News-Record.com

More unsurpassed amusement and entertainment forthcoming courtesy of your elected officials -

Hard to imagine this story of reverse discrimination not going national, but then again this is not something that a liberal press is going to promote. It doesn't fit the template. Everybody knows there is no such thing as "reverse discrimination".

I am curious about something Allen. When will the news and record admit to the inaccurate reporting done by Townsend and Ahearn on this matter?

Skeet,
You are correct. There is only discrimination. To imply reverse discrimination would mean that only one particular group or class could be discriminated against or that one group or class was always favored. This was outlawed first by the Civil Rights act of 1866 pertaining to race and has been modified to include 6 other classifications. Nowhere in any of these laws does it specify which group within that class must not be discriminated against.

Bobysitter
To what inaccuracies do you refer?

I'm not sure what Bobby S. means, but it may have to do with going public and giving legitimacy, so to speak, to the storied, malevolent 'black book" with no follow-up reporting, qualification or editorial comment when the real nature of the book was explained, as would be expected from a responsible journal.

Simple reporting of the facts and truth. When the truth of the black book became known your paper was strangely silent on reporting that it was actually used for a criminal investigation and not to target anyone. Even when local bloggers forced the city manager to admit to this fact your paper was still strangely silent. That is just one of many examples I could give. A newspapers job is to report facts and to remain fair and balanced. It seems that over time the news and record has reported what it wants to report and not the whole truth. We can go back and forth all day with you being shocked, annoyed, confused or just clueless about what I mean or not mean. In the end it is sad to see a once great paper become a shell of itself.

The newspaper reported what sources said about the book and consistently sought comment from Chief Wray about it.
What's unfair and unbalanced about that?

Clueless in Greensboro.

Allen: Can you, with a straight face and clear heart, defend the N&R's coverage as fair and unbiased in the Wray coverage?

The N&R's standard, rigorously and consistently applied, is that allegations of racial discrimation are intrinsically newsworthy irrespective of corroborating evidence or any other circumstance. If you prefer a higher standard, you will have to find another news source.

I know nothing about this but hearsay!
Like I told you in our meeting, most people think your paper and WFMY was playing the race game.
The object should be to have the best police force possible.

"The newspaper reported what sources said about the book and consistently sought comment from Chief Wray about it.
What's unfair and unbalanced about that?" -- Allen Johnson

Because the City Manager, in response to a records request, now says the City has no records indicating any misuse of the book and the N&R has NOT reported that. Is that defensible in your professional opinion, Allen?

I'd be curious too, to have you apply your professional critical analysis to this from a N&R article, and tell me if, as a newspaper man, you find it truthful and acceptable reporting:

"Internal investigators have said the book was shown to prostitutes and drug dealers across the county in an effort to get information on any officers who might be engaging in illegal activities."

What about this?

"But City Manager Mitchell Johnson said investigators concluded otherwise - that there were numerous instances of the book being shown to criminal defendants in an attempt to target black officers among the 19 pictured in the book. Defendants were told, in Johnson's words, 'If you ID an officer, we might help you out....' "

Even if you think the N&R's responsibility is only to report what people say about things and that its responsibilities do not extend to determining the truth, we are still left with the contradictions between what the City Manager said then and says now.

What do you think, Allen? Did "investigators" determine that the book was misused as was reported? Do you have a professional interest in reconciling the conflicting statements by the City Manager?

This might bring it into clearer focus:

http://roch101.blogspot.com/2009/01/spagnola-its-time-for-john-robinson-to.html

Roch, in an ongoing story, no daily media outlet can determine "the truth" to everything a source says.
That's why we attribute quotes.
But Johnson's comments came from an official source, on the record, as did opposing points of view from Wray and his attorneys, including op-eds.
If we had waited to determine absolute, positive, incontrovertible truth from every source in the Wray saga, I'm not sure there would have been any stories.

So you are saying above, Allen, I can print and publicize anybody's hearsay, no matter that it's damaging to somebody, and when the hearsay is found to be false, I have no responsibility to either apologize, clarify or retract what was said in my publication?

No. Not from anyone. But from a city manager, yes. From a police chief or former chief, yes.
The key is to make sure opposing points of view are represented and try to corroborate facts as much as is possible and practical.
We do that.

Here's an example:
Wray's lawsuit alleges pressure from the Simkins PAC for Johnson to oust Wray but offers no proof.
Do we know "the truth"? No.
Should we not report the allegation? Yes, I think we should, as we did, with a response from the PAC.

It's just like with the record disposal hoax. Big story, big publicity, big coverage to kick off the hoax. When it was found to be nonsense-no editorials and almost no words in the N&R. Same with the Fulmore suit dismissal.

We know every human being has their bias. It's just when you're the only daily in town, people expect more from you.

So Allen, Joe Williams, who Lorraine quoted, has nothing to do with the Simkins PAC?

"but from a city mgr. yes" Okay Allen, do you not then have a responsibility to demand an explanation when the city mgr. later contrdicts himself. Show me where you took him to task for it? You have to do the follow-up.

Allen, glad you like to dance so early in the morning but you haven't answered Roch's question.

Whoop, there he goes. Allen?....Allen?

See, the thing that bothers people is that as soon as the discussion gets tight people disappear. This is only natural to a degree. But then you will get pablum like today's editorial about "let get this into a court of law so we can 'move on' " . the reason things end up in court is that people pull an Allen Johnson -disappear. If people can sit down and talk then maybe things can stay out of court. These court cases aren't going to go to court. They are not meant to. How can you prove bias? They are meant to make a statement and maybe get a settlement of some kind.

This is exactly why newspapers like this one are dying. They get hooked on an agenda rather than trying to get to the truth. Why would you not have reported that the book was put together and used in a lawful manner once the fact became known? Answer: becuase it did not fan the flames of the "chosen" race in Greensboro.

You would think that a decreasing circulation would prompt these guys to look at how they are reporting or mis-reporting local issues. I guess they take one unyielding position when it comes to business decisions too. That is until no money is coming in and the bankruptcy happens.

I think the time has come. Sign the confession. Today's editorial stated it's time to move on. We agree. Why get waterboarded for another four years? (or however long it will take to get these cases through the courts)

Just sign the papers, Allen. Come on, Johnny. No more having to ban guys from your blog.

