The curtain pulled aside
Apparently, my comments to WUNC-FM about the News & Observer’s lackadaisical standing as a local Web presence touched a nerve. I’m told that editor John Drescher, in a meeting with the news staff Wednesday, paraphrased one of my comments this way (or close to it; I don’t have his exact wording): “All the good people have left the N&O.”
I sent Drescher an email message asking him for his precise words, but never heard back from him. For the record, I didn’t say that, nor anything close to it. The topic being discussed was how the Web has affected the way journalists approach their stories, and my exact comment was this:
“They’re caught up in the speed and the immediacy, and what’s being sacrificed is that overarching narrative that comes along with any story, with any article. And sadly, a lot of people who are good at that are no longer in the newspaper business. And, you know, this is going to sound immodest here, but I’m one of them.”
It’s right there on the WUNC website, John. It’s fine to make locker-room exhortations to your embattled troops. But isn’t accuracy, like, kinda important in your business?
* * *
Staying with the topic: It’s common for a top editor at the N&O to send out an inter-office note most days celebrating the high points of that morning’s paper (as well as occasionally pointing out a lapse). Among the staff, those notes prompt a daily exercise in something very close to Kremlinology, as they are pondered and studied for clues as to which way the management wind blows. Below is the note that was distributed to the staff yesterday, reprinted here as I received it. I will make no comment, lest I sway your judgment on what it reveals about the people who oversee the most influential newspaper in the state. But feel free to share your thoughts.
A few comments on some good work in today’s paper:
–A lively front page that gave our readers plenty to talk about.
Has the political right truly turned the corner and will cease to demonize opponents on so-called moral issues, or are we witnessing the boldest, most cynical, most hypocritical political spin in modern history? What is one to make of John McCain’s greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America’s most famous baby mama with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described “f***ing redneck” baby daddy? Are we now celebrating teenagers’ raging hormones?
The claims department feature (see 8a) is a great reader service. I would like to see more scrutiny of the “facts” in Sarah Palin’s speech last night.Now to our local politicians….Is Kenn Gardner just an inept liar or a man so greedy that he doesn’t care whether we think he’s an inept liar as long as he gets paid?
–A newsy and entertaining Triangle&Co. front.
I’d bet that Barry Saunders is hearing a lot of amens this morning as well as feeling a lot of hate. Good. A columnist should stir ‘em up. Much of America may have forgotten, but the black community has a very long memory of Republicans demonizing black unwed moms. The black wire–radio and a growing black blogesphere–is crackling this morning with wicked “Juno” jokes. In general, black bloggers (wearerespectablenegroes.blogspot.com. A warning to the easily offended, the name is a big clue) are having a great time with the GOP show in Minneapolis.–Lots of interesting people stories in the sports section about college athletes and the pros. For those following tennis’ sibling rivalry, Serena has gained a slight lead by beating older sister Venus in the U.S. Open quarterfinals.
–Good, timely story–and an inviting headline (Life over breasts)– on the Life, etc. cover.
Actually, I will make one comment: The “respectable negroes” blog is pretty damn funny.
September 5th, 2008 at 9:28 am
Are the editors at the N&O as overtly partisan as they appear to be in their memo’s…what a haughty, self-righteous tone in this one that barely conceals the disdain for Republicans. They never taught it this way when I went to journalism school - the same one where Gearino matriculated.
I hate to say it, but if this is the climate of the newsroom on McDowell Street, I’m kinda glad to watch them slowly whither on the vine.
September 5th, 2008 at 11:28 am
Can there be any possible way that that memo is real? “Facts”? The RIGHT as a chief demonizer? C’mon — somebody made this up, no?
September 5th, 2008 at 1:42 pm
First time blog visitor…always enjoyed your work at The N&O and don’t at all want to come across as skeptical…but are you SERIOUS that N&O editorial mgt would send something so blatantly partisan to staff? Am I so naive that I can’t believe this is possible? If true, this is disgraceful and all the cuts going on in the newspaper industry are like karmic justice.
