to any others that Spag has asked all the correct questions but gotten none of the answers, correct or otherwise. This is however the favored mode of operation for the N&R (Robinson) to follow so none of us are in the least surprised.

The N&R has an agenda and they will follow it to Hell if need be. I am inclined to agree with Tony Wilkins that Greensboro wouldn't have a racial problem if not for the N&R's race baiting agenda.

One more thing: If Ahearn ever was a reporter she has certainly demolished that title with her reporting of the David Wray/GPD/Mitch Johnson saga. She has marginalized herself. Brenda Bowers

The above comment belongs to me. i failed to sign in. Sorry Brenda Bowers

Thank you Brenda Bowers. You are wiser than me. Oh well I told Mr. Colin I was sorry. . Perhaps I could have smacked him with facts but others had tried without success so I lost it and resorted to name calling. There are some rare instances where that is called for. Take VP Cheney's epithet for the NT Times reporter, Adam Clymer..." Major league A-hole ".

You comment was brilliant, BTW.

Joe

I'm about half-way through reading these posts, but I wanted to stop to clear up one thing: The AJR editor (who formerly worked at the N&R) was NOT a friend of Ethan Feinsilver. I wouldn't quite call them mortal enemies or anything, but they didn't click, didn't hang out together, didn't socialize beyond the occasional newsroom function.

It crossed my mind, when this AJR editor called to tell me her publication was looking into the story, that she would not be inclined to give Ethan a fair shake for the very reason I outline above. However, the story appeared fair to me, based on what I know about the situation.

It'd be interesting to hear how someone could characterize two people who 1) didn't work in the same office, 2) didn't socialize outside of work, and 3) went weeks at a time without interacting as "friends."

Brenda

"Mr. Colin this was, and is, precisely why I labeled your comments inane"

"many inane statements"

Which statements and why are they inane..

Please quote the inane comments.
Then I will respond.

What did Ahearn say that was inaccurate?

Everything else is commentary.

We can argue forever over her style,her ethics,
her ability, her failures etc. They are matters of opinion. You are entitled to your opinion about the quality of the reporting. claiming she fabricated things is quite another matter.

What did she lie about? Simply answer.

Define "troll" for me. You claim I am one, What is it?
The dictionary ( where I looked )does not list it as a noun or pronoun
inane:
1 : empty, insubstantial 2 : lacking significance, meaning, or point : silly
synonyms see insipid

Please Note the Poster claiming to be Hugh, Posted on June 7, 2008 2:32 PM is not me.

Troll

Clear that up for David ? BTW, here is a bit of advice

Buy yourself a new dictionary.

I did email Mr. Robinson and told him it was "no big deal" that Ms. Ahearn revealed my name on here. I was not, however, even thinking about any N&R policy regarding privacy; just didn't enter my mind.
Mr. Robinson, if you feel a possible violation of N&R privacy policy by Ms. Ahearn needs followup on your part, you have my permission to do so. I am not, however, claiming a grievance or initiating a complaint.
For years I've used the same pseudonym, mostly because being a former law enforcement officer here for 20+ years I was afraid some folks would connect my public comments with one of the agencies for which I formerly worked, and did not want that to happen. Unlike Ms. Ahearn, some people do remember who I am and where I worked and may not know I no longer work there.

Mr.Schlitz

"Thank you Brenda Bowers. You are wiser than me. Oh well I told Mr. Colin I was sorry. . Perhaps I could have smacked him with facts but others had tried:without success so I lost it and resorted to name calling"

I guess this means you are not really sorry.
Make up your mind.

What facts have I been smacked with..
Please reference them

Remember all I have questioned is what has Ahearn
said that is not true.

What ever else you think about N&R is not my concern. Feel free to hate whoever you want,
But as Joe Friday ( a cop ) use say, "just the facts mam"

In fact feel free to hate me and I guess Ahearn.
That won't change any facts

Again,whats a Troll?

I'll look in my collegiate dictionary.

I don't accept advice from people unwilling to
sign their name.

Ok Found it.

Preinternet dictionary was problem

No I am not a Troll simply asking you to reference the facts/statements.

"An Internet troll, or simply troll in Internet slang, is someone who posts controversial and usually irrelevant or off-topic messages in an online community, such as an online discussion forum or chat room, with the intention of baiting other users into an emotional response[1] or to generally disrupt normal on-topic discussion.[2]

The term troll is highly subjective. Some readers may characterize a post as trolling, while others may regard the same post as a legitimate contribution to the discussion, even if controversial. The term is often used to discredit an opposing position, or its proponent, by argument fallacy ad hominem."

Computer slang. This computer stuff is complicated but I'm learning.
Bandwidth, Streaming etc.
Makes your head hurt

Examples

Common types of troll messages or activities:

* off topic messages — "Can anyone help me make a webpage?" "No, this is a music forum."
* inflammatory messages — "You are an idiot for including this type of message in your list."
* messages containing an obvious flaw or error — "I think 2001: A Space Odyssey is Roman Polanski's best movie."
* intentionally naive or politically contentious messages — "I think George W. Bush is the best/worst President ever"
* intentionally posting an outrageous argument deliberately constructed around a fundamental but obfuscated flaw or error.
* posting a ridiculous claim and then insisting it's true unless people refute it to their satisfaction.
* making loud claims to be on the defensive, while the claims are a guise for their aggressive maneuvers.
* including offensive media such as annoying sound files or disturbing pictures in a message

Brenda
I have done nothing I repeat nothing like this.