I Allen Johnson, I John Robinson, admit that we have been politically correct fuddy-duddies. We have reported and have given license and credibility to claims of racial bias against a police chief, hastening the termination of his employment, with no evidence to substantiate this claim, while at the same time provided sub-optimal coverage and comment to any evidence in contradiction of such.

To save face, the above has also eventuated our publication having to get into bed with the most divisive, incompetent, secretive and in-over-his- head town manager in the history of G-Boro.

We apologize to our citizens and readers.

We pledge this will not happen again.

You sign. This all goes away.

Mitchell may have the right to fire Wray. What is missing is that he locked him out of his office before he fired him. Mitchell humiliated him and effectively ran roughshod over common decency. We expect more of public officials. Mitchell has brought great damage to the city. He should leave. It would be good for him and good for the city.

To Roch's point:
Because no records exist to prove it does not render an allegation automatically false.

Here's is what our story said concerning "the black book":

"Wray has said the photo array was used to investigate an alleged sexual assault. The city manager recently said the city could not prove the black book was used inappropriately."

That's hardly the same as confessing he was wrong.

Allen,

You sidestepped the specific questions I asked.

Your paper reported that Johnson said investigators determined the book was improperly used. You say that the paper couldn't wait to verify that before reporting it. Okay. Those are slack standards in my opinion, but that's your explanation, we'll have to accept it as a reason for the nature of the original reporting. But it has now been three years and the manager is contradicting what your paper originally reported. Isn't three years enough time to determine whether "investigators" said what Johnson said he said? Isn't finding that out even more imperative now that Johnson is contradicting what your paper said he said?

"The key is to make sure opposing points of view are represented and try to corroborate facts as much as is possible and practical.
We do that." -- Allen

Except, in this case, you didn't -- or haven't reported that you did. The sources reported as saying that the black book was misused were the City Manager, some of which he, in turn attributed to "investigators." As far as we know from what has been printed in the N&R, the N&R never verified the manager's assertions (tracking down those "investigators" would have been the obvious beginning.) Furthermore, we now have the City Manager swearing that the City has no record or document that indicates an misuse of the black book and that remains unreported in the N&R. So no, Allen, you have not, in this matter, tried to corroborate facts.

"This is exactly why newspapers like this one are dying. They get hooked on an agenda rather than trying to get to the truth. Why would you not have reported that the book was put together and used in a lawful manner once the fact became known? Answer: becuase it did not fan the flames of the "chosen" race in Greensboro." -- Delow48

And this crap is a distraction too. You want to get to the truth, Delow? Stick to the facts.

Roch:
I don't want to tread too much in John Robinson's territory; he is in charge of the News Department.
But the EEOC investigators did cite the "black book," as I recall, and as we reported.
I will have to check the archives on what else we reported.
I have a section to put out for tomorrow, so that may take a short while.
I'll be back.

"And this crap is a distraction too. You want to get to the truth, Delow? "

....is follwed by this:

"Stick to the facts."

Too funny, in light of the first sentence I quoted.

The culpability of this newspaper in this abomination of malice and bad judgment is beyond obvious for anyone who's been paying attention.

"Because no records exist to prove it does not render an allegation automatically false. " -- Anonymous

Anon, details matter here. The City manager was not asked to PROVE misuse of the black book. He was asked if the City has any kind of record that INDICATES any misuse of the black book. To that, the City and the Manager have legally sworn that the answer is no. Nothing.

So yes, if you go by what the N&R reported, that the City manager says he cannot prove that the book was misused, you would question whether the Manager has contradicted himself. If you go by the facts however, unreported by the N&R, the contradiction is apparent.

See: http://roch101.blogspot.com/2009/01/spagnola-its-time-for-john-robinson-to.html

I look forward to your response Allen. The N&R reported that the EEOC said that the book was used to gather incriminating evidence against black officers.

Point one: That description could apply to the legitimate use of the line-up book.

Point two: If the EEOC determined that the black book was misused, as a curious newspaper guy, you'll surely want to know how the EEOC arrived at that. They obviously would have to have some information the City doesn't have, the SBI doesn't have and the DOJ doesn't have. Could it be they were going by what they read in the N&R? Remember how Dick Cheney created a self-sustaining echo chamber of "evidence" of Saddam Hussein's WMD that tricked the NY Times into thinking it was getting corroboration when, in fact, it was just hearing different people repeat Cheney's single lie? I know you are smart enough not to fall into a similar trap here.

When you get back to us, I'm also curious about your personal opinion, Allen. Do you think the black book was improperly used to target black police officers?

Allen, I take it you're not going for the confession thing. Feel free to craft your own, of course. Please give us, as you say; a "Wray of Hope" that it can be over.

Anonomymous (also known as N&R plant: see 1/1/06 post at 1pm with reference to "our reporting"),

Distraction? How are the facts distractions? Why should we have to get well researched facts from other news sources?

I guess in this dying tabloid a fact is a distraction but in my book a fact is what should be reported in a legitimate newspaper.

Why were there no charges filed by the SBI if the black book was used improperly? Why does the N&R not report these facts? It is all about the agenda!!

"Anonomymous (also known as N&R plant: see 1/1/06 post at 1pm with reference to "our reporting")," -- Delow

I too noticed one anonymous referring to "our reporting." The other anonymous to which you refer, however, the one who told you that your "chosen race" crap is crap, was me.

Actually, it was me. I forgot to type in my name, Roch.

Well, Roch I guess you are just too blind to see how the chosen race in the Guilford/Greensboro area is running things and ruining people's lives with their false accusations and sham lawsuits. If you think the truth is crap then you deserve to be the lone reader of the N&R propoganda.

Here is what our article reported, in part, on Aug. 4, 2007, regarding the EEOC:

“ ‘There is evidence to support that said black book was used to attempt to obtain incriminating evidence against black police officers,’ Jose Rosenberg, director of the EEOC’s Greensboro office, wrote in one letter. ‘A review of the record shows that non-black officers were not subjected to this type of treatment.’ ”

What that means is subject to some interpretation, but the EEOC did rule that it found evidence of discrimination.