When N&O leaders carry water for MoveOn.org and DailyKos I do not need to pay for a newspaper. I can visit the hate-filled left wing blogosphere for “news”. Is Orage Quarles sitting by abiding by this hateful, snide and condescending attitude?
September 5th, 2008 at 8:59 pm
It occurs to me that there may have been more competition for the title of “America’s most famous baby mama” and the “f***ing redneck” baby daddy if this particular N&O editor and his associates had elected to actually cover the recent story of the former NC Senator and Presidential candidate and his baby mama which was happening right in their hometown.
Maybe a relative analysis of the maturity level of Rielle Hunter and hometown boy John Edwards would have been interesting as well. (Gee, if only John and Rielle had had access to comprehensive sex education.)
But no, that wouldn’t provide the opportunity to show your moral superiority in mocking 17 and 18 year old teenagers to advance your particular political beliefs.
You stay classy N&O.
September 6th, 2008 at 7:28 pm
Your self-righteous braying to advance your particular political beliefs is really hypocritical. Get classy Doug.
September 7th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Good. At least you know how to use the phrase “self-righteous braying to advance your particular political beliefs”.
One step away from possibly bringing yourself to applying it to the R&O editor who sent out the email in question. We are making solid progress here.
September 7th, 2008 at 11:08 pm
Doug, when you realize that you were doing the same thing as that N&O editor, you will be making solid progress yourself.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:11 am
Getting you to admit this editor was out of bounds in his cheapshot on two teenagers was worth the risk I took in my insensitivity towards the 55 year old former Senator and Presidential candidate. Thanks.
September 8th, 2008 at 8:05 am
Doug, I’m flattered my opinion is that important to you, but you don’t have make an ass of yourself to get it. I never said this editor took a cheapshot at two teenagers or that you were insensitive. I said both of you were self-righteously braying.
September 8th, 2008 at 10:00 am
I’m not seeing any hypocrisy or braying in Doug’s posts. This editor’s e-mail reveals what many N&O and general media critics say; that they are nothing more than left wing mudslingers. When an editor of the paper is comfortable enough sending a condescending, clearly slanted viewpoint to the organization, it is not a difficult leap to suspect that same slant and attitude will influence the content of the paper.
And to Lippzee’s second posting “when you realize that you were doing the same thing as that N&O editor, you will be making solid progress yourself”, is it fair to say you acknowledge the inappropriateness of the N&O editor’s note? Doug is some guy on the internet, presumably not influencing the content of a major media outlet. Big difference. The N&O is supposed to be a balanced news outlet, but as this blog entry states, the curtain has been pulled aside. Self-righteous braying does not equal journalism, and that is the problem.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:13 am
GF, whether Doug is some guy on the internet or a major media outlet, he is being hypocritical when he practices what he’s preaching against. That you think one editor’s inappropriate e-mail “reveals … that ‘they’ are nothing more than left wing mudslingers,” is probably why you don’t see any hypocrisy or braying in Doug’s posts.
September 8th, 2008 at 12:33 pm
I’m in general agreement with GF @ 10:00 AM on this:
“This editor’s e-mail reveals what many N&O and general media critics say; that they are nothing more than left wing mudslingers. When an editor of the paper is comfortable enough sending a condescending, clearly slanted viewpoint to the organization, it is not a difficult leap to suspect that same slant and attitude will influence the content of the paper.”
Sure, there are no doubt N&O reporters and editors who do their best to steer clear of “left wing mudsling[ing],” but an executive editor sets the tone for a newsroom.
Drescher’s email reads like something MoveOn.org would circulate as the day’s talking points; and I think it’s fair to say most people at the N&O will want to go with the bosses “talking points.”
Drescher asks rhetorically: “What is one to make of John McCain’s greeting at the Twin Cities airport yesterday of America’s most famous baby mama with a warm hug, and the apparent attaboy pat on the shoulder for the self-described “f***ing redneck” baby daddy? Are we now celebrating teenagers’ raging hormones?”
