Will the News & Record print the RMA report tomorrow, now that it has been made available online?

If not, why not?

Comments

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I expect that's why it was widely distributed in the first place . . . to give the N&R some cover and breathing room. JR was almost giddy in his first post after Converge South. All his worries were "gone".

The RMA report was generated as part of an internal police investigation. Gardner & Garrity (a pair of Supreme Court decisions) has been cited by Mitch Johnson as the reason the report could not be publicized (in its original form) or even shared with investigative agencies like the FBI and SBI (much like medical peer review - which generates documents and records that are inadmissable in court).

People involved in or subjected to the investigation (like Wray to Bledsoe) can certainly talk about what is contained in the documents, give their own recollections, and find other ways to obtain the same information, but they cannot use anything generated by an internal investigation in a legal forum.

City officials had their hands tied. Someone on that ship with loose lips and slippery hands leaked the report to the N&R (I would suspect to lend public support to Mitch Johnson for his actions against Wray). The bottom line is that the N&R NEVER should have gotten its hands on this report.

The News & Record did not publish the report because it does not want to be subject to litigation. I wonder about the timing of this particular round of leaking - as well as the "converging" with bloggerdom that took place this weekend (I thank God I did not go). It seems to me that someone was trying to find a way to get this thing in the public domain without suffering any legal consequences.

I have said in the past that the report was paid for by the public and (eventually) should be seen by the public. However, I don't think it is right to trample all over the constitutional rights of those caught up in this quagmire (the right not to self incriminate and the right to due process among other things) . . . in the middle of any kind of investigation no less . . . just to feed the public's "right-to-know".

It is clear that the intent & purpose of some laws and procedures can be at cross-purposes to the rights of individuals . . . conceal the truth . . . and obstruct real "justice".

Contrary to what several people on this blog (another thread) are saying about litigation and a "court-of-law" being the final arbiter of what is right and what is wrong, I was told (long ago) that litigation is NOT the way to fix anything about the system (as I banged my head against it). Legislation is a better bet (albeit still imperfect). Of course, legislation or "reform" cannot come without public exposure and public outrage . . . secrecy and privacy preclude that from happening.

NO ONE involved in this mess . . . especially the N&R and including whoever put the RMA report up in the ether (who may be "off" on a technicality) . . . has anything to be proud of.

It's all very sad.

[Bubba]

"The News & Record did not publish the report because it does not want to be subject to litigation. I wonder about the timing of this particular round of leaking - as well as the "converging" with bloggerdom that took place this weekend (I thank God I did not go). It seems to me that someone was trying to find a way to get this thing in the public domain without suffering any legal consequences."

Absolutely.

It's way past obvious.

[John Robinson]

We have no plans to publish the RMA report. When we were given the report earlier this year, we promised our source we would not distribute it. The source has not released us from that commitment. Additionally, the report contains information about people who may not necessarily be central to the case and may be harmed by the report being published. We have no interest in doing that. That the report has been published online doesn't change that as far as we're concerned. There are possible libel issues in publishing the full report, but that's just my opinion, not an attorney's.

[Ed Cone]

The part about your prior commitment makes no sense to me at all -- you wouldn't be publishing anything leaked to you, but a copy from the web, which comes to you with no strings attached.

[PotatoStew]

Good point Ed.

John, what if the city were to now release a copy of the RMA report - would you still refuse to publish it because of your prior commitment?

[David Hoggard]

Although I'm not trying to defend anything or anyone here, it should be noted that WFMY's Frank Mickens stated that he had the report on October 10th, then Fox News the next night. They were never asked to release it or to reveal their source as far as I know.

I'll bet the report I have is the same one that Mickens had, then Fox... which is likely the originally leaked copy that some tied to Councilwoman Bellamy-Small, the same one that spawned Council's lie-detector tests and the N&R's original reporting.

It seems that instead of being a fresh "round of leaking", it is just a continuation of the original one. In other words, there was likely only the one original leak and I doubt that the city had control over who would give the leaked copy to whom, and when they would do it. But still... timing is everything.

[The CA]

"There are possible libel issues in publishing the full report, but that's just my opinion, not an attorney's."

If this was true, than in every case where the police investigate a crime and officers testify about guilt, they would be subject to libel if the Defendant is acquitted simply for "publishing" their findings in open court. If that is the standard, then anyone who is accused of a crime and wins their case would have a case for libel simply based on the fact that they were charged.