As for my opinion on the black book, I don’t know. And I refuse to take sides in an issue that involves more grays than blacks and whites.

At the very least, it appears that Wray had problems as a manager and a leader.

His boss lost trust in him. Some of his officers lost trust in him.

I believe Mitchell Johnson, who had this atom bomb of a controversy tossed into his lap before he had time to warm his chair, has made mistakes in handling this mess.

At the same time, I have heard not one soul, black or white, rush to the defense of Officer James Hinson, or characterize him as a model officer. (Far from it, in fact.)

Conspiracy theories abound on both sides. I’m not sure I believe any of them at this point.

There are other problems:

The Special Intelligence unit appears to have been misused.

The SBI says an officer’s computer was hacked into, resulting in two indictments of officers.

Dueling lawsuits fill the air.

It is not surprising, though unfortunate, that some people have taken sides based on racial lines and complex mythologies.

Greensboro continues to struggle with dialogue about race.

It would be nice to see us rise above preconceptions about the “Chosen Race” (as one of you refers to it) etc., and have a grown-up discussion about this.

I’d like to say this comment thread makes me hopeful.

It does not.

"But the EEOC investigators did cite the "black book," as I recall, and as we reported."

And, where did the EEOC get the term "black book" to cite? The RMA Report, which was commissioned by Mitch, discussed the "black book", and they stated, without any supporting evidence, that it had been shown around the city trying to get information on black officers. Do you think maybe that they cited the "black book" because they relied upon the city's integrity?

The sad thing is that when the News-Record disappears from the scene, no one will notice, much less care.

Certainly not someone who hides behind anonymity on a blog.

Allen,

Fair enough, I'll come out right and say it to you. The News-Record has not earned the right in this community to be considered our newspaper of record. It's not only the flawed reporting, but the editorials as well. People would have much more respect for you and the others there, if you would just admit sometimes that you were wrong. Everyone else knows it, but you won't acknowledge it. No, not many people will miss this newspaper in its current form. Most of them pay no attention to it now anyway.

Stormy? Well, now you're semi-anonymous.

We have been wrong and have owned up regularly when we make mistakes. We do it in blogs and on A2 and the editorial page.

I've written at least a pair of columns saying I've been mistaken on an issue. JR had pointed out in his columns where he's had second thoughts.

What other local medium does that?

And by the way, what, in this case, do you want us to admit being wrong about?

Allen, like I said before, it's the lack of follow-up. People are mad because the N&R seemed to unhesitatingly print some racially inflammatory, defamatory information in the Wray case and then seemingly go mum editorially when contradictory info and statements by the town mgr. came to light. This, along with lack of in-depth reportage and editorial vigor and diligance regarding several other occurences in a similar vein; like the false claims about record disposal, the dismissal of the Fulmore suit, and the subsequent police van misconduct issue indicating that there are indeed deep problems in the dept that Wray was trying to adress, led people to perceive a bias on your part.

“At the same time, I have heard not one soul, black or white, rush to the defense of Officer James Hinson, or characterize him as a model officer. (Far from it, in fact.)”
--Allen Johnson

“He’s been Police Officer of the Year, president of the black officer’s chapter, had his picture in the paper enough times to fill a scrapbook, and he has sponsored everything from a bodybuilding charity benefit to a halfway house for prostitutes.

“Like the mythical Greek strongman he’s nicknamed for, Lt. James ‘Hercules’ Hinson has become bigger than life—the city’s most recognizable cop in uniform, a walking billboard for academy recruiters.”
--Lorraine Ahearn, News & Record, June 19, 2005, two days after Hinson’s suspension

Early I posted, you should have the best police department you can have. Just saw on TV were you only solved 60% of your murder cases last year. Is this acceptable to the people of Greensboro? I want a new chief!

The hosing the taxpayers took on the Canada Dry building and the many comments here about an alleged lax reporting on the flip flopping city manager.
No relation I hope.

"At the very least Wray had problems as a manager and a leader."

Allen, if we locked every guilford co. pol out of their office who met this criteria, the wheels of gov't would grind to a complete halt.

Hope you are not implying that this is in some way a justification for the race-railroading the guy took.

Fair enough, Jerry. One column, back in 2005, highlighted some of the positive things Hinson was doing in the community.

My point is, that in light of things we learned after that point, the prevailing perception of Hinson, among many blacks and whites, is not so heroic.

Allen, I had to sit down on that one.
Are you saying Lorraine mislead the public about Hercules?
I don't recall reading anything in your paper about a "prevailing perception". Did I miss that article?
You're a brave man Allen Johnson. I appreciate your decision to discuss this and you should get credit for taking an a** whipping on your blog that probably belongs on John's.

No, she did not.

I looked back at the story Jerry quotes, which I should have done before responding.

To be fair to Lorraine, Jerry conveniently omits important context when quoting that particular story.

Here is how the rest of the lead reads:

"He's been Police Officer of the Year, president of the black officer's chapter, had his picture in the paper enough times to fill a scrapbook, and he has sponsored everything from bodybuilding charity benefits to a halfway house for prostitutes.

"Like the mythical Greek strongman he's nicknamed for, Lt. James 'Hercules' Hinson has become larger than life - the city's most recognizable cop in uniform, a walking billboard for academy recruiters.

"So of all people, the burly patrol veteran might have been the last officer the public would expect to be suspended, as he was Friday, a week after news that a so-called 'secret police' squad was tailing him.

In a news conference Friday, Chief David Wray never mentioned Hinson 's name as he spoke of an 'ongoing' drug investigation and an internal police probe, later cryptically telling the News & Record: 'You connect the dots.' And even if Wray refused to name names, a lot of people were asking the obvious question.

"Hinson?"

"Undercover: A unit full of secretsGreensboro News & Record (NC)-January 15, 2006Author: LORRAINE AHEARN

"Wray countered in a written statement that the black three-ring binder had only been compiled and used to identify a suspect in a single case: A prostitute's complaint that a police officer groped and sexually assaulted her during a strip search last January.

But City Manager Mitchell Johnson said investigators concluded otherwise - that there were numerous instances of the book being shown to criminal defendants in an attempt to target black officers among the 19 pictured in the book. Defendants were told, in Johnson's words, 'If you ID an officer, we might help you out....' "

What numerous instances? I also finds the Bellamy part of the next article very interesting.