John Robinson,
You have returned to this thread and did not answer my two simple questions.
Am I to assume you are not going to?
I have a wager placed based on your response and I need the money.

I am so sick of the Rhinosaurus Times and what the mess they have made of our great county. Over and over the scream like chicken little begging for attention. I question why any of it defenders and believers would want to live here. Their lies and cry for attention just got too big and too loud in their desperation to stay afloat these last 3 years. Goodbye and good ridence John and William.
Your payback starts Tuesday.

I am so sick of the Rhinosaurus Times and what a mess they have made of our great county. Over and over the scream like chicken little that the county or city is burning in a pitiful plea for attention. I question why any of it defenders and believers would want to live here. Their lies and cry for attention just got too big and too loud in their desperation to stay afloat these last 3 years. Goodbye and good ridence John and William.
Your payback starts Tuesday.

John,

I was not implying that you would not like me because I complained about the paper.

Lots of people just don't like me.
I am rather abrasive.
To old to change.

I have learned to live with it.

"We will not disclose any personal information without your advance permission except when we believe the law requires us to do so or the disclosure is necessary to protect the rights or property of the News & Record. In order to describe our services to prospective partners, advertisers and others, we may disclose user."

"The security of the information that you provide to the News & Record is very important to us. We use SSL encryption software and other security measures to protect the loss, misuse, and alteration of sensitive information under our control."

Mr. Robinson, getting back to Roch's point about Lorraine Ahern's obvious violation of your Privacy Pollcy on the blogs, how do you enforce this policy? How will Ms. Ahern be disciplined for this violation? Divulging jaycee's name to the public is certainly a clear violation, so if you do not have a discipline process for your people who violate this policy,how can your subscribers and people who blog here trust you and the News-Record? It seems to me that trust by your readers and subscribers is critical to your mission. If trust is lost, then how can your readers and subscribers ever believe anything that you write as the truth? What would Alan Duncan say about this violaton as your attorney?

"How will Ms. Ahearn be disciplined for this violation? Divulging jaycee's name to the public is certainly a clear violation, so if you do not have a discipline process for your people who violate this policy,how can your subscribers and people who blog here trust you and the News-Record?"

My god a breakdown in the bloggers code
Can Ahearn be trusted for anything?
jaycee.s cover has been compromised
She must me suitably punished
.
The end of civilization as we have known it,
The sanctity of the unknown blogger

Put the secret police right on this.

Is there a Pulitzer prize for bloggers?
Are

These people really think they are important

Tony, I don't know who wrote that headline. Why does it matter? As for Walt Jones, I would think you know the answer to that, given that you were involved in the discussion at Inside Scoop Oct. 1, which was 8 months ago.

I appreciate jaycees magnanimity and I'm not going to do anything to Lorraine. If that causes you to mistrust us, Billy, so be it.

And hugh is correct. The IP addresses for the first hugh and the second Hugh are different. I did enjoy Hugh's point, though, and find it surprising no one else here demanding answers noticed.

"I appreciate jaycees magnanimity and I'm not going to do anything to Lorraine. If that causes you to mistrust us, Billy, so be it."

That tells us all we need to know about the N&R, their attitude towards Ms. Ahearn, and more specifically, their credibility. Simply put, the rules on privacy don't apply to those who John Robinson disagrees with. That is going to be a fine attitude until someone sues and the publisher of the paper decides that the selective application of these legally binding disclosures is costing them money and fires the people charged with enforcing them.

I would be interested in Ed Cone's take on this violation of online policy by the N&R and Mr. Robinson's care less attitude about it.

"Boy, Roch and Hugh, you're reaching." -- N&R Editor John Robinson.

John, a N&R employee revealed the real name of a site user under circumstances not permitted by your published privacy policy. Specifically:

"We will not disclose any personal information without your advance permission except when we believe the law requires us to do so or the disclosure is necessary to protect the rights or property of the News & Record."

Are you telling us that the user gave his "advance permission?" If not, your waving this off as a "reach" is troubling, it calls into question all of the privacy protections the N&R purports to extend to its web site visitors.

David Colin wrote: "My god a breakdown in the bloggers code..."

No, David, a violation of the N&R's published privacy policy. That you think it trivial is more a reflection of your expectations of the N&R more than anything else.

Spag and Roch,

Thank you for seconding my motion. It appears that Dave and JR just do not get it, or perhaps, they do not want to get it. What is it about a published privacy policy that isn't clear? It is the News-Record's policy written and approved by their legal counsel. If they do not take the trust that their readers and subscribers have in their integrity, then what do they have? Dave, for someone with your professional academic background, you must surely understand the issue here.

"sanctity of the unknown blogger". Absolutely!