The standard is tougher than that, and JR knows it. Libel requires a false statement about an individual made with malice that causes damage. Reporting the findings of legitimate investigations hardly qualify as malice.

[The CA]

"John, what if the city were to now release a copy of the RMA report - would you still refuse to publish it because of your prior commitment?"

Best question of the day.

[Jonathan Jones]

"If this was true, than in every case where the police investigate a crime and officers testify about guilt, they would be subject to libel if the Defendant is acquitted simply for "publishing" their findings in open court. If that is the standard, then anyone who is accused of a crime and wins their case would have a case for libel simply based on the fact that they were charged." -- The CA

That's not quite true. The scenario you describe -- an officer testifying in court -- would qualify as having 'absolute privilege' under the defamation torts and would not be actionable.

Something based on a government document typically has 'qualified privilege,' which means it's not generally actionable but under some circumstances could be.

Whether or not an investigative report produced by a non-government agency on behalf of a government agency has 'qualified privilege' is beyond my pay grade.

"Libel requires a false statement about an individual made with malice that causes damage." --The CA

That statement only applies when you're dealing with public figures, as defined by defamation torts. A private individual simply has to prove negligence, in addition to defamation.

[John Robinson]

Oh, you mean would we publish the document that has been published at Greensboro101? That one of which I don't know the origin and haven't taken the time to go through it to ensure that it is, in fact, the RMA report...at least the same as the one we have that we did confirm was legit?

If we did that, then the other reason we didn't publish at the time -- that people not directly involved could be harmed -- kicks in.

[John Robinson]

And the CA has no clue what I know so I hope he's not a lawyer. Everything I've learned about libel law is precisely as Jonathan Jones -- and every 1st Amendment lawyer I've ever talked to -- describes it. I'm not concerned about statements made about Chief Wray, who is most likely a public figure. It's all the other people named who aren't public figures that concern me, both legally and ethically.

[Jeffrey Sykes]

John Robinson:

Seriously, that must be a joke. Bubba and Sam done nailed you in a corner, but that's ok, just keep ignoring what we all are saying about our impression of your coverage. Afterall, we are merely the people formerly known as the audience.

In Web 2.0 does it really matter if the newspaper publishes the report or not?

[The CA]

Well that's sort of correct about officers testifying in court. However, there is an exception. In deciding whether a statement is absolutely privileged, a court must determine (1) whether the statement was made in the course of a judicial proceeding; AND (2) whether it was sufficiently relevant to that proceeding. Harris v. NCNB Nat'l Bank of N.C., 85 N.C. App. 669(1987).

"That statement only applies when you're dealing with public figures, as defined by defamation torts. A private individual simply has to prove negligence, in addition to defamation."

But in this case, the defamation, if any, would be in the RMA report- not in its disclosure. It would be hard to argue that a person is defamed simply by releasing the report- especially when the individual is exonerated in the report. On the other hand, if the bad information is accurate, you have no case.

If the RMA report is not a government document, then it is treated no differently than something written by say, Ed Cone. Ed could write a whole thesis on how a person was investigated and the facts that were uncovered, and there is nothing that anyone could do to him because of the First Amendment- unless Ed himself makes a false claim or repeats a false claim. Merely reporting that someone else made a false claim and its aftermath would not qualify in my opinion as defamation.

This is the difference between saying "Spagnola is a shitty lawyer who shouldn't have a law license"- probably defamatory, and reporting that "greendog said Spagnola is a shitty lawyer who shouldn't have a law license, which caused an uproar", not defamatory by the reporter. Newspapers do this all the time when reporting stories. Reporting what was said as opposed to saying or adopting a defamatory statement.

But as every lawyer knows, the facts are different in each case and a case can usually be made with any set of facts- whether you win or not is another story.

If it is a government document, than the privilege would surely apply.

[The CA]

JR, I have never accused you or your paper of engaging in libel by printing the RMA report. I'm sure your own Risk Management people told you that you could face a potential lawsuit for releasing information that might contain falsehoods, but everyone can face a potential lawsuit. We are talking about the likliehood of winning such a lawsuit based on these facts.

You could have redacted those portions out and not had to worry about a potential lawsuit- even one that you would probably win without redacting them. Hiding behind the defamation angle is hard to swallow. The Rhino sure hasn't done that.

