I have just finished reading a report by the Nieman Foundation at Harvard University called Goodbye Gutenberg, which is a compilation of essays about the future of journalism, including one from Phil Meyer at the journalism school at UNC Chapel Hill. The report is worth looking at if you are interested in the impact of the Internet on the newsgathering process. It talks a lot about the role of the audience. For one thing, the notion of the passive audience is essentially dead. I'd like to have a conversation with any of you reading this about the future of newsgathering, and how traditional journalists can partner with the folks "formerly known as the audience" -- as some commentators call you -- in reporting on our community. I will respond to posts, but I can also be reached at dbarkin@newsobserver.com.

--Dan Barkin

Comments:

Comment from: Paul Jones [Visitor] · http://ibiblio.org/pjones/blog

02/12/07 at 12:06
Dan,
Nice of you to accept email, but it's more in the spirit of "We the Media" to accept our comments (and links) openly on this blog ;->
You might find the videos of Dan Gillmor's last two talks at UNC (sponsored by ibiblio.org) interesting. Dan is the author of "We the Media" from which many of the terms you enclose as quotes were first seen in print.

The videos of Dan (and others of interest) are here on ibiblio.org.
http://mirrors.ibiblio.org/pub/mirrors/speakers/

Feel free to comment on your own blog.

Comment from: Dan Barkin [Visitor]

02/12/07 at 12:22
Excellent post. And good point about the email, although it's an old, MSM reflex. Very honored to get a post from Paul Jones. And Dan Gillmor is a genius, and I am plowing through his writings as we speak. I will check out the videos.

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/12/07 at 17:07
Why have you avoided the Nifong Scandal like a hot potato on this blog, then?

This is the ONE nationally significant and historical thing happening in your corner of North Carolina right now, and you're essentially pretending (on these pages) that it doesn't exist. What gives?

Comment from: sweetmick [Visitor]

02/12/07 at 19:05
Dan, Joe in England makes an excellent point. We're waiting.
Of course, you should know why there will not be a real partnering between "traditional journalists" and with folks "formerly known as the audience." 15 or 20 years ago, as an example, most people really did believe the New York Times did print all the news that was fit to print. Today, however, with the coming of age of the blogosphere, the Fox cable news network, and talk radio, etc., the people are no longer a passive audience. They read the incredibly slanted, practically dishonest articles by Duff Wilson in the NYT regarding the Duke Lacrosse Hoax, and then compared it to the writings of KC, Liestoppers, John in Carolina, Johnsville. We got instant access to the report by Prof. Coleman.And much more. We who are not leftists, not racial Marxists,now have a voice and a way of getting better information than that provided by the NYT and the N&O. How can we "partner" with you, when we know the N&O in March led the charge to condemn these 3 innocent people, and arguably encouraged and enabled Mike Nifong. No, your newsroom is staffed by a whole host of liberals & leftists, who all have such a similar policy agenda,such similar thought patterns, that you took for granted that the "audience" all thought as you. And so now you are shocked to see we are no longer a passive receptacle for whatever it is you decide to tell us. There is no going back, Dan.
I know, it's shocking isn't it?

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/12/07 at 21:45
Interesting topic, Mr. Barkin. It truly is a new world for the media and the audience. Like Joe in England and Sweetmick, I'll voice my disappointment from the audience...PLEASE STOP THE ONGOING LIE that the N&O started back in March 2006. I'm not saying the N&O is responsible for the entire Nifong/Durham Hoax - just for helping set the stage and the mood. The ONGOING LIE is the incomplete interview that the N&O published - the interview with the false accuser.

The N&O edited out portions of what the false accuser said, ostensibly to "prevent hurting individuals that didn't deserve to be defamed", or to keep the story consistent with the Durham Police report. Neither of these post facto rationalizations stands up to critical thinking. In the first instance, the N&O certainly could preface any crazy accusations by the false accuser with disclaimers. In the second instance...since when did it become the job of the press to blindly support government reports, without asking any questions to try to find and report the TRUTH?

The fact that the N&O continues this LIE by refusing to print the interview in its entirety, despite many complaints by the N&O's "audience" shows that the N&O cares more about covering its collective a$$ than about telling the TRUTH or responding appropriately to its "audience." Well, your audience (a.k.a. the people you need in order to have your jobs) is catching on and expects you to either straighten up or we'll find better, more truthful sources for our news.