I would ask Drescher and other journalists: “What is one to make of the N&O’s decision to withhold from its Mar. 25, 2006 front page story it said, with no suggestion of doubt, was about a woman’s “ordeal” which ended “in sexual violence” the news it had of the Duke lacrosse players extensive cooperation with police and instead promulgate what it knew was the “wall of solidarity” lie which almost immediately morphed into the “wall of silence” lie?
What is one to make of Ruth Sheehan’s Mar. 27, 2006 “Team’s silence is sickening” McCarthyite screed hyping the “wall of silence” lie? [Disclosure: Some months later Sheehan apologized to the players for the column. In “It’s Not About the Truth,” pub. in Apr. 2007 she’s quoted extensively explaining how Mike Nifong served as the anonymous source for her Mar. 27 column with the N&O newsroom having passed on to her from Nifong the false information on which she based her column. No one at the N&O has denied what Sheehan’s quoted as saying. Publisher Orage Quarles emailed me saying only that the N&O doesn’t talk about it anonymous sources.]
I thank G. D. Gearino for putting Drescher’s disturbing email out there.
I wish Drescher would come on the thread, explain it and answer questions.
Thank you.
John in Carolina
September 8th, 2008 at 1:14 pm
Thank you for providing good examples of what I was trying to state in my notes, John. I never bought in to any anti-N&O talk before this but now have to look at previous and future stories with a skeptical eye. I.e., what is the reporter’s agenda here? Is this story part of a larger angle by the N&O? (Many critics have complained that the N&O is sympathetic, or at least weak, on the issue of illegal immigration, for example.)
I really enjoy John Drescher’s Sunday column - I believe he is so much better than the previous editor and I’ll just leave it at that. However, if this sort of mentality is fostered at the N&O - and the tone of this note removes any question - there’s not much defense of the N&O as a legitimate, balanced news outlet.
Lipp, I’d only reiterate if an upper level editorial manager is sending out e-mails like this, it just shows that the environment at the N&O must be such that he or she felt perfectly comfortable saying garbage like this. You can’t read the note without knowing this person is very anti-GOP/McCain. If that is a personal feeling, fine. To inject individual politics into a media outlet removes all credibility from said outlet. I would love to see the note that went out after Obama’s speech at the DNC. Something tells me the tone was far less snide and negative.
Again, when the boss talks, that generally represents the overall mindset and you cannot compare common folks like us on a blog from an upper level editorial manager at a major newspaper’s e-mail to his/her staff (underlings).
Finally, I would guess Drescher did not send out the note that started all this. I hope that this will come out.
September 8th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
This was not written by Drescher, I assure you. It was one of the deputy managing editors.
I can remember a time when a top editor actually sent out emails reminding us that NOT cheering or jeering in the press box applied to elections as well as sports games. Where is that sentiment now? I’d like to know.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:15 pm
GF, if you had mentioned “there are no doubt N&O reporters and editors who do their best to steer clear of “left wing mudsling[ing],” instead of writing “they are nothing more than left wing mud slingers,” you would have stated what you were trying to state in your notes. Of course I can compare common folks like us to an upper level editorial manager — I did. Everybody is accountable for what they post.
Good post, John in Carolina. Gearino is a great old school journalist. I hope John Drescher does come on this thread and explain that e-mail.
September 8th, 2008 at 2:53 pm
You make a good point, Lippz - I’m sure there are hard working reporters who are nothing but fair and objective in their work. But this e-mail’s tone reveals thinking in the upper ranks of N&O management that is very partisan. Not at all fair or objective. And all legitimate N&O reporters may now get painted with the negativity that comes out of all this. Readers may view a Joe or Jane Reporter article with suspicion if they believe the “higher ups” at the N&O have an agenda. So “they are nothing more than left wing mud slingers” paints good reporters unfairly, but that is the N&O’s fault, in my humble opinion.