Your paper reports on what other people say all the time without any problem. Surely you know the difference between the following statements:

"Joe Blow is a racist" (defamatory)

AND

"Detective Smith said that Joe Blow was a racist who performed poorly on the job. However, an investigation revealed that Detective Smith's comments were unfounded". (non defamatory- merely reporting FACTS)

I sure hope you're not the editor of a newspaper or anything.

[The CA]

"JR, I have never accused you or your paper of engaging in libel by printing the RMA report." Let me correct that. I have said that your concern about libel as expressed in the past when you received the report apparently did not extend to Wray.

[Jonathan Jones]

CA, repeating a libelous statement and attributing it to someone else, i.e. "Bob Jones said that Jim Smith is a murderer," does not absolve a newspaper and/or a reporter of legal responsibility.

If that statement is not true, the newspaper can lose a libel judgement. A newspaper I worked for in Maryland many years ago lost such a case when a reporter quoted a libelous statement from a city councilman speaking during a public meeting -- the kind of situation in which 'qualified privilege' is attached but isn't an absolute defense.

The first rule of reporting on libel, such as a court reporter writing about a lawsuit, is: Don't repeat the libel.

I was going to deconstruct your example, except I'm not sure saying someone is a 'shitty lawyer' is libelous because it would most likely fall under the hyperbole defense. You can't really prove whether or not one is 'shitty?'

[percywalker]

I do hope that nobody reading this thread takes seriously what CA said about libel law at 7:38 and 9:06. He may or may not be a shitty lawyer, but he would have committed malpractice if he had given that advice to John Robinson.

[Joe Killian]

I'm not a lawyer - but the suggestion that you can repeat libel as long as you're quoting someone or attributing it to someone else certainly goes against everything I've ever been taught in newsrooms, classes on journalim ethics and law.

[The CA]

"CA, repeating a libelous statement and attributing it to someone else, i.e. "Bob Jones said that Jim Smith is a murderer," does not absolve a newspaper and/or a reporter of legal responsibility."

I agree that repeating a libelous statement can subject the repeater to libel. However, it then becomes a matter of context. If the original statement is not libelous, than neither is repeating it. Further, even if the first statement is libelous that does not mean that reporting it is necessarily libelous. The examples I provided in my 9:17 post illustrate this.

The statement "dont repeat the libel" assumes that there is libel to begin with. As I stated above, these cases are fact driven, and I don't believe there has been any libel/defamation in the first place on these facts. Why hasn't the Rhino been sued?

If this is where you guys want to draw the line, I can assure you that I will comb through the N&R for stories that would be libelous under your standards and ask you to defend them. In the end, your defense will agree with my conclusion that every case is different based on the facts. Otherwise, you all would have a hard time writing about a number of stories- such as hate crimes or tenants opinions of Bill Agapion- without being subject to libel under the standards you have set forth.

"but he would have committed malpractice if he had given that advice to John Robinson." Now that could be libelous...

[percywalker]

Sue me.

[Joe Killian]

Saying that someone says something about someone and then saying that there are no facts to back that up -- that doesn't fly. My editor certainly wouldn't let me get away with it and he shouldn't. It's not, as you stated, merely the statement of fact. It's the statement of unfounded rumor - even if you then state that you can't back up the statement.

I can hear my editor's voice right now. The voice of every good editor I've ever had: "So...why are we repeating it, if it isn't true? That's what we call libel."

[The CA]

You guys are missing the point entirely- you must have an original defamatory statement in the first place. If the RMA report is not defamatory, then publishing it cannot be defamatory.

As you should know from Renwick v. News & Observer, libel per se can only occur under these circumtances when the alleged libelous statement is defamatory even when placed in context:

"In determining whether publications are susceptible of only one meaning, and that a defamatory meaning, so as to be libelous per se:

The principle of common sense requires that courts shall understand them as other people would. The question always is how would ordinary men naturally understand the publication...

In determining whether the article is libelous per se the article alone must be construed, stripped of all insinuations, innuendo, colloquium and explanatory circumstances. The article must be defamatory on its face "within the four corners thereof."

Tell me, how would you report on a defamation suit between party A and party B without mentioning the defamatory statement?

You are dumbing down the legal complexities of the facts in this case in favor of simplistic bright line rules when these matters are in reality, fact driven.

If your risk management people told you not to risk it, fine. That doesn't mean you cannot win- you simply chose not to take the risk of losing IF a suit was even filed. That is a perfectly acceptable legal strategy and good advice if that is your main concern. I am simply offering the counter to that which is I don't think a Plaintiff could prevail on the facts before us.