Clergy: Lift veil on probe of police unit

Greensboro News & Record (NC)-February 8, 2006

"The book in question includes head shots of 114 black males, includingat least 19 city officers. Wray maintains that the photos were assembled for onepurpose only: A woman reported that she was sexually assaulted by anunidentified black policeman, and the 19 photos were of the uniformed blackofficers working that particular shift. However, Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such anassault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statementor any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I thi

Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exxagerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

From the Rhino Times, Nov. 30, 2006:

On Wednesday morning, June 15, the same day that the News & Record published the article that Beverly Hinson also was claiming that she had been under surveillance by the secret police, News & Record police reporter Eric J.S. Townsend called David Wray requesting an interview. Wray reluctantly agreed.

He later recalled that the interview was set for some time shortly before or after noon. Townsend, he said, arrived with Lorraine Ahearn. Wray hadn't been expecting her. He hadn't had a chance to speak with her since her column the previous Friday reporting that a secret police unit within the department was targeting black officers for mistreatment.

That claim was based on James Hinson finding the "bird dog" tracker on his police cruiser. Wray wanted to know why Ahearn now was presenting Hinson as a victim after she had come to him nearly two years earlier to say that a black lieutenant, who only could be identified as Hinson, was "dirty" and that she might have to write that Wray didn't care about cleaning up the department if he didn't do something about the situation.

When he saw that Ahearn was with Townsend, Wray said, he told her that he needed to speak with her privately for a moment. He asked Townsend to excuse them. Then he stepped inside his office with Ahearn and closed the door.

"I said, 'Lorraine, you know that you came to see me about this and I asked you for more information, and you said you wouldn't give me anything. Part of this came from you. It's hard for me to understand why you're being so critical now.' She didn't say anything.

"I said, 'To me, you need to disclose this. Have you told your editors?'

"She said, 'No.'

"I said, 'Don't you think that's a conflict?'

"She said, 'I don't see that. I was just passing on information to you.' She just didn't really want to talk about it.

"I said, 'Have you told Eric?'

"'No.'

"I said, 'OK.'

"I went to the door and got Eric. We sat down. Wasn't a lot I could tell them.

From the Rhino Times, Dec. 14, 2006:
Around lunchtime, as Wray was making the rounds at the fair, stopping to talk with people, he got a message on his pager telling him that he had received a call from a number with a 373 prefix. He thought it might be from his office. He dialed the number on his cell phone.

A woman answered.

"I said, 'This is David Wray.'"

The woman was Lorraine Ahearn.

"She wanted more information on Hinson and the secret police," Wray recalled. "I told her, 'Lorraine, I said yesterday that I'm not going to make any further statements about that.'

"She said, 'Yes, I know, but it doesn't tell me enough.'

"I said, 'Well, I'm sorry.'

"She said, 'I'm not sure what you were referring to. If you were talking about Elton Turnbull, that case was over in 2002, and it can't be that. So what were you talking about?'

"I said, 'Lorraine, I'm not going to go into it. I didn't even know this was you. If I had known, I wouldn't have called you back. I'm at the Black Child Development Fair. It's Saturday. I've been at work all day. Whether you think so or not, I'm not the devil. I'm down here now trying to do something good.'

"She said, 'Well, you owe it to me to tell me what's going on.'

"I said, 'I don't have to tell you what's going on. I've given a statement. That's all I'm going to say. I'm acting in good faith. I'm trying to do the right thing. I'm trying to be a good chief.'

"Well, she just kept on. 'You've got to tell me.'

"I said, 'I don't have to tell you anything, Lorraine.'

"She said, 'Well, what am I to make of this?'"

That, Wray said, was when he reminded her of when she came to him to tell him about a high-profile black lieutenant who was "dirty," and when he pressed her for more information, she provided none, instead telling him, "I'm not going to do your job for you."

"I said to her exactly what she had said to me, 'I'm not going to do your job for you, Lorraine. You have to connect the dots.'

"'Well, all right,' she said. 'OK.' And she hung up."

Wray was angry when he saw the next morning's newspaper. A huge, bold headline of the type that might have been used for a terrorist attack or some other major event stretched across the top of the front page: "'Connect the dots,' chief suggests."

A lengthy article by Ahearn beneath the headline was marked "News & Record Exclusive."

It began this way:

"He's been Police Officer of the Year, president of the black officer's chapter, had his picture in the paper enough times to fill a scrapbook, and he has sponsored everything from bodybuilding charity benefits to a halfway house for prostitutes.

"Like the mythical Greek strongman he's nicknamed for, Lt. James 'Hercules' Hinson has become larger than life – the city's most recognizable cop in uniform, a walking billboard for academy recruiters.

"So of all people, the burly patrol veteran might have been the last officer the public would expect to be suspended, as he was Friday, a week after news that a so-called 'secret police' squad was tailing him.

"In a news conference Friday, Chief David Wray never mentioned Hinson's name as he spoke of an 'ongoing' drug investigation and an internal police probe, later cryptically telling the News & Record: 'You connect the dots.'"

Further into the article, Ahearn wrote:

"'There's more to this than I can tell you,' Wray said in a phone interview Saturday. 'You connect the dots.'"

Wray considered this to be a cheap shot and dishonest. Ahearn made it appear that he had consented to an interview when in actuality he was refusing an interview, he said. She took something that he said in a personal context, altered it and connected it to something he said in another context to make it into something he neither intended, nor said.

Allen, speaking of context, do you think you could get John or Lorraine to explain why the News & Record never has informed its readers about any of this?

My last comment was in response to this exchange between Tony Wilkins and Allen:

“Are you saying Lorraine mislead the public about Hercules?”—Tony.

“No, she did not.”---Allen

You make an assumption, Jerry.
You reconstruct a conversation, word for word, based on what, Jerry?
Were you there?
Did Wray have a recording?

Since this whole conversation has begun I have a second question for you Allen. Why is that you or JR are the only ones always explaining what Ahearn or Townsend wrote? It seems that the news and record believes in open and frank discussion and I support that. Why not have Ahearn or Townsend (though this would be hard to do since he no longer works for you) explain what they meant.