Do the right thing. Print the entire interview. We're still waiting.

Thanks for your time,
Jim Curry

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 09:34
It really is interesting how they have been so unwilling to "partner with us" in a realistic way. The first step in that partnership might be complete honesty--or at least the cessation of actively withholding information.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 11:10
The N&O continues with its LIES by omission. What an amazing and comically obvious contrast between the reporting for the Duke Hoax and the reporting of the more recent allegation of forcible rape at a house occupied by Duke students. While in the Duke Hoax, we still hear incessantly from the N&O that the accused are "white" even though everybody already knows that (having seen them on tv for 10 months), in the more recent case, the N&O chooses not to divulge the suspect's race.

The N&O says: "The man is described as being in his late teens or early 20s, about 6 feet 1 and wearing a black do-rag, a gray sweatshirt and blue jeans, according to a police news release."

Actually, the police news release very clearly also stated that the suspect was a "black male", but why would we expect that immutable physical trait to be included in a description of an at-large suspect that may be dangerous and for whom we should be on the lookout? Why would the N&O editors feel it appropriate to delete that important fact? Fortunately, better news organizations (Charlotte Observer, Duke Chronicle) provided the full description.

Do you think it's at all helpful to tell readers what the suspect was wearing yesterday, but withhold the one physical trait that is necessarily still true today? What's wrong with you N&O editors? Would it be appropriate or helpful to report "there's a mass murderer on the loose...police reports say he's wearing pants"????

I really hope the suspect in this recent allegation (which the N&O calls an "assault" in its headline, as opposed to a "forcible rape" which is actually the allegation) receives due process by the Durham "justice" system and fair treatment by the press, both of which were denied the Duke lacrosse players. It's good that there does not appear to be a rush to judgment this time, and maybe you've all learned an important lesson. Actually, fortunately for this suspect, the local press appears to be bending over backwards to avoid identifying or embarrassing him, to the point of hiding facts that the public should know.

While I'm at it, I once again call for the N&O to publish the full interview with the false accuser in the Duke Hoax. Knowing that you will delete such vital information as a viable physical description (including race) of an at-large suspect alleged to have committed forcible rape, readers' suspicions about what you deleted from the Hoax interview can only be magnified.

Tell the truth finally. Print the full interview.
Still waiting,
Jim Curry

Comment from: sweetmick [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 11:58
To Dan, Melanie, Linda, and especially Truthless:

Jim Curry, of course, must be responded to, for he goes right to the essence of truth and how it is to be valued above all else. You, the N&O, the 88, etc, seem to deny objective truth and its value. See where you N&O people see yourselves in the following, from George Eliot's "Felix Holt the Radical":

Truth is the precious harvest of the earth,
But once, when harvest waved upon a land,
The noisome cankerworm and caterpillar
locusts, and all the swarming, foul born broods,
Fastened upon it with swift and greedy jaws,
And turned the harvest into pestilence,
Until men said, what profits it to sow?

We know where we see you. But, rest assured we will never quit this struggle.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 15:18
"Facts are stubborn things; and whatever may be our wishes, our inclinations, or the dictates of our passion, they cannot alter the state of facts and evidence."
- John Adams

At this point, nearly 11 months after the N&O decided to present only PART of what the false accuser said, what was arguably just a mistake based on bad judgment or lack of information has blossomed into a full-blown breach of morality. LYING is unacceptable behavior for anyone, least of all journalists. For many months now, the N&O has known that it is concealing the truth, and the N&O has known that such concealment continues to harm innocent persons.

How can you people sleep at night? Have you lost all sense of right and wrong, of truth and lies?

Still waiting,
Jim Curry

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 17:16
...At long last, have you no deceny? The way you purport to decide which key facts we ought and ought not to know really is McCarthy-esque.

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/13/07 at 19:46
*decency, of course

[look how I corrected an error!]

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 10:58
Here's another comment for the N&O to loudly ignore:

In your early coverage of the Duke lacrosse case, your stories referred to the false accuser as the "victim", of course leaving out a modifier such as "alleged". Subsequently, the N&O lied to its readers that questioned the N&O's use of the conclusory, rush-to-judgment term "victim", by claiming that it's common to just use that word in such stories. Your readers searched your archives and found that, contrary to your spin-lie, it is absolutely NOT your practice to call someone a "victim" in such a case. LIARS!!!