"Put the secret police right on this." Hey, I thought that Mitch Johnson disbanded the Ahern's secret police.

JR, this is a serious test of the integrity of your newspaper. You appear to be failing. For you to ignore this violation of your privacy policy by one of your employees and criticize the Rhino for its lack of fact-checking is the height of chutzpah.

I've got to agree with BH above.
With a certain amount of integrity at stake you seem to brush this off as if it were nothing.
Did you know of Ahearn's research and her intent to publish jaycee's name before it hit the blog?
Tell us the process that took place between IP address and name being published. Don't you have to get a warrant for that?
Just fyi, I think you should use your real name anyway.

"Dave, for someone with your professional academic background, you must surely understand the issue here"

You must have another Dave in mind.

I have no professional academic background of any
significance what so ever. That's the beauty of blogging. Credentials not required.

The whole concept of blogging is anything short of
murder is permissible

Look around you, follow the news, etc.Ethics is a thing of the past and blogging helped kill it.

Spreading rumors is a blogging tradition.

.

John,

By the way, since we are talking about privacy policy issues, how did you know that Skeet Club Savage posted under multiple names up above in this thread? Did you take a peek at his private information as well? If so, that might give us a clue why you do not think that Ahen did anything wrong, as it is an organizational practice. Am I wrong in thinking along those lines?

As far as Ahern is concerned, she did not "accidentally" research and publish jaycee's personal information. She did it with malicious intent. If that isn't cause for discipline at your newspaper, what is? Do you not have a Code of Conduct for your employees?

At any rate, you may as well ditch your Terms of Service for your blogs as they aren't enforced, except to suspend posters that you or your employees find objectionable. It is well-known that a certain poster in the LTE blog has violated your Terms of Service many, many times, and nothing has been done about her.

David Colin,

Decrying the death of ethics and blaming it on blogs while using blogs to defend unethical practices seems a little hypocritical. Blogs are what users make of them. You are coming across as saying, "Blogs are useless as exemplified by my comments."

Dave,

Sorry, I must have mistaken you for someone who was an academic professional. Sorry about that.

Ethics is a thing of the past and blogging helped kill it, huh? Well, Dave, I believe that ethics is a personal thing. Either you, as a person or organization, have it, and believe it is important, or you don't. Other people can't kill or control who you are, so bloggers can't kill the ethics of the News-Record. Only they can do that to themselves. It is pretty cynical to say that ethics is dead, but I suppose some people and organizations believe that ethics and trust are not important.

As regards the News-Record, they make the following statement of purpose about themselves: "Our purpose is to be the most trusted and most used source of news, information and dialogue in the communities we serve."

Dave, most philosophers will tell you that good ethical behavior promotes trust, and the essence of professionalism is ethical behavior. So, if an organization such as the News-Record aspires to be a professional news source in our community, they must strive for ethical behavior to earn that title of "most trusted". It is the day-to-day activities and behavior of every News-Record employee that determines whether they are ethical and are to be trusted.

So, Dave, if you want to be the "most trusted news source in the community", you have to earn it. The News-Record has a higher level of required behavior than bloggers, because of their stated purpose. Bloggers such as yourself can behave in any manner they choose.

Finally, Lorraine Ahern, and possibly other employees, appear to have acted in an unethical manner, and, thus, violated the trust of some members of the community. How John Robinson handles this matter tells us if they really are serious about being the most trusted and most used news source in the community. This small incident may very well demonstrate for us why some people in the community prefer getting their news from The Rhinoceros Times. They trust them more.

That policy's intent is to assure people that we will not market their personal information collected when they register with other businesses. The "we" in the policy refers to the business.

Lorraine did not collect jaycee's name through any records the News & Record keeps. I have no idea if jaycee's name is even in our records anywhere because neither I nor Lorraine have access to them. However, his real identity is known to some commenters and it was known by me before this.

I don't know if Lorraine had any agreement that she would not identify jaycee by his real identity, but I doubt it, given what jaycee himself said about being identified. I certainly do not have one.

I do not view this as a violation of the policy, any more than if, for instance, I knew that a commenter was the host of a site aggregation service and I mentioned that on this blog. If I understand your argument correctly, you would consider that a violation. I wouldn't.

If it were to be interpreted the way you are reading it, we would not restrict it to the News & Record. One commenter should not be able to reveal personal information about another commenter. That, of course, is not part of the policy.

Whenever anyone makes a comment on this blog, their IP address is included. That's one way I can tell when a commenter makes comments under multiple identities.

"If it were to be interpreted the way you are reading it, we would not restrict it to the News & Record. One commenter should not be able to reveal personal information about another commenter."

You need to re-write the policy in question to actually SAY what your interpretation does.

That way, the rationalization you just provided becomes accurate, and will not be needed in the in the future when this happens again..

"As with many of the questions posed here, I have answered the one about Lorraine's status on the story before. She is a columnist who drops in to do projects on occasion. "

My question on this particular thread in this matter was asked of Ms, Ahearn, not of you.

I'm well aware of your previous answer, and as previously stated , it's not sufficient nor is it credible.