From day one the news and record has wanted the key players in this debacle to explain what was actually said or done. I think that turnabout would be fair play to have the news and record crack reporters who broke this story speak openly and explain how they got everything wrong. My belief is that Ms Ahearn could not and would not be able to handle the questions and inquiries of how a supposed slam dunk story turned out to be nothing but a case of rumor and false truths to sell an agenda.

Lorraine Ahearn once entered into a blog conversation on this subject on JR's blog, but only to try and cause problems for one of the posters.
When subsequently asked specific questions about her reporting on the Chief Wray matter she refused to comment and never showed her face again.

"He's been Police Officer of the Year, president of the black officer's chapter, had his picture in the paper enough times to fill a scrapbook, and he has sponsored everything from bodybuilding charity benefits to a halfway house for prostitutes.

"Like the mythical Greek strongman he's nicknamed for, Lt. James 'Hercules' Hinson has become larger than life - the city's most recognizable cop in uniform, a walking billboard for academy recruiters."

This isn't reporting; it's literary fiction, chock full of value-laden metaphor, allusion, analogy, hyperbole--well, I could go on. It's a kind of characterization used to create dramatic tension, a set-up for the shocker to come . . .

That's not, IMO, how hard news should be written.

Allen
Thanks for having this conversation. I give you a lot for just showing up. Most of us remember Ethan Feinsilver. My memory is that Van King and JR dodged, evaded, danced and spun that story also. Why can't your paper just report the truth and stop slanting it to your biased views.

I want my paper to have integrity and honesty. Quite frankly I believe the N&R has been going downward for over thirty years. I don't believe most of what your paper report. When it comes to race and political correctness, you are blind.

Says who, Brian?

Is this the preferred approach?

David Wray loves the movie High Noon. He's seen it so many times that he can rattle off the plot and quote lines of dialogue. It's a lawman's movie with lessons. He'd used it in teaching about policing, never dreaming that he'd end up living it

High Noon is set in the frontier town of Hadleyville following the Civil War. Gary Cooper, a model of stoicism and taciturnity, plays Marshal Will Kane, a role that won him an Academy Award for best actor.

Kane cleaned up Hadleyville and made it decent for women and children. But now he is retiring, marrying Amy Fowler, a Quaker pacifist played by Grace Kelly in her first substantial film role. They're about to ride away to a new life when the breathless telegraph operator intervenes.

Frank Miller, the outlaw who once controlled the town, has been pardoned by the corrupt governor and is due to arrive on the noon train, an hour and 20 minutes away. He'd vowed to return to kill Kane and the judge who sent him off to be hanged. His brother and two other gang members are already at the depot, heavily armed, awaiting his arrival.

Town leaders encourage Kane to leave with his new bride, and he does reluctantly. But a few miles down the road he stops and turns back despite her protests. It's crazy, he admits, but he doesn't have time to explain.

"I've got to," he says. "That's the whole thing."

She begs him to reconsider. But if they run now, he tells her, they'll just have to keep running. It's time to take a stand.

She abhors violence. She lost her father and brother to it. If he insists on staying, she says, she'll leave for St. Louis on the same train that brings Miller.

The judge is preparing to flee when Kane arrives back in town, symbolically packing up the scales of justice and the US flag. If he's smart, the judge tells Kane, he'll go too.

Kane thinks he can round up enough special deputies to fend off the outlaws. But one by one the townspeople ignore his devoted service to them and turn away, either from cowardice, complacency, self-interest or indifference. Kane is left to face the pending evil alone, uncertain and clearly frightened.

Kane's pacifist bride boards the train. But she runs back to town when the shooting starts. She kills one of the outlaws with a bullet in the back to save her husband. With luck, skill and determination, Kane, although wounded, takes out the other three.

After Frank Miller falls, the townspeople rush out into the street, their town again safe. Kane removes his badge, and with utter disgust tosses it into the dust.

High Noon came out in 1952 at the height of the "Red Scare," denoting an era that would be defined by the term "McCarthyism," so named for Wisconsin Senator Joseph McCarthy, whose witch-hunting tactics came to symbolize it. The film was widely seen as an allegory for the Hollywood actors, writers, producers and directors (including High Noon's scriptwriter) who were compelled to appear before congressional hearings and name the Communists among them. The consequences of not complying included contempt of Congress, blacklisting and the ends of their careers for having the courage, like Will Kane, to stand on principle and do what they thought was right.

David Wray can identify with that. He has no doubt that he's been the victim of a new form of McCarthyism in which the cry of racism, even false, trumps right and wrong, honesty and decency, and causes people who consider themselves to be fair and honorable to seek cover, embrace denial and betray those who dare to stand on principle.

Wray could not have imagined that an unsubstantiated claim of racism in a newspaper could explode into a bizarre and surreal series of events that would end up forcing him from his job as police chief, causing him to be shunned, branded a racist, a Nazi, a liar, his 25-year honorable career destroyed, a substantial pension lost, the city plastered with posters bearing his photo with a Hitler mustache and proclaiming him to be grand wizard of the Ku Klux Klan. But that, as hard as it was to believe, was exactly what happened.

It wasn't the way he'd pictured finishing his career. And he was an unlikely person to find himself in such a predicament.

David Wray grew up on a 20-acre farm in the Alamance Church community in southeastern Guilford County. His ancestors had lived in the county for 200 years. He and his family attended the same Presbyterian church as did Howard Coble, who would become a long-term US congressman.

Wray's father, Sidney, trusted in hard work, integrity and character. He passed those values to his three sons. David was the second. He, his older brother, Pete, and younger brother, Phillip, were expected to work on the farm from early childhood.

David Wray tried to correct serious problems inside his Police Department. In doing so, he alienated a bunch of lazy cops. His union turned on him because they didn't want to work. Now a strange alliance with a suspected dirty cop who was connected. A city attorney who hated him and a damn stooge for a city manager. they formed the perfect storm, but in comes Jerry Bledsoe who had credability. That bring you up to date Allen. how do you like my story?

It's a good story. But as Roch says, can you prove it's the truth?

Allen, was that you who wrote the High Noon piece above????

Nope, that's installment one of Bledsoe's series on Wray.

Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exaggerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

Allen also needs to go ahead and report that one of his family members is listed on the EEOC complaint. I missed that part in this thread.

Allen, why are you wasting your time defending yourself. Peoples minds are fixed at this point.
I know mine is.

Your recent editorial was right on.

Let Wray have his day in court.
We will then get the "best available version of the
truth"

I wish I could share your optimism, Dave. Mitch Johnson's recent denial that the City has any records that indicates misuse of the black book was a sworn and notarized statement in response to a court action, yet the N&R ignores it. It will be different the next time around because...?

I would like to comment on a couple of things said in this interesting discussion that relfect my own experiences during 2007 and 2008.

Soon after David Wray left the police department City Manager Mitchell Johnson called for a series of meetings around the city to solicit citizen input regarding the qualities and qualifications for a new chief of police. I attended two of those meetings to present my views and hear what others had to say.

To my disappointment the first meeting, at the downtown Public Library, was permitted to become an assault on David Wray. A gentleman who I later learned was attorney for the local police union, early in the meeting blasted Wray on racial grounds. I protested vocally across the room and looked to the City Manager to control the meeting and limit it to its intended purpose. Regretably the meeting turned out for the most part to be a diatribe against Wray, notwithstanding how it was reported in the next day's News & Record. At the conclusion of the meeting I went forward to introduce myself to Manager Johnson and I used the occasion to ask a burning question of the day: why was Chief Wray locked from his office. The answer he gave me was that this was standard operating procedure in such situations. Afterward I asked numerous retired city personnel about this policy and no one had ever heard of any such action before.

I might add about the meeting that I don't recall any discussion about poor management performance or employee discontent as reasons for taking away the chief's personnel management authority, or keeping him out of his office. The entire discussion was about race.

A second point mentioned earlier in this discussion referred to Simkins PAC influence over the Wray matter.

In 2007 I was an unsuccessful candidate for Greensboro City Council. During the interim period between the primary and general election I was invited to an interview by the Simkins PAC. Among the questioners was Joe Williams, the attorney frequently mentioned in matters involving David Wray. My interview basically consisted of two questions, the second of which asked my opinion about the illegal wiretapping of black professionals by David Wray. My reply is irrelevant to this discussion, but the nature of the question and the fact that candidates later endorsed by the PAC made financial donations to it left me with a distinct impression the the Simkins PAC did in fact have a great deal of influence on city government. This experience left me to wonder about the relationship of the Simkins PAC and City Council.

I don't know if my observations are important, but at the time they did indeed influence my thinking.

Says who? Says me, that's who says. As I've explained before on this blog, my word on literary matters is to be considered final.

Surely you can see that your Gotcha is effective because Bledsoe's story does precisely the same thing as Ahearn's. Whether you cast the hero of your tale as Hercules-with-a-heart-of-gold, the soon-to-be-victim of nefarious racists, or Gary-Cooper-in-High-Noon, soon-to-be-victim of the cowardly mob, you are using literary devices to create a character (a hero, in both cases) and to establish a framework of expectation (what bad thing will happen to the hero?).

So in answer to your question, neither Ahearn's nor Bledsoe's is, in my opinion, the preferred one. I would prefer that journalists leave such devices to litterateurs such as Byron, Hurston, and Jeri Rowe.

Brian:
Matters literary and journalistic aren't the same thing.
There is one difference in Jerry's set-up and Lorraine's as I see it.
She uses it to show the irony of an officer who has been Officer of the Year being suspended.

In an attempt to arrive at a bottom line, if such is even possible, I think what we have here is the N&R ran with some incendiary stuff, which is fine. You want a paper to go out on a limb on occasion. I think Lorraine did not necessarily err in trying to let people know what was going on in the police dept. and what people were saying and thinking, even if much of it was based on personailty conflicts and endemic post-1979 G-Boro racial hysteria. The indictment of the N&R is based on lack of follow-up, both reporting-wise and editorially speaking, as the story unfolded.

If this can be discussed maybe we can get somewhere here.

Skeet Club,
I think you hit it on the head. There is no follow up to bring out the facts as they occur unless they favor the "chosen" ones. Note how the request from Roch has been summarily ignored. The N&R is beholden to the Simpkins PAC and that is fine if that is where they want to be. They should just expect the continued decrease in readership and reputation. It is interesting how mainstream media outlets like this seem surprised when their circulation is plummeting. I guess they never thought the biased reporting would destroy their reputation. Maybe once the bankruptcy happens someone will come in and change the model to actually attempt to get to both sides of these tabloid stories. Unfortunately in this town you have to have two newspapers to achieve that goal.

Am I the only one that thinks Allen is ignoring Roch's questions? I also would like to know if it is important for Allen to openly discuss the fact that he has a family member (who Allen likes very much) that was listed on the EEOC complaint?

Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exaggerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

I would think that full disclosure, much like Mr. Robinson used when discussing Canada Dry, would be in order.

Unless the journalists disagree, of course.

Ben: Are you saying that one of the police officers involved in the EEOC complaint against the City of Greensboro is a relative of News and Record editorial page editor Allen Johnson?

I just want to be clear on that.

Allen, do you think N&R has been adequate in their follow-up of this continuing saga?

These last two comments really say it all!

"Allen, why are you wasting your time defending yourself. Peoples minds are fixed at this point.
I know mine is."

You haven't been paying attention, have you?

Three reasons I supposed I've "wasted my time," Bubba:
1. If I post about Wray on my blog, I darned well better be willing to address the comments.
2. Many people may have made up their minds but at least a few stlll will be open-minded and listen to reason.
3. I'm tired of the newspaper's integrity being assailed while some bloggers (with not one iota of journalistic training) and other publications play fast and loose with ethics and standards ... and get a pass.

It looks like Allen, under blistering attack from Ben "Little Roy"(Cohn) Holder and Roch "Little Joe"( McCarthy)" 101 is taking "The Fifth". Allen, when you said "Wray of Hope" at the thread-head, we thought you meant it was time to talk.

I missed Ben's question. Sorry.

He may be referring to Capt. William Phifer, who is retired from the police department.

He is married to my sister.

I have made no secret of my relationship with him and have written about him in columns.

