news-record.com

Last month, we asked you to send us your thoughts of what America means to you. And we asked you to do it in four words.

I'm sorry Greensboro College has responded the way it has to our story about their current financial state, but I'm not surprised. Stories like this tend to follow a certain arc: story about institution published -->supporters of institution cite unfair treatment. More stories follow.

Our story on Sunday was not our first concerning Greensboro College, but it was the most indepth. It is worth noting that it does not address the caliber of education that students receive or the dedication of the staff. Nor was it a personal attack on the president, Craven Williams.

Although two college officials, in their letter to the editor, cite numerous inaccuracies and out-of-context quotes, I'm not aware that any Greensboro College official has notified us to alert us to errors in the story. The one error they note in the letter was corrected when the source told us that they had given us bad information. The letter writers also cite no specific quotes that were out of context.

If we got fact wrongs, we'd like to know it so they can be corrected. I don't believe we have. And the crux of the story -- that GC is facing tough times, holding creditors at bay and dealing with an angry faculty -- isn't in question. 

Greensboro College has a rich history -- 160+ years -- and is as much a community institution and landmark as any. It must survive. (Full disclosure: I took a class at GC and am a proud graduate of an institution that has similar financial woes.) There are many reasons that virtually every institution and business are suffering financial problems. Some are in worse shape than others. The important thing is how they're addressing it.

A woman called on Monday to say we had too much Michael Jackson in the paper.

I protested: "But he was only on the front page once."

She said: "See what I'm saying?"

I fear we disappointed her again this morning. Even though the first news article on the aftermath of Jackson's death appears on page A9, we have included an outstanding standalone poster of the pop star in the morning paper.

I have made my personal feelings known about the media overdrive on Jackson's death and its aftermath. Still, the poster will please many of his fans, we hope. And, of course, we hope they buy extra copies! (If you really like it, you can also buy it as a plaque.)

Update: Just in case you were wondering where the public at large comes down on MJ coverage: The public closely tracked the sudden death of pop superstar Michael Jackson last week, though nearly two-in-three Americans say news organizations gave too much coverage to the story. That's according to the Pew Research Center.  See how hard it is to figure out what y'all want?

You know I am a fan of Twitter. It allows us to extend and improve the journalism we do and is another good way to talk with people.

I have one more reason: My daughter is making a living at it.  From KDAF in Dallas.

Sue Polinsky wrote a blog post that turned into a newspaper story which turned into another blog post. (Glad to help, Sue!) She passed along a question from a friend who wondered why we don't use courtesy titles -- Mr. or Mrs. or Ms. -- before people's last names.

The New York Times does -- almost alone among daily newspapers, I think -- and, Sue says, it adds a bit of class.

Ever since I've been in the business newspapers haven't used courtesy titles for men. My guess is that it had to do with saving space, but I don't know. The Associated Press, which publishes the stylebook that we and most newspapers use, didn't drop the use of courtesy titles for women until 2000. For most writers it was a relief -- no longer did you have to ask a woman if she preferred Mrs., Ms. or Miss.

Ms. Polinsky -- while I know she's married, I didn't ask her which title she prefers so I'm guessing here -- is right that it adds class, even to newsmakers who may not deserve it. But it's an informal time and getting more informal by the moment, judging by the e-mails I get from people I've don't know attempting to sell me something.

What do you think? Use them or not?

Here's a little history. And John McIntyre's thinking.

Some readers criticized us for inserting race into this story about the makeup of the city's boards and commissions and for NOT including race in this one about violent crime.

One commenter on the city boards story wrote: Interesting that you are broke out participants by race & sex for this article but did not do the same for today's article titled "String of Shootings Keeps Police Busy"

Another wrote: Another biased article by Amanda solely for the purpose of stirring the pot! Why can't the N&R get off the race-card wagon and report on things that are worthwhile.

Yet another wrote to me: I say with certainty that the racial make-up of the shootings in Greensboro since June 1st aren't representative of the community.  How about it Mr. Robinson, does the News and Record have the fortitude to do a real "shooting / homicide" story covering the past 5 or 10 years?  I doubt it.  I can assure you the diversity breakdown isn't representative of the community. 

We know that whenever race is brought into the discussion, it incites some people. Here's the deal from our end.