Sad.What was once so promising, now so sad.

Mr. Hamilton

I did not say ethics wasn’t important just dead.
And yes blogging has helped killed it For many bloggers anything short of murder is acceptable. No credentials required.

Hell its fun with no qualifications you can espouse on anything.
Example, here I am talking about ethics. You even considered me an academic professional

“good ethical behavior promotes trust”
So does cleaver lying. In fact I think people tend
to trust those that give them the answer they want.

“the essence of professionalism is ethical behavior”
You made that up. It depends on the profession.and
if you get caught.

“Lorraine Ahearn, and possibly other employees, appear to have acted in an unethical manner”

I don’t think so. Jaycee attacked her and claimed they had dealings. She said no.On this site she’s
a blogger. Unless she had access to the N&R confidential info anything is fair game
Just like any other blogger. Now thats just my unqualified opinion. Like all the other bloggers here.
Besides even Mark Twain O'henry chose a reasonable pen name But then they could actually write.

Bledsoe uses a real name . Hell the modern blogger is like the modern rapper. Ice T, 50 cent. I won't use the silly blogger names I'll be attacked for it
.

In any case we are way off thread. Ahearn has been accused of misinformation ( lying ).
I just want a list off the “lies” with if possible a reference to the articles

Now I don’t want:

What she did not say
What others think she should have reported.
The quality of her reporting.
What people think about, N&R,the Rhino, John Robinson, Chief Wray, Hinson,
Mitchell Johnson etc. Just Ms Ahearns “lies”.

I have no dog in this fight certainly neither N&R or the Rhino. I read both. Some times they make a point other times their both good for a giggle.

I have been called a Punk,Troll inane, obviously not paying attention etc.

Ok I’m stupid humor me. Someone make the list.
But even if you don't please stop insulting me.

"My question on this particular thread in this matter was asked of Ms, Ahearn, not of you"

Typical blogger. She does not owe him an answer.
Don't read her column. I don't read his blogg,
and I am sure he doesn't care.

"“the essence of professionalism is ethical behavior”
You made that up. It depends on the profession.and
if you get caught."

Dave, you are a joke. You don't even understand the meaning of being called a professional. Ethical behavior is not variable depending upon the profession. What kind of professional organization endorses and condones unethical behavior?

This discussion is not off-thread, at all. JR's column began discussing the Rhino's apparent lack of fact-checking, which he apparently considered lacking behavior in a professional news organization. So, this discussion is highly relevant.

Ethics is not dead, Dave. Organizations that stray away from ethical behavior are the ones that get dead. I could name many that have failed because their people strayed from ethical behavior.

It is sad, indeed, that this column even had to be discussed. It has certainly revealed much about some people and their views.

i hear a piece of Damascus steel on a whetstone

John,

OK, I accept your explanation of your intent of your "privacy policy". I guess this means that your organization has no policy against your employees investigating your customers and publishing information on your blogs with the intent to harm or embarrass that customer. Do you have any policy regarding the professional behavior of your employees, at least as regards their participation on your blogs?

"Lorraine Ahearn said:

Seeing as this discussion is about fact-checking, I would like to offer a fact-check to "Jaycee," whose name is John C. Appel."

Why was this necessary? It did not appear necessary to conduct a discussion.

Dave, you are a joke. You don't even understand the meaning of being called a professional.
Now I'm a joke
Give me a break.

Anonymous ?

Come on

I just want a list of Ahearn's "lies" not debate the future of professionalism.

I just want to know what people/bloggers think she lied about.

I'm not qualified to argue whats ethical.
I just want the "lies"

All this fussing and fighting about everything except the fact that The Rhino Times and Jerry Bledsoe are the only ones heading to court this week... Does anyone know if it's an open hearing?

I agree that it's sad, but probably for different reasons.

Bubba, what makes you think Lorraine would give a different reason?

Billy, I don't see that she did anything unprofessional. She responded to a commenter who has criticized her personally and professionally for years on this blog. She challenged his recollection of knowing her. She made no commitment to keep his identity secret. When you use a pseudonym on the blog, you do so at your own risk.

"Whenever anyone makes a comment on this blog, their IP address is included. That's one way I can tell when a commenter makes comments under multiple identities."

That can be a bad assumption, and has been, on at least one local blog. Multiple people share IP addresses sometimes (from home or an office), and are accused of repeat postings when in fact they were separate individuals each posting comments without meaning to cause confusion at the other end.

Agreed. I have not fallen into that trap.

"However, his real identity is known to some commenters and it was known by me before this."

So are you saying that Lorraine already knew who Jaycee was but did not get that information from you or any other N&R employee?

How would she know who Jaycee was when she so clearly denied ever having anything to do with him?

Further, if she got that information from you or any other N&R employee, that doesn't make things better. You can't escape liability by saying "Lorraine didn't violate policy because she got Jaycee's identity from another N&R employee and not on her own". Try that in front of a jury and see what happens. It is the N&R that is liable, not Lorraine.

Finally, it does not really matter where she got the information. She works for the N&R and the N&R's policy says they will not disclose such information. There is no exception that reads "unless one employee hears it from another" or "unless we find out the identity of any such person by means other than their IP address".