We don't discuss the police department when I see him. I learned he was part of the EEOC complaint by reading about it.

Did you miss Roch's?

"3. I'm tired of the newspaper's integrity being assailed while some bloggers (with not one iota of journalistic training) and other publications play fast and loose with ethics and standards ... and get a pass."

Yeah, okay. "They do it too (whine, whine)." That's a tidy little way of excusing yourself from looking at the facts.

Journalistic training? That is a joke. All that tells you is how to slant the story to fit the predetermined agenda. I know of few "journalists" in the mainstream media that seem to have paid attention in the class that teaches you to report the facts instead of the agenda. As far as bloggers, it seems they have better training than most reporters. At least they will still be here when the daily newspaper industry has bitten the dust.

Oh, and you still did not address Roch's query. I guess that is to be expected of a member of teh MSM.

One addition to my note about Philfer:
Ben is right. I do like him. He's a good guy.
To Roch: No whining here. Just a request that you hold yourselves to the same standards you expect of us.

"Just a request that you hold yourselves to the same standards you expect of us."

I only have one self, and I do try to hold myself to the standard I expect of the N&R even though it is the supposed professional institution and I am an untrained individual.

Allen, so your brother-in-law's a retired Captain? Doesn't appear then he was not promoted. Maybe not quickly enough, I don't know. Was he paid less? Any idea at all why he would have a EEOC complaint? So you never discuss the goings on in the police dept, even with somebody who might actually know? That in itself may even be more scary, in that if you, a newspaperman, aren't curious, WTF chance does anybody else have?

What do you talk about, the Panthers. the Bats?

I have no idea.

"3. I'm tired of the newspaper's integrity being assailed while some bloggers (with not one iota of journalistic training) and other publications play fast and loose with ethics and standards ... and get a pass."

So, Allen, you're saying only "trained" (brainwashed?) journalists can legitimately comment on the work product which a newspaper peddles to it's public?
I may not be a "trained" journalist but I know s&^%t from shinola, my friend. So do many others here, and you're hearing from them.
I'm not a mechanic, either, but when a wheel falls off of my car I know something's amiss.

It puzzles and worries me that this would not pique your curiousity. Are we wrong in thinking that an editorial page editor, someone who, at least outside G-Boro, is generally thought of as someone who would stand as some kind of watchdog/ fuduciary rep for citizen taxpayers against gov't reps and beraeaucracy, to not have any curisosity over something like an EEOC suit that could cost his taxpayers large amts. of money.

I can't process this. I'm sorry.

Allen
I admit I do not have one iota of journalistic training. However I do have integrity. I'm not a right winger. I do not have an agenda. I do expect those trained in journalism to at least be fair. To report the truth. Sticking your heads in the sand and pretending this will go away is just plain sick. Your silence has sent a message to Mitch Johnson and the City Council of your support of their position. I do appreciate John Robinson's disclosure regarding Canada Dry . He didn't try to hide family connections. Since you have not been involved in this fray, I can't blame you for Mr Pfifers involment in his EEOC suit. I do believe that your paper has been flagrantly dishonest.

Allen, I'm just getting caught up with the last 30 or so comments and am learning of your relative involved in the EEOC complaints.
Through the years we have disagreed many times but I have always expressed my respect for you.
I still have that respect but it has certainly been diminished by your decision not to disclose this fact each and every time you have written on the subject.
We all got sick and tired of the Canada Dry disclaimers but they were there each and every time regardless.
Do you agree or disagree this fact should have been provided?

Tony:

I have written on this subject exactly one time since I learned my brother-in-law was involved in the EEOC complaint.

Some type of disclosure would have been appropriate in that case.

So, what is Capt. Phifer's beef that he joined in the EEOC complaint after he had retired? If you have not discussed it, why not ask him now?

Thanks Allen, I thought that would be your response.

In the end, Allen. If you don't have any interest in something like this (EEOC), I mean, not enough to even ask a family member with some knowledge about it, who is going to? You're leaving the taxpayers out there flapping in the breeze with maybe three council members to stand in the way of say Goldie ("it doesn't matter how we finance things, we all might not be here tomorrow") or DBS (it doesn't matter if we paid too much over the appaised value, the city always does this"). I mean, who are you supposed to be serving here.

If I have the wrong idea about what your job is, tell me.

It would be nice to have disclosure of ties to the Simpkins PAC. That is who had Wray run out on a rail. My guess is they are the source of most of the bias on this story.

No, I would not use a family member, by marriage or otherwise, as a source.

That would create a possible conflict of interest. It would be more appropriate for another staff member to conduct such an interview.

I'm not talking about naming them as a source. Obviously a problem. I'm talking about just discussing stuff with them, for your own edification.

For instance, if there was a chemical spill in a stream where I live and I had a chance to talk to an enviornmental engineer over dinner, who just happened to be crazy enough to marry my sister, I might ask him about it. If he was involved in pending legal action of some kind, and I was a newspaper guy who at least nominally was supposed to protect the public from pollution, I might say; "look this is off the record, but what's the deal. If you don't want to talk, fine? I understand". But to not say anything. Hard to imagine.

I'm not ignoring you guys.
I'm just on deadline for a couple of hours.
I'll be back with a few closing comments soon.

Mr J,

How about starting with answering Roch. You have ignored these questions for long enough.

Roch101 said:
Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exaggerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

Posted on January 8, 2009 10:37 AM

Roch101 said:
"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

Mr J,

How about starting with answering Roch. You have ignored these questions for long enough.

Roch101 said:
Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exaggerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

Posted on January 8, 2009 10:37 AM

Roch101 said:
"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

Closing comments? Allen, i thought this was just warming up. Some of us never tire of asking questions that aren't answered. What is not answered is oftimes more revealing that what is.

Mr J,

How about starting with answering Roch. You have ignored these questions for long enough.

Roch101 said:
Allen,

I appreciate your attempts to be open-minded and reasonable. I have withheld judgment knowing that the facts had yet to be substantiated in many aspects of this issue. There is now something that seems intellectually unavoidable though. I'd like your opinion, if you will indulge us:

1. The characterizations of the black book as made in the N&R and by City Manager Mitch Johnson are now contradicted by the City Manager's response to our records request in which he says the City has no information that indicates misuse of the black book.

