News-Record.com

Are criminals newspaper readers?

Some people seem to think they are.

If I were a robber, murderer, child molester, rapist, etc., I would have been very happy to learn that our already short-handed police department would be sending 50 of our finest to guard the next president. Good job, police department and News & Record, for letting the low-lifes know.

The story said the extra duty by the officers wouldn't affect Greensboro policing. Still, we often get accused of helping criminals whenever we write about police staffing, schedules and routes. And we think before we publish, believe it or not. I can also say with confidence that law enforcement thinks before it gives us information, given the little it actually gives us.

I don't know how many criminals are newspaper readers. I do suspect, though, that people who know them are.

From page 471 of the police report:

After significant accomplishments by the Department or major crimes, regardless of the hour of day or day of week, the PIO should prepare a news release for the media and the Department. News media agencies should not be expected to jump through hoops for basic public information. When there are unpleasant events or complaints, which will occur in any agency, the Department should put the facts on the table in a timely manner. When there are accomplishments as evidenced by the Study Team in Greensboro, the CIty and Department needs to put those accomplishments on the table.

About time.

We have had problems getting basic information about crime from the police department. I'm talking basic public information. We have spoken with city officials about the issue, but progress has been limited. We know that police officers often perform heroic acts. We have asked to be alerted when this occurs. Again, progress has been limited. And I have written many times, most recently here, about the difficulty getting information about "unpleasant events or complaints."

More openness would go a long way toward dealing with the public perceptions of the department.

Here are two of the preceding paragraphs relating to public information:

Sixteenth, the City should provide funding for a full-time public information officer (PIO). Members throughout the ranks noted that the Department does not do a good job at announcing events or activities within the Department. In reading daily news accounts, it is apparent that there are opportunities for improvement. News media agencies should not be required to find someone to make a statement on crimes, complaints, status of incidents, or the many positives in police departments.

The Department has a written directive on News Media Relations. The directive, Number 20.3, states that "the Executive Officer to the Chief of Police shall serve as the Public Information Officer for the Department. The PIO shall serve as the primary media contact during normal business hours, Monday through Friday, from 0800 to 1700 hours." Modern news media requirements are not a 9-5 job. With the current duties and demands it is virtually impossible for the executive officer to the chief of police to serve effectively as the PIO for the Department.

Update: Related action last night.

In December, three Greensboro police officers were suspended with pay after being accused of assault. We sued the city to force the release of more information that we believed was public information. The City Council then agreed to release as much information as possible about the case, and we dropped the suit.

Months and months later, the case is still unresolved, except that the officers haven't been charged with anything and the DA has said he does not have enough evidence to prosecute anyone.

Fine.

So what happens when we ask whether the officers are still on administrative leave? The city tells us they don't have to tell us. They refer to this ruling by a Superior County judge in another county in another case, a ruling that is not binding on the city. We're writing about this tomorrow.

Aside from the issue of why this case has dragged on for more than six months without apparent resolution, there's another point: the city's tendency toward opacity over transparency.

I understand that city lawyers are trying to protect employee rights. But the city of Greensboro is not a private business. Its employees work, in effect, for the taxpaying citizens of Greensboro.

When is someone at City Hall is going to start thinking more expansively and openly about what the public should know? Keeping information secret isn't normally the best path to restoring public trust and confidence.

A friend asked me if I was disappointed with the judge's ruling in the libel case against the Rhino and Jerry Bledsoe.

Disappointed? I asked. Why would I be disappointed?

It was a rhetorical question. I know that there is this idea that if something is good for the Rhino, it must be bad for us. Hardly. That’s the product of simple minds. It confuses disagreement with animosity. We are different publications, with different ethics and different purposes. To position the two of us as competitors is as inaccurate as to suggest that we both compete with neighbor chatting over coffee..

While I don’t care for the Rhino's or Jerry's intensely agenda-driven journalism, I care greatly for press freedom. Consequently, I am thankful and pleased that the judge apparently decided that Jerry did not have to turn over his notes. (I say apparently because the judge's formal order has not been entered yet.)

Turning over notes means revealing sources, which most reporters and their editors resist. I doubt that such a ruling would chill investigative reporting. But it would certainly change the way reporters take notes. Many have already created their own codes that are hard for someone else to crack.)

Anyway, the ruling doesn't mean the case is over. It means the police officers will have to make their libel case without being able to look at all of his notes. (Apparently a more specific request may be considered.)

The latest Yes Weekly story on the libel suit against The Rhinoceros Times and Jerry Bledsoe over his series "Cops in Black and White" has this quote by John Hammer, editor of the weekly.

"I talked with Jerry Bledsoe about the series; however, I took no specific actions as editor-in-chief of The Rhinoceros Times which relate to fact checking what appeared in his series or to corroborate the facts which appear in his series. Similarly, newspapers throughout the country do not routinely corroborate facts they obtain from other news sources, such as the Associated Press, the New York Times News Service or the Washington Post News Service."

Two points:

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. We want consider all the story angles. We may have the story reviewed by lawyers to ensure we stay on the right side of defamation law.

Then, when questions arise about the accuracy and fairness of the work -- as they have with the Rhino's series -- we go back and question the reporter, making sure that we got it right. Given the number of people that have questioned and disputed the work, I'm surprised that John says he "took no specific actions" to check the accuracy of the work he has published for two years.

If he isn't editing Jerry's work, it would be interesting to know who is.

Second, comparing the work Jerry has done with the AP or the New York Times is a stretch. Those wire services have editors, and the newspapers where the stories come from originally have editors. At some point along the line -- usually at the originating paper -- stories are vetted. That said, it is a legally defensible position that the wire service is liable for a published wrong, rather than each individual newspaper that runs the offending story.

If I were Jerry, I would be looking for my own lawyer.

Since the debut of our Monday feature Guilford's Most Wanted on Feb. 18, 16 people have been picked up, the most recent one this morning. That's slightly more than one a week.

That record caused features editor Susan Ladd to suggest: "Maybe we should put Osama bin Laden on that list."

City Manager Mitch Johnson released a statement today responding to our story this morning. It is disappointing.

Johnson's response seems to begin with blaming the newspaper.

His memo bullets nine points that he calls facts. I won't address any but the first, which is: The News and Record request did not match the document in question.

In her request, reporter Margaret Banks gave as many specifics as she could about a memo we had never seen. Had we known more, we would have included them. Specifically, the request asked for: "The two-page memo Tom Fox and Scott Sanders wrote summarizing the rationale behind the 'black book.'"

The city's initial response was: "We have researched and are not aware of the existence of the alleged two-page memo summarizing the rationale behind the black book.'

The memo itself, which the city has found but not released, provides a clear description of the rationale for creating the black book.

I will grant you that the request wasn't technically precise. But if the city staff were interested in transparency and were aware of the council's repeated interest in the black book, I would think that the legal team might have put two and two together. In fact, at least two people who aren't city employees -- Ben Holder and John Hammer -- had no trouble identifying the document we were requesting.

We ain't perfect, but this hot potato isn't ours.