John, does this mean that the N&R will now "out" anyone they deem fit? That is in effect what you are saying. Does this also mean that other bloggers can feel free to out people on your site?

Did Lorraine also not violate your terms of use which states that the user agrees not to submit content "that includes personal or identifying information about another person, or uses the name or likeness of another person for commercial purposes, without that person’s explicit consent;"

So now we have two violations- company privacy policy and the user agreement.

"Billy, I don't see that she did anything unprofessional."

A simple "Mr. -------" or simply just using his first name wouldn't have sufficed? Reading the thread, her reply with his name resembled an announcement to all and it came across to me as vindictive and very unprofessional. While I do not think anyone should ever write a l-t-e or post anything they'd be afraid to sign their own name to, there are times and situations where I can see valid reasons for not doing so. Her giving the man's full name was completely out of line and uncalled for. She knew who he was as did you, but did everyone else reading this have a need to know? What for? Journalism is full of anonymous unamed sources and reporters probably wouldn't get a lot of stories, etc. without them. Valid or not in your eyes, the man chose to use a pseudonym for a reason and for that to have been violated whether he told you it was "no big deal" is troubling. If you were protecting a source on a story and someone else outed them I'm sure you'd be (rightfully) outraged and would probably destroy them in your newspaper. The difference here between an anonymous commenter on your blog and hypothetical source for a story is minute. The principle remains the same.

"She made no commitment to keep his identity secret. When you use a pseudonym on the blog, you do so at your own risk."

Once again, "commitment" is, as you might say, a bit of a stretch. When you are an "unamed source" for a story are you doing so "at your own risk"? Do you get outed once it becomes convenient for the reporter to do so? Once again, bottom line here is there is absolutely no justification or reasoning for Ms. Ahearn to put the man's name out in the public in the manner she did. I do not know her and assume it must've been just a bad case where perhaps her temper got the better of her or temporary lapse in judgement but there was no reason she needed to resort to a "hey everybody, this guy's name is..." type of approach. No reason. None.

I don't live in the Greensboro area (or NC for that matter) anymore but I really do enjoy reading the blogs up there (yours, Sam, Ed Cone, Roch, Ben Holder, Sue, etc.). You all have a really good blogosphere. It's never boring and I find it both a good way to keep up with what's going on where I used to live and good solid entertainment that's usually well thought out and engaging. Please keep up the good work.

Mr. Spagnola, I am sorry this seemed vindictive to you. It was not.

For your own background, this particular commenter has over and over, in this public forum, stated for three years that he has dealt with me "many times" and also knows me "socially." His assertion was that, based on this personal knowledge and experience, he can prove that I am dishonest have a bad reputation.

He recently chose to identify himself. The fact is, I do not know him and have not dealt with him, and as you can see, he has no evidence of ever having dealt with me, except that he saw me at the store. I think I know what vindictive means, and stating simple fact is not vindictive.

In closing, thank you all for wishing to welcome me to Munchkinland. But now, I have to catch the last hot air balloon back to Kansas.

John,

"She (N&R employee) made no commitment to keep his identity secret. When you use a pseudonym on the blog, you do so at your own risk."

Your exact quote minus my parenthesis.

Since you are the editor you make the rules. This is a new rule to those of used to posting on sites with written privacy policies that are not compromised.

Will you post this change to the N&R online privacy policy which hasn't been updated in 7 years?

Per your words an addendum to the policy could read:

"News and record employees make no commitment to keep website blogger names private. When you use a pseudonym on the blog, you do so at your own risk."

What is it going to be, an updated privacy policy or sweep it under the rug like never happened?

BTW, this will be the third IP address I've used posting to this thread (two as Hugh, one as anonymous).

Ms. Ahearn,

I do thank you for taking the time to try and explain a bit of the background, etc. with regards to the situation(s) here on this thread. I am pretty familiar with a lot of what is said here as I do regularly check in on the blogs and newspapers online. It is admirable in the very least that you didn't need to but chose to do so anyway. Again, thank you.

Regardless of how well you do or don't know each other---and I have no reason to doubt you or him as either or both of you see it---giving his name out for everyone on this thread to read was uncalled for. Knowing his name really is of no consequence to anyone else and I assume he had/has his reasons for not using his real name. On the other hand, if he gave you or JR permission to use his name then me and a host of others here owe both you and JR apologies. Being as I don't live up there and as such am not politically/socially active and have no horse in this whole saga, I will volunteer to be the first in line to apologize if that is the case. For me it's really not that hard.

As for "vindictive", that is just the way it came off to me. It was not intended in any way to imply that you were either a mean or vindictive person. I'm not a scholar and have no diplomas or other nice papers hanging on my walls but also am familiar with the definition of the word. I was not inferring that by you stating that you didn't know him or defending your character against his assertion(s) was vindictive. I just found the whole "Jaycee" whose name is...." uncalled for as it came across as vindictive to me. As I don't know you, I'll accept that you had no malicious motive and we'll just have to agree to disagree on the rights and wrongs as we see it.