[The CA]

"Saying that someone says something about someone and then saying that there are no facts to back that up -- that doesn't fly." It would fly if you were explaining why Joe punched Jimmy in the face wouldn't it?

E.g, "Police responded to an assault last night at 11:30 pm. When they arrived, suspect Jimmy had a bloody nose. When asked what happened, Jimmy said that he accused Joe of doing a "poor job" painting his house and stealing from him. Joe got angry at the accusation and punched Jimmy in the face."

Is that libel against Joe if the newspaper runs the story? Is the newspaper prohibited from printing the reason why Jimmy hit Joe? Is that not protected speech?

[Bubba]

"You are dumbing down the legal complexities of the facts in this case in favor of simplistic bright line rules when these matters are in reality, fact driven."

"Dumbing down" being the key words.

They're trying to defend the defenseless.

Isn't it ironic how fast they're pedaling on this issue about the RMA report, considering it's initial usage was clearly intended to slime Wray, based on the report's "findings"?

[Joe Killian]

I don't really have time to turn this into a journalism 101 class, but it wouldn't be reported that way.

There are rules about newswriting that seem arbitrary to people who haven't done it but are designed so that you make proper attributions, don't report things that can't be documented or substantiated and don't make statements that aren't attributable. I spent a few years on a college paper trying to get writers I edited to understand those rules.

But I think this is all a little off-topic. The editors at my paper made the decision not to print the RMA report based on a number of legal and ethical decisions that can't and shouldn't be boiled down to "well, we could probably get away with it."

I wasn't in on that discussion and there's no reason I should have been -- but I trust the people who were in on it and they all gave it the thought it deserves.

[Ed Cone]

There is a side discussion of possible legal issues around the publication of the report, but I haven't seen any credible debunking of the report itself, or any serious arguments that it does not make Wray look bad on several fronts.

As discussed, a lot of folks look bad in this situation. But so far, the RMA report seems to lend support to the City's case.

[percywalker]

This is pretty simple. If the RMA report contains defamatory language concerning an individual that is false and I then publish it -- even if I say I don't believe anything in the report -- I would be liable for defamation (assuming the individual's reputation has been damaged).

This post was about N&R publishing the report. John Robinson says he was concerned about libel in publishing the report, which I took to mean that either he knew some of the language in the report to be defamatory and false or that he did not know one way or the other and didn't want to hurt someone's reputation without knowing.

In his 7:38 posting last night, CA compared posting the report to an officer testifying about an investigation. Wrong comparison. Statement in a judicial proceeding enjoy an absolute privilege.

In his 7:38 post, CA said that that for there to be libel there needs to be a false statement made WITH MALICE. Wrong to the extent the plainitff is not a public figure or public official.

In his 9:06 post, CA said, "But in this case, the defamation, if any, would be in the RMA report- not in its disclosure." Wrong to the extent this is suggesting that publishing a defamatory report isn't actionable. Each repetition of a defamatory statement is a separate publication for which a plaintiff may recover damages.

Everyone understands, CA, that if the RMA isn't defamatory and false, then one can't be liable for libel by publishing it. People are concerned that it is indeed defamatory and false, which is why they don't want to publish it.

[Bubba]

"....which I took to mean that either he knew some of the language in the report to be defamatory and false or that he did not know one way or the other and didn't want to hurt someone's reputation without knowing."

That didn't seem to stop him from using portions of the report earlier to publish articles that could be seen to be defamatory to Wray.

Do you think it was his belief that those possible defamatory things from the report about Wray that he chose to publish were true?

[Ed Cone]

Some people may be hesitating not because of fears about defamation or falsehood, or not only because of that, but because of concerns expressed by City officials that names and other information should not be made public at this time.

[The CA]

"Wrong to the extent the plainitff is not a public figure or public official."

-We don't know who the Plaintiff is, so this is a relative statement, but otherwise true.

"Wrong to the extent this is suggesting that publishing a defamatory report isn't actionable. Each repetition of a defamatory statement is a separate publication for which a plaintiff may recover damages."

-This is true only if the RMA report contains defamatory information. I also never made this claim as you state it, but upon re-reading my statement, realize it was not very clear. Also qualified by the holding in Renwick v. News & Observer, which traces its roots back to 1938 case law. Context is important in every defamation case.