And while you can compare “us folks” here on this blog to N&O management, unless you, John or myself are in a similar role as the author of the internal e-mail, the truth is we are very different. We do not oversee, manage or otherwise control the content in the N&O or any other media outlet. They do. And we know they are injecting personal political viewpoints into their communications to their staff, a staff that includes those hardworking fair reporters and editors. You think that doesn’t have an effect on them? Suppose one of our fair reporters has a great story idea or tip pertaining to John McCain that paints him in a positive light. I’d wager that reporter will pursue such a story less eagerly than if a similar opportunity to write about Barack Obama presents itself. And vice versa, will a potentially negative story be pursued with greater vigor when the antagonist is of a certain political party? It’s at least a fair question and for the N&O, that is not good. Ergo, Houston we have a problem.
Regardless of how or if we differ on some things, we agree that John Drescher needs to shed some light on all this. We also agree that Mr. Gearino is the type of journalist we admire. Thanks for your responses.
September 8th, 2008 at 5:31 pm
GF, it’s not the N&O’s fault that you painted good reporters unfairly. Even if you are just one of “us folks” posting on a blog, you are responsible for what you write.
September 8th, 2008 at 7:20 pm
Lippzee:
GF acknowledges: “You make a good point, Lippz - I’m sure there are hard working reporters who are nothing but fair and objective in their work.”
GF then goes on to make a number of thoughtful points that should concern anyone interested in serious journalism and fair treatment of those at the N&O who strive to be good journalists.
Example: “But [Drescher’s] e-mail’s tone reveals thinking in the upper ranks of N&O management that is very partisan. Not at all fair or objective. And all legitimate N&O reporters may now get painted with the negativity that comes out of all this.”
But all you respond with is: “GF, it’s not the N&O’s fault that you painted good reporters unfairly. Even if you are just one of ‘us folks’ posting on a blog, you are responsible for what you write.”
Since GF took responsibility at the start of his most recent comment for his over-generalization and left no doubt he knew it was wrong, what is the point of your response?
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
September 8th, 2008 at 10:21 pm
John in Carolina:
You must have overlooked the last sentence in GF’s first paragraph: “So “they are nothing more than left wing mud slingers” paints good reporters unfairly, but that is the N&O’s fault, in my humble opinion.”
While GF admits his over-generalization was wrong, he doesn’t take responsibility for it. He says it is the N&O’s fault.
I try to keep my posts brief. I didn’t intend to be rude or suggest that GF didn’t make any thoughtful points.
And it turns out GF guessed right. It’s not Drescher’s e-mail. I think we both overlooked Anon’s post.
September 8th, 2008 at 11:22 pm
G.F. Wrote: “Doug is some guy on the internet, presumably not influencing the content of a major media outlet. Big difference.”
I can assure everyone that I am indeed “a guy on the internet” and have zero influence on the content of any major media outlet. (Unless Dan Gearino linking to a You Tube video I sent him counts as major media influence. OK, Probably not.) Everyone is free to dispense of any misplaced expectation that I am non-partisan.
Also enjoy tweaking Lippzee and am old enough to remember when Dan was not called an “old school” journalist but rather a “high school” journalist.
Sincerely,
Doug
Guy On The Internet
September 9th, 2008 at 12:37 am
Doug’s an old school tweaker who’s had great influence on my media output.
September 9th, 2008 at 10:17 am
Lippz - if N&O readers view perfectly fair reporters with skepticism b/c of notes like the subject of this blog, that is the N&O’s problem and they caused the problem. There is obviously a work environment in which a deputy managing editor is comfortable enough, as stated previously, to post a snide, anti-GOP/McCain message to many people who presumably report to that person. (Not to mention ripping a local politician in the same note, calling him an inept liar.) Therefore, they — the N&O — ARE responsible. End of story.
Any “over-generalization” you believe I made is likewise the N&O’s fault, which is the point of my comments here. Some deputy managing editor has, to me, cast a doubt on every writer there. And I acknowledge there are certainly fair, objective writers at the N&O. But because of said deputy managing editor, they can all be viewed with suspicion now. I hope that is clear.
And I will take full responsibility for this and all my posts; whatever that means.
September 9th, 2008 at 1:44 pm
Folks,
I’m busy now but will comment early this evening.
John in Carolina
September 9th, 2008 at 1:56 pm
Long time lurker at DIW ..followed link here, and read with interest the behind the scenes memo.