Again, thank you for your time and consideration. Good luck in Kansas. I hope it isn't as hot as Georgia is right now. "I'm melting, I'm melting....."

"He recently chose to identify himself."

Really? And where did that occur? If you mean that after being "outed" by you I didn't deny my identity then you're right. But that was hardly a "choice" on my part.
Based on the discussion by legal contributors here I believe you did violate the N&R's terms of service or blog policies or something. I have made no formal complaint to Mr. Robinson about it; I'll leave it up to him to decide whether he takes internal action when he sees an infraction, or if he only takes action when the public sees it and makes a fuss about it.

"The fact is, I do not know him and have not dealt with him, and as you can see, he has no evidence of ever having dealt with me, except that he saw me at the store."

Really? And how do you explain the cases I cited above on which you reported? Are you saying you didn't set foot in a police office for more than 20 years, didn't talk to me or any other detectives either in interviews or in passing, and didn't write the above articles?
How would I recognize you out in public if we'd not first met somewhere else?

Your comments call for a suspense of disbelief.

Some of the articles I cited above were examples of where you misreported, got facts wrong, or just plain editorialized instead of reported an incident. I know of my own personal knowledge that you were inaccurate in those instances. I am not trying to "prove" you're dishonest, I just stated that I and many others in the law enforcement community have the opinion that you are untruthful, inaccurate, and unfair. This is based on our experience with the cases you reported on, as evidenced above, and our experience with you personally.

Ms. Ahearn, it's refreshing to see you voluntarily enter into a discussion after so many have sought to ask you questions. We're awaiting your answers to these and many other questions:

"How do you explain the difference in the account by Chief Wray himself of your conversations versus what you wrote about the same conversations?
Which officer first used the term “Secret Police” to you?
How many other officers, independent of your prompting, actually used the term “Secret Police” during an interview?
What was the race of the officers who used that term?
Do you have any ethical qualms or see a conflict of interest in reporting to Chief Wray that James Hinson was “dirty” and then reporting on it later?
Why did you characterize the “black book” as you did when no evidence exists to suggest that?"

I believe Sam Spagnola and bubba also had some questions you've yet to answer.

Samuel, I'm sure you're as surprised as I am to realize that we disagree. I think a court would say that you need an aggrieved party and you aren't it, but I'm no judge and this isn't a court case.

It does feel as if you'll grasp at anything to get Lorraine disciplined.

Maurice, when a journalist uses an anonymous source, he/she has made an agreement with that source to protect his identity. No such agreement was made in this case, at least with me. Therefore, I would have felt no obligation to keep his identity secret.

Were you around in the earlier lives of this police story, you would have found comments on this blog demanding we reveal the identity of one of our sources. We did not and have not because we agreed not to. Some of the people demanding that name may be among those objecting in this thread.

You're right, this is a rollicking blogosphere. Thanks for visiting.

Oh Auntie Em. I had this horrible dream. And you were there Mr. Johnson, counselor Williams and you Chief Wray and you Lieut. Hinson. I dreamed I wrote this series of columns which got sensationalized more than I ever intended. The police chief who was pretty much just trying to get rid of some jokers, ended up getting canned by a city mgr who I guess didn't like him, and now the place is a mess. My editor and I just couldn't admit the paper screwed the pooch and it now looks like the citizens of Greensboro may have to pay millions to fight off or settle opportunistic law suits. But my gosh, it's just a dream. It's a bad dream Ins't it...Isn't it???? I'll never ever do it again. Oh autie Em. It's so good to be home.

Ah...Dorothy

"How do you explain the difference in the account by Chief Wray himself of your conversations versus what you wrote about the same conversations?"

Come on.
Get real.
Believe what you choose to believe.

When you arrested people was your story and their's the same

This happens all the time with people.
Jaycee I'm sure you have an answer you like.
I have an answer I like.
The Rhino has an answer it likes.
N&R has an answer it likes.
Bubba has an answer he likes.
Chief Ray has an answer he likes
Ahearn has an she likes

Now I don't think there really was a secret police.
However some officer ( not a very bright one ) is on
tape saying we are like the CIA. That does not help their case.

Another pair are recordered essentially saying we
should .plant evidence.

I think the Chiefs biggest mistake is he surrounded himself with idiots.

Now arm an idiot with a tape recorder and you have a real problem.

Concerning Hinson The feedback I have gotten is that the man is simply a phony. Glory grabber.
People tell me he is to lazy and not bright enough to be a professional crook. In fact one comment was that all these so called charities he starts never generate any money to steal. He just puts his name out and gets recognition.

Black phonies have learned a lot from white phonies.