Ed says:

"Some people may be hesitating not because of fears about defamation or falsehood, or not only because of that, but because of concerns expressed by City officials that names and other information should not be made public at this time."

-This might also go a long way towards explaining why Wray was concerned about the effect his investigation might have on the federal investigation even if Hinson wasn't a target, and why he said that it was related to a mult-agency investigation that he did not want to compromise. Not the lie that it is being portrayed as in the RMA report and by Johnson and others. It's actually the opposite.

[The CA]

"People are concerned that it is indeed defamatory and false, which is why they don't want to publish it."

- The question is who are they concerned that it may be defamatory towards? Is the report itself defamatory and false, or does it merely contain information that may be defamatory and false? This is like the hearsay within hearsay rule- it all depends on what level you are dealing with.

This is a key question because if you allege the report contains falsehoods, then it undermines the credibility of the report- if you allege that the report merely refers to factual assertions stated by others that are known to be false in order to provide context, that is a different animal. It is not that different from a newspaper in that regard.

[Joe Killian]

I think a lot of people engaged in this conversation need to go back and read what the N&R has actually written, when they wrote it and how it was written.

Links at JR's blog today.

I'm hearing a lot of loose talk from people about what was reported and how it was reported, what info from the RMA was reported on and what wasn't, and I'm becoming convinced that not as many people read the actual reporting as are discussing it.

[Bubba]

I will ask the same question here that I asked at JR's: Where are the links to N&R's coverage of the information revealed in the Bledsoe commentaries?

[PotatoStew]

Perhaps the same place as the Rhino Times' links to the N&R coverage?

[Joe Killian]

That's really more a question for JR - but it seems to me having your reporters report on/repeat infromation a reporter for another paper got through confidential sources that can't be identified and sources who won't speak to your reporters isn't terribly smart.

The N&R has reported on the city reacting to the Rhino Times information. They've reported on Rhino Times employees when they've been news. But the N&R's own reporters have been covering this story daily for more than a year - what good would it do them (or anyone else, as anyone can read the Rhino for free) to publish Monarch Notes versions of Bledsoe's stuff?

[Bubba]

In other words, the N&R doesn't want to ask questions about incidents and issues brought up in the Bledsoe articles, but it was OK to ask questions and write about the info about information in the PMA report.

I can't remember-- did any editorials appear raising questions and offering opinions about the info in the Bledsoe articles?

Has the N&R offered an opinion regarding WHY the RMA report was leaked on several different occasions?

Or has the paper just been too busy trying to find a way out of the corner they painted themselves into?

[Joe Killian]

Actually, that's not even close to what I was trying to say.

But thanks for playing.

I'm not sure what sort of corner you think the paper has painted itself into. Have you been following the daily coverage?

[Bubba]

It doesn't matter, Joe. You keep on believing what you want to believe.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

The "corner" is the original leak to the N&R, aka, "the source".

[Joe Killian]

The N&R isn't disclosing their source on the RMA report or releasing the whole thing (which is sort of academic now that it can be had by anyone, anywhere with an Internet connection). The same can be said of every other professional news outlet in the Triad from television stations to Yes Weekly and the Rhino Times. The same can be said of all but one of the bloggers who are in possession of the report. This isn't a decision anyone's trapped into so much as a decision they've made given the circumstances - and everyone seems fine with it.

The N&R has reported extensively on the case, the RMA report and reaction to it. They've done it daily for more than a year utilizing every source who would work with them. They've covered it being made available on the Internet.

I guess I don't see the corner.

Does it surprise me that Beldsoe's version is longer, more in-depth? No. He's not a reporter and doesn't have the demands of a daily deadline and a beat. His editor (to the degree he has one) seems to have given him free reign and is willing to publish his every finding in a long series of long narrative pieces. Sources that have chosen not to speak on the record to any professional news outlet anywhere have chosen to work with him (not least, it would seem, because he's spent whole stories' worth of space painting a sympathetic portrait rather than writing a daily news story). That said, I don't think Bledsoe's reporting or writing has been bad. It's just not the reporting the N&R did as a daily newspaper in the same way that a magazine piece is different than a daily newspaper's (and a few other ways, perhaps). The N&R isn't ignoring the Bledsoe series and has written about reaction to it. But the idea that they should essentially be writing summaries of his work in the daily paper while producing their own daily pieces is preposterous.

But maybe I'm missing what the suggestion of the corner actually is...

[The CA]

Joe, I think the point is that Bledsoe has exposed a whole other side of the story that the N&R does not appear interested in reporting. Echoes of Ethan Feinsilver...