One thing that constantly bugs me is the accusation of hypocrisy. If people, profess no standards (it’s all relative) they ipso facto avoid accusations of hypocrisy whilst allowing themselves to make endless accusations of hypocrisy about the self-same standards that they reject.
1. Hypocrisy involves a standard of Virtue/ideals that will ensure that anyone who believes in them will constantly fall afoul of them - we are human.
2. If I claim openly to hate green people and then go out and hit a green person, should we then say “well at least he/she is not hypocritical about it”? Of course not. However, that statement encapsulates the Clinton stand of “I am a sinner” but “I can’t be called on my sexual acts because I have told you that I am a sinner.” So skip to the forgiveness part without the judgement and admission that should precede it.
3. Lippzee - you use a rhetorical device which I don’t believe a good teacher would find honest. Instead of replying to the question at hand i.e. is this memo biased and if so should that be acceptable? If not, why not?, you nail Doug for “hypocrisy”. He was giving an example of the coverage that explicitly shows the double standard a/k/a bias employed by reporters. You could criticize the snarky tone of the riposte, but perhaps he was just invoking the style of the memo-writer. You keep your posts brief by avoiding content or opinion of your own, confining yourself to the role of ankle-biter. Perhaps you should reach beyond that.
September 9th, 2008 at 6:31 pm
GF: “And I will take full responsibility for this and all my posts; whatever that means.”
That means it’s not the N&O’s fault you admittedly painted good reporters unfairly.
Coniston: Criticizing hypocrisy doesn’t mean professing no standards or it’s all relative.
1. Of course all humans are hypocrites at some point or points in their lives — if they survive past infancy.
2. We should just say you’re a violent bigot and arrest you for assault.
3. I’m not a teacher, and I replied to the question at hand. I said I thought the N&O editor’s e-mail was inappropriate. I also said why I was critical of some posters’ comments. Brevity doesn’t mean without content or opinion.
September 9th, 2008 at 9:20 pm
“That means it’s not the N&O’s fault you admittedly painted good reporters unfairly.”
You are obviously not willing to engage in an honest discussion if you fail to acknowledge how this action by an N&O deputy managing editor paints their reporters in a bad light. THEY painted their reporters unfairly for reasons stated in numerous posts; I merely observed said fact…in numerous posts. You continually use some sort of circular logic, but at least you can finally just agree the e-mail was inappropriate.
Maybe you are coming around after all?
September 9th, 2008 at 10:44 pm
Hello Folks,
Continuing the conversation - - -
The N&O needs to say whether the email was, in fact, distributed to newsroom staff by a senior editor.
If it was (something I don’t doubt), the N&O, in the interest of readers, needs to ID the editor and explain why such an email was written.
Was the email “business as usual” or something that surprised the newsroom staff?
If the N&O acknowledges in print the email was written by a senior editor but not John Drescher, I’ll promptly correct a post at my blog in which I say he did and provide readers the name of the editor who did write it.
What should disturb all of us right now is that almost five days after the email was posted here and linked to and quoted from at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog, the N&O remains silent about the matter.
A fiercely partisan, historically ill-informed “charge to the troops” memo attributed to a top editor at the N&O doesn’t rate a denial or explanation from the N&O?
Why could that be?
And what does that tell us about the N&O, self-described as “fair and accurate?”
John in Carolina
PS - Is there anyone reading this thread who can point me to one of those “police reports” a number of N&O editors told readers the paper relied on for it’s now exposed as bogus March 25, 2006 story about a night of “sexual violence?”
September 9th, 2008 at 11:45 pm
GF, I’ve been honest in discussing the point with you; you’re the one who’s been talking in circles. I said your statement “This editor’s e-mail reveals what many N&O and general media critics say; that they are nothing more than left wing mudslingers” was inaccurate.
You agreed and wrote: “You make a good point, Lippz - I’m sure there are hard working reporters who are nothing but fair and objective in their work.” But then you made the excuse: “So “they are nothing more than left wing mud slingers” paints good reporters unfairly, but that is the N&O’s fault, in my humble opinion.”
THEY didn’t make that statement painting good reporters unfairly. YOU did.