Now to my point: In your Feb.11 and Feb.12 articles, you do not even use the word "victim" even once, with or without "alleged" as a modifier. Unbelievable. To you, this female Duke student is not an alleged victim, but instead is just a woman "claiming" she was raped. This is a sickening double standard.

Have you dispatched K-12 education reporter S.Khanna to hit the pavement for an exclusive and fawning interview with this alleged victim?

Have you reported anything at all in the last 2 days on this case? Have the police caught the suspect, whom you so helpfully described as a 6'1" man that was wearing clothes last Saturday (but leaving out one rather important physical trait...)?

I'll be generous and guess that maybe you are actually behaving appropriately this time around (although I think you're actually bending over backwards to paint the guys that threw this recent party as "good guys", withholding the moral outrage that a rape is alleged and there was pot, cocaine, and oxycontin found, etc.). But your coverage in this case stands in stark contrast to the smear campaign you launched last March against the lacrosse kids.

You owe those lacrosse players, and your readers, a real apology for what you did last March. More importantly, you owe us all the truth, the whole truth, that you discovered last March. Print the complete interview Ms. Khanna got from the false accuser. And tell us what else you found out but have withheld. Try to salvage a shred of honor from this disaster.

Sitll waiting,
Jim Curry

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

02/14/07 at 15:42
Jim,

See prior posts on the Duke lacrosse case (25 of 'em so far) and extensive responses to these points. There's nothing to add at this point; our coverage on the lacrosse case continues.

As to your choice of posting this demand over and over, I see this kind of repetition as an attempt to bully us. Many people have tried to bully The N&O into doing things or not doing them over time; it didn't work then and it won't now.

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 17:22
Nice Speech Melanie.

But
Hey!
Watch the name-calling.
That's a FOUL

He's your customer and reader and objects to your news reporting. If you want to call him names, e-mail him.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 17:35
Ms. Sill, in the "25 prior posts", the N&O:

1) admitted that it has never published the full interview with the Duke accuser;

2) provided several different rationalizations as to why the N&O did not print the whole set of statements by the Duke accuser, including but not limited to: (a) some of the statements might be defamatory or embarrassing to persons that are not Duke lacrosse players, (b) some of the statements contained information that was not included in the police report (which one of the various police reports, the N&O has refused to say), and (c) some of the statements were "unsubstantiated" (as opposed to the outright falsehoods that, at that time, you considered "substantiated"?).

Even assuming that back in March 2006 one (or some) of these rationalizations was/were the reason(s) that the N&O edited the Duke accuser's VOLUNTARY interview statements, they are no longer valid excuses for hiding the full truth of what she said. And by your silence, I assume there is no other excuse.

It is outrageous that you imply that I am being a "bully" to the N&O. What a revealing comment by you. I'm simply a guy with a computer, asking the newspaper to print the whole truth...to print all of your interviewee's statements. It's a simple and reasonable request, but all I get are evasive non-responses and silence.

The N&O has been the bully here, madam. The N&O redacted this accuser's statements and printed an edited version of her story. That, in combination with various other articles and editorials that the N&O published back in March and April of 2006 greatly contributed to the public outrage against the Duke lacrosse players, whom even your own staff now know have been falsely accused in this case.

The bully was and is the N&O, who, knowing that innocent men are still fighting for their freedom and are still being condemned by some of the public, still refuses to come clean. Still refuses to do the simplest thing imagineable...to TELL THE TRUTH.

WHY ARE YOU AFRAID OF THE TRUTH?

- Jim Curry
I do recognize that Mr. Neff, Mr. Niolet, Ms. Sheehan, and others at your paper are doing fine work on this case. That doesn't change the fact that the N&O still withholds facts it learned in March 2006.

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

02/14/07 at 18:01
Jim -- All the reporting you mention happens under our watch. We have responded many times to your comments and questions. You don't like the replies, and that's your right. We provide space for comments and criticism. But here's the point I'm making: we do not publish material simply because people demand it. Most of what the accuser said in the interview has been published, and as it's relevant other material might be too. That position hasn't changed, nor will it. So what I'm saying is that it's not useful or effective for you to keep demanding that we publish "the full transcript" (this interview was not taped) and etc.