[Joe Killian]

I'm not reporting this story - but I can tell you this:

Daily reporters report what can be gotten daily. If a source (or number of sources) is willing to talk to a competing journalist or outlet, obtain infromation and documents for them, etc. because they believe the product will be more sympathetic to them and their view, there's really nothing you can do about that.

If Eric Townshend and Lorraine Ahearn were willing (and able) to wipe everything else off of their schedule for this long and concentrate only on this story, agree to write the sort of story that would secure them access, then they would have produced a series like this. They didn't. They're daily reporters without that time, those resources and conditions.

But I certainly can't look at the daily coverage of this story with that in mind and come to the conclusion that the N&R willfully ignored a large part of the story or were asleep at the wheel.

And how you connect this to Ethan Feinsilver is beyond me...

[The CA]

"And how you connect this to Ethan Feinsilver is beyond me..."

Let's see:

1) N&R reports highly racially charged story
2) People who are actual witnesses aren't interviewed, and deny the main allegations of the N&R report.
3) N&R is wrong about some key factors, but does not report on the other side of the story.
4) Jerry Bledsoe investigates the N&R story and reveals numerous facts that directly contradict the N&R story.
5) The N&R continues to refuse to acknowledge that parts of their story may not be correct or at the very least investigate the allegations that contradict their version of events (Feinsilver wasn't even in class when the alleged inflammatory statement was made and ALL of the other students who were there denied the statement was even made).

So we have race, the N&R, a lot of disputed facts, and Bledsoe. How you cannot see the similarities is beyond me.

[Joe Killian]

How you get that narrative through reading the actual N&R coverage is what's puzzling to me. If I thought that was a proper narrative I might see your point.

I don't even think Jerry Bledsoe (who I respect as a writer and reporter and who I'd ask to sign my copy of Bitter Blood, should we ever meet) would say that's what's happened here.

[Dr. Mary Johnson]

I'm glad somebody else brought up Fiensilver. I am very grateful now, I did not cave to the "invitation" and "converge" with the pack.

If David Wray did not have a copy of the report when the N&R was ripping him to shreds (and if memory serves, that was the case), I'm not sure how anyone would expect him to comment on "the allegations".

[Ed Cone]

What does any of this have to do with ConvergeSouth?

Hint: nothing.

It was a really nice day, open to all. No need to trash the work of volunteers, and an experience enjoyed by 260 people of diverse backgrounds and interests.

[PotatoStew]

"I am very grateful now, I did not cave to the "invitation" and "converge" with the pack."

If ConvergeSouth had been cancelled for some reason, we would still be in exactly the same situation. It may have taken an extra day or two to get to this point, but the RMA report was "spreading" even before this past weekend. Ben Holder, WFMY, Yes Weekly and the Peacemaker all obtained copies in the week before the conference. It may make you feel above the fray to keep making comments about "converging" but it really has little to do with the actual issues at hand.

[The CA]

Maybe Jerry will chime in. I suspect he would agree with the similarities. He might even sign a copy of "Death by Journalism" for you, Joe.

"Joe Williams, Hinson's lawyer, soon alleged the unit was targeting black officers for unfair discipline. Hinson has referred questions to Williams." N&R Jan 10, 2006. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

"On Tuesday, Johnson said Wray tried to cover up the actions of Special Intelligence, which included hiding a “black book” with the pictures of 19 African American police officers and targeting of black officers for internal investigations." N&R Jan 13, 2006. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

"The Hinson story opened a Pandora's box of racial allegations against the white chief's administration, and led to the discovery of a "black book" of photos some say was used to target black officers when it was shown to criminal defendants. To some officers and community members, the book implies racial profiling of police themselves." N&R Feb. 5, 2006. Note the use of strawmen and anonymous sources for the racial claims. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

"Although Wray's memo seeks to justify at length not only the use of a photo array but also the three-year inquiry and suspension of Hinson, city officials said last week that the allegations of corruption on the part of black police officers had so far proven all smoke but no fire." N&R Feb. 5, 2006. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

"Of Wray's memo, delivered in sealed envelopes to the council following Wray's last news conference Jan. 18, Council member Sandy Carmany said in a telephone interview last week:

"It was misleading, cherry-picked, rearranged. It was so divergent, or didn't jibe, with the information I had seen in (the city-commissioned) RMA report."