You write: “… but at least you can finally just agree the e-mail was inappropriate.” ???
I said the e-mail was inappropriate in our very first exchange. Here’s what I wrote: “That you think one editor’s inappropriate e-mail “reveals … that ‘they’ are nothing more than left wing mudslingers …”
Maybe if you concentrated less on the disingenuous sarcasm?
September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
I will only say that I received a call from John Drescher today after sending him an email requesting an explanation……
……and he said that he did not write that memo.
Another N&O editor wrote it.
September 9th, 2008 at 11:56 pm
John in Carolina, another excellent post. The N&O’s silence is disturbing and shows a serious lack of respect for its readers and for journalism. The N&O should hire you, but their management also seems to lack good sense.
September 10th, 2008 at 8:37 am
Great discussion.
Regardless of the wisdom of the email in question, the N&O’s biases are fair game for discussion … and this has been enlightening. My own take is contrarian. I find the paper to be a reliable echo-chamber for the Art Pope family of think tanks. The $5 million Pope spends to push the right wing agenda in North Carolina is magnified many times over by the reliance by reporters on “experts” from the Puppetshow.
John Locke Foundation sources are referenced six times more often than their counterparts on the left.
September 10th, 2008 at 9:22 am
Mr. Protzman,
My dear man, with all due respect, you must have a strain of sensibilities which make you wince the moment a dissenting opinion surfaces.
Then a fog emerges all around, and you are unable to not only see the forest, but the trees are no longer in sight.
I have a long personal experience to the contrary, especially as it relates to the editorial pages.
The top editors there have been making a concerted effort to appear balanced now that the entire print media business—McClatchy high among them—is beginning to tank.
Please do not argue with me on this one…..although, somehow I know that you will.
I have far too much knowledge on this one.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:42 am
Oh for the love of Pete.
Lippz, let me try this approach. Say we have a higher level manager type. Let’s call him George. And he’s the president of a country. “George” declares another country is a threat to his country and cites all sorts of intelligence that proves he is right. Later there is evidence that maybe George was not 100% correct or even honest in his initial declarations. George’s underlings, many who may be good, honest folks nonetheless suffer the results when George’s initial actions and motives are called into question. They may even disagree completely with their boss. But by virtue of their working for George, their credibility is called into question by many. Now I AM using sarcasm. But I hope this helps explain a simple concept.
I have been honestly stating (and restating) my view here sincerely and heretofore without sarcasm. I am a longtime N&O subscriber (and journalism major) and have never bought into the N&O as a blatantly slanted organization. This e-mail raises doubts FOR ME, and again because of the deputy managing editor’s petulant and clearly biased tone, I question the entire organization.
As many in the Bush administration have learned, when the guy at the top’s credibility is shaky, that filters down.
Interesting and good to see Mr. Drescher has responded to a phone call. It would be nice to know what his opinion of this whole matter is.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
It’s worse than you think, Debrah — Protzman’s “analysis” about JLF being quoted six times more often than our left counterpart in the N&O is absurd. Explained here:
http://projects.newsobserver.com/under_the_dome/metapost_bias_and_the_dome#comment-9883
September 10th, 2008 at 10:45 am
By the way, it is entirely inconceivable that John Drescher wrote the idiotic memo in question.
September 10th, 2008 at 11:12 am
GF, you’re being a bit petulant yourself.
When you write:
“This editor’s e-mail reveals what many N&O and
general media critics say; that they are nothing
more than left wing mudslingers.”
and then
“This e-mail raises doubts FOR ME, and again
because of the deputy managing editor’s
petulant and clearly biased tone, I question
the entire organization.”
you are not stating (and restating) the same view. I criticized only your first statement. I’m surprised a journalism major would write that first statement.
I agree that it would be nice (and good for the N&O) if Mr. Drescher let us know his opinion of this whole matter.
September 10th, 2008 at 12:00 pm
John Hood–
Thank you for such a complete dissection of the issue inside your link.
Your writing is always superb.
Everyone in the Triangle–and the state!–knows the score regarding the tilt of the paper.