It's the Elders of Montezuma that we need to fear
They plan to take over the country and Deverous
( I can't spell it, where the powerful black leaders hang out)

Mr. Robinson,

As with Ms. Ahearn, I do thank you for your time and consideration in responding to my earlier post. While I see your point regarding the policy of anonymity on your website, I do disagree that an agreement was/is necessary to protect the identity of anyone posting under a pseudonym unless your website were to require "real" names, etc. I'm certainly in no position to make demands or for justification from anyone I don't know or on whom's website I am merely a guest. I visit/read the blogs up there quite a bit but rarely comment (other than on Sam's occasionally---as we obviously know each other growing up in the same house and we still don't always agree with each other). This was just a case where I thought it appeared that the whole "outing" of another guest was unjustified and uncalled for. That you, Ms. Ahearn, and others on this blog and others knew his identity was one thing but the fact that others didn't and yet it was revealed here is the sticking point with me. Nobody else on this thread who didn't already know his real identity needed to know it in order for Ms. Ahearn to make her point(s) in my opinion. That all being said, I'm pretty sure that neither you or Ms. Ahearn are evil and are both probably very nice people. We'll just have to agree that we disagree and leave it at that.

I am pretty familiar with the whole police story as it broke not too long after I moved away from the area and still kept up with the news up there through the N&R and HPE online. I still do this daily. I only came across Mr. Bledsoe's version of events in the Rhino about a year later since I only check in on them every now and then. Very interesting story and I'm sure the whole story and both truths and untruths will be revealed someday. There have been some very good questions asked of you, Ms. Ahearn, Mr. Bledsoe, Mr. Hammer, etc. and I would love to see answers to them. However, I am also very aware that sometimes answers are not accepted no matter what. And, as I've said before, I don't live up there anymore and none of this has any bearing or effect on me. I wish all good luck in dodging the bullets and swimming in the shark tank.

It's threads like this that make the whole blogosphere so interesting and entertaining (at least until it denigrates into something personal with the name calling, etc. that sometimes happens). The well thought out and written posts, comments, and debates by and between those with whom I agree and disagree alike are certainly worth the time to take a look and read.

Thanks for your time.

I forgot, Charles, and yes, the hearing is open. Right now it is scheduled for Wednesday morning.

"Bubba, what makes you think Lorraine would give a different reason?"

Her answer would put a little texture to the work she has done on this subject, and would act as confirmation of the solidarity you two must feel about your position on the story, despite your protestations.

John, I never said I was "aggrieved" or had any standing in this matter whatsoever.

However, you make this extraordinary statement:

"Maurice, when a journalist uses an anonymous source, he/she has made an agreement with that source to protect his identity. No such agreement was made in this case, at least with me."

1) You aren't the one who revealed Jaycee's name.
2) Your website clearly does have an Agreement that is binding on you as an employee not to mention Editor of the paper.
3) You can't seriously be claiming that your company's privacy policy and the Terms of Use and Content Submission AGREEMENT which incorporates same is not binding on you. If it isn't, then WHO is it binding on?

I am not out to get Lorraine Ahearn. She is simply just another left wing activist journalist that is being passed off as having no agenda or bias in her reporting. That's fine. All I would like is an admission. The fact that so much of what was reported by her is contradicted by actual original documents and no follow up reporting has been done to show these contradictions only reinforces my opinion.

You and Ms. Ahearn obviously have a really hard time admitting fault for anything. You have no idea how much the criticism would subside if you would simply report the other side of the Wray story with the same fervor as you reported the sensationalist allegations of racism, or at least admit that the story as initially reported has many problems. But you can't bring yourself to do that probably out of fear that it will lend additional credibility to Jerry Bledsoe.

My complaint with your paper has always been very narrow in focus, and that is how you sensationalize matters involving race to the point of causing great harm to the community. I still believe there is a whole lot of "I'm from North Carolina and I didn't vote for Jesse Helms" mentality in play here where you feel such stories are necessary to prove your progressive tendencies.

When you are asked specific questions about the accuracy of your stories you refuse to answer them , complaining that people like me are essentially unworthy or won't give you a fair shake, etc. You pull out excuse after excuse to avoid answering questions. Yet, it is your blog so I don't see how even if I was inherently unfair to you that would have any effect on the answers you provided. If you answered them and I was unfair to you, that would make me look like a jerk.

Your perception that I have some personal hostility towards you is either incredibly distorted or intentionally defensive.

Perhaps I should submit my questions to Roch or Ed or someone else that you feel defensive about. Would you answer the questions then? How would you avoid doing so and under what auspices?

John, it's easy to say Feinsilver was 10 years ago, therefore "no comment" is needed, or that you don't have to answer my questions about Wray for whatever reason- however this shows how far behind the times you are getting.

The blogs are for interaction and discussion and I don't understand why you would have one on your website where you refuse to answer legitimate questions regardless of where they come from. You have written so many times about how to improve your papers blogs and the role of the internet as it relates to your profession and a desire to connect more with readers through the blogs. Yet, when that process is actually in play and there is a little controversy generated, you duck back into a shell and say "I don't want to play" if it means I might actually have to answer some tough questions. Well, yes, that is an inherent part of the new medium and if you want it to work for you then you have to realize that and boldly engage.

John, I never said I was "aggrieved" or had any standing in this matter whatsoever.

However, you make this extraordinary statement:

"Maurice, when a journalist uses an anonymous source, he/she has made an agreement with that source to protect his identity. No such agreement was made in this case, at least with me."