2. The most condemning descriptions of the book as original reported in the N&R ("shown to every prostitute and drug dealer," etc.) were never corroborated and, were in fact, not even assertions but exaggerations, described as exaggerations by the person who made them as he made them but his qualifier not being included in the N&R's reporting.

3. Although the City admitted in September of 2008 that it has no information indicating misuse of the black book, the N&R has failed to report that, much less examine how it now contradicts its original reporting of the nature and purpose of the book.

Posted on January 8, 2009 10:37 AM

Roch101 said:
"Bellamy said Tuesday that he has found no record of such an assault, whether in the form of a police report, a tape of the woman's statement or any previous computer search of the black officers on that shift."

I think this is a good example, Allen, of what people are talking about when they accuse the N&R of not correcting the record.

Although the City subsequently admitted to Margaret Banks that it had records of this assault, that information, as far as I am aware, never made it into the N&R. Why not?

Read: http://blog.news-record.com/staff/scoopblog/2008/02/

Allen, sign the confession. One last plea. For your own good.

The known facts as I see them.

Opinion, hearsay, rumor.
There is a great deal of he said, she said, they said etc.
Was it biased reporting good reporting etc.?
What’s fact? What’s fiction?

Facts:
Racial issues abound ( real, imagined, political, or economic in nature )
The Rhino, N&R, and others disagree on what constitutes reasonable reporting
Everyone has a position.
David Wray was forced to resign.
Many people ( including me ) consider Hinson of questionable character.
Many people ( including me ) believe Mitch Johnson has problems telling the truth

Now, Hopefully Wrays lawsuit will go to court and hopefully we will get the “best
available version of the truth”. In any case things will be under oath..

When that’s over, is the time for reflection and apologies if required.

This seems reasonable to me

Oh
I was amazed how many people in city work have
tape recorders and actually tape each other

What does that say about our city.

Dave Colin

Can you honestly say that the N&R covered this story professionally, showing both sides fairly?

In another blog about two years ago I asked John Robinson why he had run for the bushes and allowed Jerry Bledsoe to destroy the N&R with each story. I also told him by he was losing credibility.

The sins of omission are sometimes as bad as the sins of commission. I believe the paper, by not covering this story has done a terrible disservice to this community. Mitch Johnson abd the City Council has been able to hide under the N&R's umbrella- in my opinion

It would be very surprising for the Wray case to go to trial. You have the town mgr. contradicting himself about the "black book" etc. The city would have to be crazy to take this to court and try to defend this.

Wray will be paid. ?Brady. ? Hinson (although his case is complicated because he's the one who decided to go public with the tracker thing, so he has co-liability in a claim of public humiliation) . Mitch has to go. EEOC has to go (unless they have new info that has never been made public-hard to imagine). These are the only things that can resolve this. The mayor has to see this.

The N&R has to get off their rear and take this by the horns like a real newspaper!

Skeet Club,
You are expecting a lot from the paper. Heck, do they have anyone working for them anymore? If it is not in the Associated Press feed then they have no way to get the story.....that is unless the Simkins Mafia prints it out and hands it to them.

Notice Allen is gone from this post. They must have another race baiting story to report.

Savage:
Yout seem to take it as a foregone conclusion that the "Simkins mafia" is involved in some kind of quid pro quo here ... based on what evidence?
Also, I thought you lived in High Point ... or I am mistaken?
As for disappearing, I'm not done yet. It's just taking a little longer than I envisoned to put all my thoughts together.
There are more than 100 comments on this thread to respond to.
Finally, I do have other stuff my boss expects me to get done besides the wonderful time I spend with you guys on my blog.

Allen, i think you meant to adress "Anon" and not me. But while I'm here...

So you are saying a Simkins PAC members/ atty. had nothing to do with pressuring the town mgr facilitating the Wray dismissal and claims of a wiretap conspiracy to tape black leaders? All this?Oooookkaaaaay.

I think sometimes people do use "Simkins" as a collective term for the black leadership in G-Boro which may not be entirely accurate.

Or fair. There is no monolithic leadership in the black community, just as there is none in the white community.
Also, sorry to misattribute that comment to you.
So, was I mistaken also about where you live -- Greensboro or High Point?
And isn't Skeet Club Road in High Point?

I live, buy electricity and pay taxes in High Point, which, given the state of GBoro politics, I consider fortunate. If I lived in G-Boro and had my tax money under the control of people who say nothing matters because-"we could all not be here tomorrow" (not to mention not even have this considered "editorial worthy" by the local paper) I'd have been arrested for inciting a riot in the city council chambers and be in jail now.

If you're sort of implying why should I care- you tell me. One should ask why Davy Crockett-a Tenneseean, fought at the Alamo. When you have somebody who locks you out of your office and then says with a straight face you resigned, then that's something that needs to be opposed by all good men everywhere. Wherever politician's are "peeing down people's backs and telling them it's just rain", then it's up to everyone to get on board and oppose it no matter where you live, because it's coming soon to a theatre near you.

i didn't mean any harm .. I was just curious.

Of course you are not going to admit to the PAC being the monolithic entity that it is. You guys have to toe the line too! Otherwise you wouldn't get that fresh story sent to the inbox.

You have to admit that if a particular candidate happens to have their district touch a PAC heavy part of town then you have to have a way to pay them off to get the win. Or how about the records of certain attorneys in relation to certain DA's.

You would think a certain daily newspaper would be asking these questions, but not when they are in with the Simkins mafia.

Oh Allen, in the lead story yesterday Mitch seemed to blame people from way back in days of old when knights were bold for the current G-Boro liability mess. (imagine him not taking any blame-I know, who'd a thunk). You being a newspaper guy with some knowledge of G-Boro history, could you help identify to whom he may be referring?

Off topic:
AJ: "Finally, I do have other stuff my boss expects me to get done besides the wonderful time I spend with you guys on my blog."
That might be why you didn't answer my e-mail about the Susie Barnes LTE which could be interpreted as a threat.
Any chance the letter was a hoax?

Allen, was my simple question above unreasonable?

So, Allen. You're not concerned in the least that he made this statement but you don't know whom he's talking about? You're right. Thou doest protest too little.