By the way, anyone can try to bully someone (and I used the verb, not the noun). On the web, a guy with a computer has a lot of pull. That's one of the things people like about this medium.

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 18:15
"Under our watch"
Isn't that a Bush phrase?

hmmmmmmmmmmm.

Melanie...have you been smoking rope?

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 18:45
I guess when Mr. Curry complains about your "BITCHING" at him about his rather thorough and exacting posts, we'll understand that he is only using a verb and not a noun.

Melanie, at least apologize to the man. You'd expect as much.

Comment from: sweetmick [Visitor]

02/14/07 at 19:29
You see Melanie, what Jim Curry has done is to inadvertently expose you as a "sham reasoner", guilty of pseudo inquiry. What you refuse to see about yourself is that your aim throughout all of this was NOT at finding the truth, but at making a case for some conclusion---namely, that they DID it---immovably believed in advance. You have tried to make a case for the truth of a proposition that your commitment to which is already evidence and proof. And now that your proposition has been shattered, you still can't let go. How long you persist in your denial shows the extent to which reasoning and truth are merely "decorative" for you. By your response to Jim Curry, who is not a bully and has not bullied you, you have shown just how much you have lost your conception of truth and reason. You, Melanie, are one frightening individual. (P.S. Read some C.S. Pierce)

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/15/07 at 10:29
"Bully" v., to behave like a bully.

So, when you say "many people have tried to bully the N&O", you're NOT calling such people "bullies", you're just saying that they have engaged in the act of bullying.

Kind of like when your paper ran those stories with conclusory language to the effect that the Duke lacrosse guys did rape the false accuser...You weren't calling them "rapists", you were just saying that they engaged in the act of raping the false accuser. Gee, now I see your point - what's all the fuss about?

- Jim Curry

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/15/07 at 14:10
"So what I'm saying is that it's not useful or effective for you to keep demanding that we publish "the full transcript" (this interview was not taped) and etc."

You are attributing to me the following quotation: "the full transcript". I do not recall ever using that phrase, or the single word "transcript" at all, in this blog topic. Can you point me to where I said that? And anyway, so what if S.Khanna did not tape record the interview. Am I crazy for assuming that she took notes of what the accuser said? Or did the N&O work up Khanna's entire interview article with nothing but her memory of the interview? Have the N&O editorial staff and Ms. Khanna now forgotten what the edited-out statements were?

The fact that the N&O has admitted editing out certain of the accuser's voluntary statements to S.Khanna requires that the N&O had knowledge of what those edited-out statements were. All I'm asking is that you tell us what those edited-out statements were. Such is the simple nature of my "bullying".

- Jim Curry

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

02/15/07 at 17:20
Jim,
Thanks for amplifying. I don't think I have anything to add to what I've said already on this issue. Apologies if I mistook your repeated requests for others who've demanded a transcript.

Melanie

Comment from: EMU [Visitor]

02/15/07 at 20:57

Dan. Dan. Dan. Now where did that “I will respond to posts…” Dan Barkin go?

Melanie’s skirts grow longer with each Duke Lax Hoax comment. Melanie, how many N&O deputy managing editors do you presently have hiding behind your skirts?


EMU

Comment from: Twaddlefree [Visitor]

02/15/07 at 22:48
How about the alleged rape of a white Duke female by a black male? Have you inquired with DPD DAILY as to the progress of that investigation, as to if a perp has been identified, questioned, and when the concerned public can expect an arrest? Have you attempted to find and interview any attendees at the party that night to get some idea of the kind of party it was, who attended, what might have happened, if they saw the three drugs that were found or the gun, who it was that allegedly jumped out the window and/or threw the duffle out first? Have you interviewed neighbors to see what they heard or saw that night? Who lives in that residence? What they might know about the tenants (other than that they're "good guys".... and to think that not a single person ever thought any of the lacrosse players were "good guys"...darn it must be hard doing this serious investigative reporting)?

Where are your editorials expressing your outrage over the underaged drinking, decrying the violence and irresponsible behavior of those drunk, white, lacr....oops.... I mean underaged young people at a drunken, raucous party? Where is your report on the call to police earlier? Who made the report? Who took the report? What did they report when they left the scene? What action did they take?