I began to do Linda Blair-esque head twirls during the Duke Lacrosse Hoax having to listen to their excuses for such abominable coverage. (They can thank heavens for the work by Joe Neff on that one.)
The open mendacity is mind-boggling.
I concur with you regarding Drescher.
He’s a good guy who is surrounded by a few editors and colleagues who will never get the Don Imus treatment for their bigotry.
And they operate securely within that realm.
September 10th, 2008 at 1:10 pm
Linda, huh?
September 10th, 2008 at 8:21 pm
Another day’s passed with nothing in print from the N&O concerning the ill-informed, politically partisan email attributed to an N&O editor and said to be distributed to newsroom staff.
People here and elsewhere are saying various things about the who, what, why and what happened afterwards at the N&O concerning it.
Two friends who say they’ve called the N&O to discuss the email both say they were told no one there knew anything about it.
“Nobody here would write anything like what you’re describing,” one friend quoted an N&O staffer as saying.
Both friends say they urged the person they were talking to go here to WAW and read the email.
Both friends said they were told: “too busy.”
The N&O needs to issue a statement answering “the ‘W’ matters.”
That’s the least it owes its readers.
As soon as it issues such a statement, we’ll all be in a better position to “continue the conversation.”
I’ll also publish the N&O’s statement in full at my blog.
Tomorrow I plan to post in response to John Hood’s statement further up this thread that “it is entirely inconceivable that John Drescher wrote the idiotic memo in question.”
Finally, has anyone here been in touch with N&O public editor Ted Vadan about the email and this thread?
John in Carolina
September 10th, 2008 at 10:12 pm
It was absolutely, without a doubt, Linda Williams who wrote that. I have a stash of her “daynotes” she sent out during my time there. The amount of racism and anti-conservatism she’s allowed to use is stunning. Absolutely stunning.
No one should be surprised this email was sent from upper management to the rest of the N&O staff. There’s a reason all but 3 of the conservatives who were there 7-10 years ago are gone. The animosity given to anyone who doesn’t lean 100 percent left is incredibly too-faced when “diversity” is said to be imporant there.
September 10th, 2008 at 10:40 pm
I’ve sent everything to Ted Vaden with CC’s to Orage Quarles and John Drescher.
And I included links to all the blogs and fora discussing this issue.
September 11th, 2008 at 10:33 am
That N&O employees are “too busy” to read an alleged e-mail undermining the N&O’s credibility while claiming “Nobody here would write anything like what you’re describing,” undermines the N&O’s credibility. Anon claimed that it was written by an N&O deputy managing editor, though Anon admittedly is an anonymous source. The N&O is foolish not to address this issue, at least on this forum.
September 11th, 2008 at 9:32 pm
What Linda has done is actually brilliant. It assures her of keeping her job in the next round of purges.
September 14th, 2008 at 1:35 pm
Someone please answer this question:
This memo was a written message to the N&O staff.
It is now an item which serves as unadulterated proof of the biased way the news at the N&O is analyzed and synthesized behind the scenes.
Pure bile and knee-jerk partisanship.
How will anyone take anything that is critiqued by ombudsman Ted Vaden seriously after this unless they remove this editor?
September 15th, 2008 at 9:07 am
Debrah, I did not receive a reply from Ted Vaden either. I doubt I’ll waste my time reading his column going forward. I didn’t expect any groveling or even any real action (I now believe this instance is simply business as usual and no big deal aside from the minor inconvenience of it making its way outside the N&O). However, I believe Mr. Vaden should acknowledge readers’ concerns when expressed respectfully and in a timely fashion.
To your point, Mr. Vaden to me does not merit the credit of his title as it would appear this ombudsman is nothing more than just another N&O columnist.
September 15th, 2008 at 12:48 pm
TO GF–
I am not as resigned as are you regarding this issue.
The public doesn’t have to accept this.
Certainly after the track record there as it relates to hot-button issues.
There has to be a day of reckoning for such an editor employed by an organization requiring a degree of trust from the public.
I know it sounds quaint, but I believe that even rabid partisans should have standards.