Agreed fellow Council member Tom Phillips: "I was just amazed, let me say. His (Wray's) interpretation of things seemed totally different from what I had already seen." N&R Feb 5, 2006. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

"Former Chief Wray's response to a city report -- which has not been released to the public -- had to be double checked with the public record. He had a lot of opinion in it and many references to other people, people we couldn't reach. Just quoting the former chief wasn't enough in some cases. We get the "everyone knows" argument for a story often. But unless we can get independent confirmation, then it doesn't do us much good. Everyone knows is often based on rumor and third-hand information that we often cannot trace back to its source."

N&R Editor John Robinson, Feb 12, 2006. Did he ever follow up on those references since then? Did he hold the RMA report to the same standard of verification? What about the "opinion" in the RMA- there is plenty of it. In fact the whole thing is supposed to be an opinion.

"Our story started this way: "Former police Chief David Wray 'crippled' his department with harsher discipline for black officers and threats to commanders who questioned his decisions, according to a confidential report obtained by the News & Record." John Robinson, quoting the N&R, April 2, 2006. Any investigation by the N&R to find out if that's true? No, they simply quote the report and leave it at that. So what impression would the public be left with if not for Bledsoe's story giving another side of the story?

I could go on, but I will spare the readers. The bottom line is that the N&R has done a fine job of reporting allegations against Wray, and shown very little effort towards investigating whether the allegations or true or even have an alternative explanation beyond Wray's statement in February. As a result, those allegations were allowed to linger for a long time until Bledsoe's expose- and the N&R still doesn't seem interested in even reporting on that. Same thing happened with Feinsilver.

[Ed Cone]

But...the RMA report is a third-party investigation, and it appears to confirm some of the statements above.

Furthermore, Jerry's reporting does not refute those same statements, eg, that black officers felt they were being singled out for discipline, or other allegations, eg, that the special investigations unit was used improperly.

The considered opinions of Tom Phillips and Sandy Carmany mean a lot to me on this matter. So does the investigative report.

And so does Bledsoe's reporting. So far, though, it shows a messed up police dept., and possible context for some of Wray's alleged mistakes, but I have not seen anything (yet) that argues against the RMA report and the judgment of tough, generally conservative Councilmembers.

I came into this story without a dog in the fight, but it looks to me that one dog is getting bit up pretty good.

[Joe Killian]

Did you actually read "Death By Journalism?"

I did. And I've worked with people who were here then, who knew the characters.

If you're likening Eric Townshend and Lorraine Ahearn to someone you believe fabricated facts, deliberately misquoted and misattributed, hid the truth in order to create a false story I certainly hope you know something the rest of us don't. There are few charges more serious than that in this profession and you, outside of both the reporting and the investigation and with no more information that you read in the papers, are making that accusation.

Do I think there are things in Bledsoe's reporting that weren't in theirs? Yes. This shouldn't surprise anyone. He also had access to people who wouldn't talk to or aid anyone doing a straight daily news story. If you don't have that access, you can't tell that story. If people won't provide you that access if you're doing a straight daily news story they can hardly be said to be victims of some grand media conspiracy to cover up their side of the story.

It's one of the ugly truths of reporting for both reporters and the subjects of news stories: if you don't provide information and comment, your side isn't told.

If I were David Wray I might have done the same thing. Why would anyone choose to speak to a daily news reporter, aiding in the complex unrolling of what appears to be on all sides a very ugly story when he could stonewall every media outlet who tries to tell the story and instead contribute everything he knows to a long-form, sympathetic telling of the tale by a famous reporter and terrific writer with an axe to grind against the local daily?

I'm not saying it's a bad strategy - I'm just saying the N&R's reporters seem to have done what they could with what they had within the conventions of their profession, making the concessions they were willing to make with the access and information they had. I've enjoyed Bledsoe's series. But I've never said to myself: "Wow...how did Eric and Lorraine miss that? Why didn't we print that first? Wow - we've got to get that into print tomorrow!"

I've never said those things because it wouldn't have been possible, under the best of circumstances, for the N&R's reporters to get most of this. The only people talking about and/or substantiating it weren't talking to any media.

I don't know if Bledsoe would agree with everything (or anything) I've said - but I think he would have to, as a reporter, agree that your reading of what's happened here is reductionist and betrays very little understanding of how reporters write and report the news and why.

None of this - or the continuing conversation about it - dulls my admiration for Bledsoe's writing, reporting or career.