1) You aren't the one who revealed Jaycee's name.
2) Your website clearly does have an Agreement that is binding on you as an employee not to mention Editor of the paper.
3) You can't seriously be claiming that your company's privacy policy and the Terms of Use and Content Submission AGREEMENT which incorporates same is not binding on you. If it isn't, then WHO is it binding on?

I am not out to get Lorraine Ahearn. She is simply just another left wing activist journalist that is being passed off as having no agenda or bias in her reporting. That's fine. All I would like is an admission. The fact that so much of what was reported by her is contradicted by actual original documents and no follow up reporting has been done to show these contradictions only reinforces my opinion.

You and Ms. Ahearn obviously have a really hard time admitting fault for anything. You have no idea how much the criticism would subside if you would simply report the other side of the Wray story with the same fervor as you reported the sensationalist allegations of racism, or at least admit that the story as initially reported has many problems. But you can't bring yourself to do that probably out of fear that it will lend additional credibility to Jerry Bledsoe.

My complaint with your paper has always been very narrow in focus, and that is how you sensationalize matters involving race to the point of causing great harm to the community. I still believe there is a whole lot of "I'm from North Carolina and I didn't vote for Jesse Helms" mentality in play here where you feel such stories are necessary to prove your progressive tendencies.

When you are asked specific questions about the accuracy of your stories you refuse to answer them , complaining that people like me are essentially unworthy or won't give you a fair shake, etc. You pull out excuse after excuse to avoid answering questions. Yet, it is your blog so I don't see how even if I was inherently unfair to you that would have any effect on the answers you provided. If you answered them and I was unfair to you, that would make me look like a jerk.

Your perception that I have some personal hostility towards you is either incredibly distorted or intentionally defensive.

Perhaps I should submit my questions to Roch or Ed or someone else that you feel defensive about. Would you answer the questions then? How would you avoid doing so and under what auspices?

John, it's easy to say Feinsilver was 10 years ago, therefore "no comment" is needed, or that you don't have to answer my questions about Wray for whatever reason- however this shows how far behind the times you are getting.

The blogs are for interaction and discussion and I don't understand why you would have one on your website where you refuse to answer legitimate questions regardless of where they come from. You have written so many times about how to improve your papers blogs and the role of the internet as it relates to your profession and a desire to connect more with readers through the blogs. Yet, when that process is actually in play and there is a little controversy generated, you duck back into a shell and say "I don't want to play" if it means I might actually have to answer some tough questions. Well, yes, that is an inherent part of the new medium and if you want it to work for you then you have to realize that and boldly engage.

I, too, was of the ill-conceived notion that, somehow, a personal privacy policy was for the protection of the user as well as the vendor. I used to believe that justice in America was achievable, too! Ahh ... the folly of youth.

Guess it goes w/o saying that I felt Ms. Ahearn's disclosure was as inappropriate as Mr. Robinson's defense of her misconduct.

Another "Watchdog Of Democracy" has rolled over ... and is playing dead.

I hate reality!

"another left wing activist journalist"

Just as we thought.
A communist plot.

Bolsheviks or Mensheviks

As Barney Fife would say. Nip it in the bud.

Perhaps a terrorist plot to take over the police dept.

What is Ms Ahearn's agenda?
Could be a witch? Evil.

A list of the lies please.

There you have it. Another year, in another town, not that much different from yours or mine. What can be said? Perhaps nothing more than; make sure all your line-up books have red and not black covers.

Just another day. In the Twilight Zone

Fact checking at The Rhinoceros Times.

That IS the title and reason for this thread...

It's funny to see the distractions and smoke screen methods the few die-hard Rhino cool-aid drinkers have to put up in their futile attempt to defend.
This lawsuit is a BIG BIG deal and will give the paper the spanking they have so desperately needed and deserved.

"It's funny to see the distractions and smoke screen methods the few die-hard Rhino cool-aid drinkers have to put up in their futile attempt to defend."

That may be true in your alternative reality about this situation, but the rest of us know better.

This thread and the (non) responses by JR and Lorraine Ahearn does not speak well for themselves and for the newspaper they represent.

This clamor will not go away because of avoidance of the issue on their part. Indeed, it will grow louder and more insistent.

"We stand by the story" is no more acceptable an answer now than it was in the Feinsilver-created fiasco a decade ago.

That lawsuit is going nowhere.

Sam, obviously it IS... it's going to Trial.
Stay on task people...
The "Well, you did it as well." referring to the N&R is very distracting. Last time I looked, John and William, along with Jerry, are the only one's getting sued? That's the topic, the subject, the deal!

Bubba, I would love to see your list of "the rest of us"? Cause you are losing numbers by the minute. Also, Sam... it's going to Trial...and that's somewhere. Somewhere really, really BAD for the Hammers. Whether the wiggle out of it or not - it's still gonna cost time and money and be a major inconvenience and that's the BEST CASE SCENARIO.
I'm not even starting to consider, we will see the best case scenario in this case..This is a big big deal...

"Cause you are losing numbers by the minute."

You obviously weren't at Zack Matheny's recent district town hall meeting, were you?