And, why did you omit the race of the person sought as the alleged rapist by DPD? A description of "gray sweatshirt and black do-rag" really doesn't mean much if such a person is seriously being sought, now does it? Why did you leave out the race when it WAS a part of the description?

Did you think there would be writing on the back of the gray sweatshirt saying, "I did it. Come get some!"?

Did you omit the race of the accused and the accuser when reporting on the Duke Lacrosse case? Do you still give the race of the accused and the accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case to this day? Why is this case different?

Oh, by the way, I would like the entire interview with the Accuser in the Duke Lacrosse case published, too. It was irresponsible journalism not to include everything that was said, and it is only an attempt to cover that irresponsibility by claiming there was or still is some legitimate reason for that, such as libel (especially when you waver in your reasoning). When quoting something someone says, the libel is not on you but the person who said it. Journalism 101. Duh.

You might try just writing objective facts....all of them...and quotes word for word instead of extracting to skew the meaning of what is quoted, or just to omit what you don't want readers to know.

I do concede, though, that you do a better job than the Herald Sun. You may take that as a compliment given the level of "journalism" that we're dealing with here.

Twaddlefree

Comment from: Darren E. [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 00:39
Melanie,

I would be curious to hear the explanatioin of the noticeably different coverage of the most recent Duke rape allegation compared to the one back in March. I think other posters have already pointed out the discrepancies, but I am curious if it is because you have learned from your mistakes or is because it doesn't make for a story you want to right? I'm hoping it's the former.

Also, it is absolutely absurd to provide a description of the rapist but leave out the race, which was known at the time. Don't you feel you should give your readers all the information that could help lead to the capture of the alleged rapist?

Comment from: Nancy [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 00:57
It's quite clear, the editorial board of the N&O is biased, and so painfully politically correct they would rather scrub the race element of their report even though the Durham PD gave that stipulated fact to all the media, and all the media used it with one exception.

The Raleigh News and Observer.

The vast difference in the reporting of this second claim of rape by a white woman by a black man from the first claim of rape by a black woman by a gang of hooligan white lacrosse players is painfully noted.

Racism at it's absolute worst.

And it's disgusting. The newspaper becomes less and less valid with each run. It's no wonder they consider bloggers "just another media form to blend with the print and television media". It is little wonder that most people who desire the truth turn to blogs.

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 08:05
Wow. I can't believe you redacted part of the physical description! Maybe it just "wasn't important" for us to hear it? After all, you alone deign to decide what the public ought and ought not to know, right (even when they DEMAND to know, simply, the truth)? That's your job as a journalist, you say?

Sunlight is the best disinfectant, and I think your newspaper and this story could use quite a bit. Why are you still hiding facts in the shade?

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 09:20
Melanie needs to lose her trite phrase "thanks for amplifying". Especially after all the name-calling. She uses the phrase almost every time she gets on the blog and it is tiresome. None of these people are amplifying. they are informing and enlarging on Melanie's crappy reporting. Melanie has the megaphone amplifyer, not them. She's got control and she's out of control.

What these people are doing is all they can do. Talk to her on her editor's BLOG.

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 11:43
Let's be clear on this: Like any obvious physical trait, the race/ethnicity of an at-large suspect is a highly relevant and important characteristic that should be included in any description disseminated to the public. This is true whether the suspect is White, Black, Asian, Native American, or any other race/ethnicity. This is basic common sense.

In the recent rape allegation, the police released a description of the suspect which included his race. Most every other newspaper published the full police description, including the suspect's race. The N&O decided that it was not important to include the suspect's race in its publication, and so edited it out. Political correctness trumps public safety, eh? Be on the lookout for a 6'1" man that wore clothes last weekend!

So much for one of the N&O's proffered excuse/rationalization for editing the Duke lacrosse accuser's statements, to the effect that they only wanted to include those statements that complied with the "police report." We can now see that even police reports are malleable to the N&O. I guess the excuse should have been that the N&O only wanted to print those statements of the accuser that complied with those portions of the police report that the N&O deemed newsworthy. This suspicion is reinforced by the fact that the N&O won't even state which of the many March 2006 "police reports" it used as a guide.