The city's boards story isn't about race so much as it is about the influence or the real estate industry on city boards. The use of the word "diversity" in the story headline apparently threw some people off. But diversity means more than race. In this case, it means the professions of the appointees and the interests they are representing when they speak for citizens. It is out of whack. The percentages on race and gender were added to give perspective to the discussion but it is a minor topic in the overall story. In fact, the racial breakdown is not terribly out of whack with the overall population.  

I admit that I'm over Michael Jackson. Already.

I switch the station when the tributes come on, and that means a lot of switching. My habit of watching the morning news programs has been momentarily adjusted. It's SportsCenter for the next several days.

Maybe it is because I'm in the news business and process stories like this quickly because I'm immersed in them. Maybe it is because he was years away from the music that made him popular. Maybe it's the shortened attention span that you read about. But I'm done with the stories about his greatness, his impact and how he lived and died. 

I don't think I'm alone, either. I think this is an example of one of the great disconnects between national television and the rest of us. They obsess over stories long past the time in which the bulk of their audience is interested. 

We are guilty of this, too. Whenever we track a story over a period of time, I hear from people who tell us to move on. We're getting it now with the stories about high school recruiting and the Northern Loop. While I don't think those stories are over -- things are still happening and decisions are being made -- some people are over them. So, I'm sensitive to the issue of timing. 

Don't get me wrong. We'll still track the Jackson news. I know that some of our readers are intensely interested in it. We're even preparing a poster page. But we're not going all Michael, all the time. I haven't heard that our readers want us to. Besides, instead of covering the Jackson story, we can write about the second swine flu death and the worsening unemployment rate, neither of which will make national news and both of which have great impact locally.

Update: This cartoon presents a fun perspective if you appreciate sardonic humor.

Ben Feller, a former N&R reporter, who now covers the Obama administration, made some news himself yesterday.

He dunked press secretary Robert Gibbs in the dunking booth.

It's about 30 seconds in.

Transparency: The full, accurate, and timely disclosure of information.

Transparency was a topic at the the forum on Local Government Leadership Wednesday night.

The county manager in Mecklenburg County, Harry Jones, said: We try to create that transparency by saying to our staff to make sure that they not give anything that gives any impression that you are trying to hide.

Putting an even sharper point on it, Jones said he tells his staff to avoid the impression that "you are trying to hide the public’s business from the people."

I admit that I was hoping against hope that he might have been listening to learn from the panel.

The state public records law doesn't say anything about calling an elected official before releasing public information. It does say "The public records and public information compiled by agencies of North Carolina government or its subdivisions are the property of the people. Therefore, it is the policy of this State that the people may obtain copies of their public records and public information free or at minimal cost unless otherwise specifically provided by law."

It's a whole other issue whether county employees are considered "my staff," as Alston puts it.

Gerald Witt has more analysis at Inside Scoop.

Reader Bob asked me this question: "If you were the The State, would you have any qualms about publishing the e-mail love letters?"

I said no. Given a story with this sort of heat and accompanying reader -- no, citizen -- interest, how could a newspaper not publish them? Bob took the position that the e-mails show a man in love, but not much else. The governor "disappeared, reappeared and admitted why is the news to me -- not the love ltrs." The rest is tabloid stuff.

I hear that, but think the reader interest is too high to withhold information that, while sensational, is relevant to a continuing story involving a sitting governor. And, the language involved was hardly offensive. (That said, editors here snipped a line or two from one of the e-mails out of concern that his references were too explicit. I don't think the snips were necessary, but I wasn't here to make that call.)

What do you think? Would you have published them? Any difference in publishing them in the paper and publishing them online?

Update: Great responses on Twitter. Most of them taking Bob's position that they are personal and private and not particularly relevant to the story.

sonyajk: Not sure I would've. I felt like I was invading his privacy by reading them, and it didn't add anything necessary to the story. Don't you wonder about the ethics of publishing them, given that you're probably playing into someone's vendetta?

JeffHarbert: Absolutely not. 'Public' mails or not, it's an entirely private matter.

dankennedy_nu: Since Sanford was using his personal e-mail account, I wouldn't have published his love letters. But I enjoyed reading them!  The e-mails are relevant, but not that relevant. It's his public acknowledgment that is news.

jiconoclast: I'm not sure how I feel about publishing someone's personal e-mails. Something unethical about that. Work e-mail is diff.

greglinch: In Sanford case, I say: Public figure + newsworthy = run them.