This amplified bullying brought to you by
- Jim Curry

Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] · http://www.newsobserver.com

02/16/07 at 17:31
All,
I'll reply briefly here and perhaps add a longer post on this later, as I'm traveling this week. The N&O includes race in descriptions of unknown persons only rarely, as it is a) relevant to the circumstances or situation described in the reporting and b) part of a detailed description, in which whether someone is fair-skinned or dark-skinned (more accurate descriptions than guesses at ethnicity) is part of a physical sketch that would help someone recognize a specific individual. We did not iinclude the race of the reported vitim in the recent case you cite. In the Duke lacrosse case the race was a detail relevant to the accusations for a couple of reasons: the allegations included claims about the use of racial insults, and the race of one player was a factor in excluding him from the DNA screening. There's been a good bit of study about the notorious inaccuracy of racial descriptions offered in police accounts, as well as the lack of usefulness of these descriptions in finding suspects, and that's why we adopted this approach some time back.

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 18:44
Your spelling is atrocious Melanie.
Your logic above was the worst part though.
There has been a good bit of study of you and your newspaper by the readers and you are all notorious for your inaccuracies as well as your racial descriptions and lack of usefulness.

You've been wrong far too many times for more chances.
Safe journey. Watch out for the do-rag people.

Comment from: JeezOhPete [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 18:53
Are you guys feeling "partnered?" Me, not so much.

Comment from: Joe in England [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 20:21
Ms. Sill,

You can't really expect us to believe that you think knowing the suspect was black wouldn't help the public identify him, can you? I mean, why state his hair color either? I know that I disagree with some people on the definition of "light brown" and "dark blonde" hair, so why don't you just redact that too?

I honestly am stunned that political correctness is trumping A) public safety; B) the truth; and C) the facts as reported in the holy "police report" so oft-cited by you and yours as justification for reproducing the false accuser's elaborate slander against the lacrosse team.

Where was all this concern for the accused in March 2006?

Comment from: sweetmick [Visitor]

02/16/07 at 20:54
So, you "include race in descriptions of unknown persons only rarely, as it is a) relevant to the circumstances or situation described in the reporting." Circumstances, you mean like there is an alleged rapist on the loose in Durham, who could probably be one of those four, or was it five, alleged rapists who allegedly raped Crystal, and left their DNA in and on her. It's vital to find this guy. This is Durham's chance to break up this Gang of 5. I mean, the town is in an uproar. I can hear the potbangers all the way down here in Miami. Women of Durham are scared sh*tless, except Wahneena, who is p*ssed she didn't get invited to the party. Melanie, TRuthless, Samiha and Linda(talk about affirmative action and reparations in action) may not be up there on the IQ scale, but they've left town for a while until it's safe to return. So, I was wrong; they aren't as stupid as their work product implied. I apologize. See, Melanie, it's not hard to say it.

Comment from: Twaddlefree [Visitor]

02/17/07 at 00:46
Melanie, this is ridiculous. Leaving out the race when there was no hair color or type given was a major omission. The race fills that in automatically (unless the hair underneath the do-rag is dyed or the guy is bald).

The DPD release included Crimestoppers' number to call with any information. DPD wanted the public to be alert for a suspect accused of a crime that is second n seriousness only to MURDER.

And the public is supposed to look for someone of any color in a grey sweatshirt? We all know the do-rag was gone the minute the suspect decided to elude police. Six-one and a grey sweatshirt.

This is irresponsible reporting and you know it. You're also backfilling, as usual.

Now, about my other questions of the reporting on this alleged rape. Answers?

Twaddlefree

Comment from: Sarah Davies [Visitor]

02/17/07 at 06:13
When the police issue a description of a suspect whom they wish to interview, it is completely irresponsible for the media to omit the individual's most recognisable feature, as it can only have the effect that the suspect will be less likely to be apprehended.

Have the N&O a particular reason for wishing this particular suspect to remain at large?

Furthermore, given the manner in which the race of the suspects in the Lacrosse travesty were trumpeted repeatedly in this paper, the N&O readership will have little option other than to assume that, when the race of the suspect is hidden, it is most likely to be African American.

That, surely, can not be the outcome the N&O management would seek to achieve.

Sarah Davies

Comment from: Sports Fan [Visitor]

02/17/07 at 09:11
Yes, but Melanie prides herself on being thick-skinned.
Hard outer shell, nothing inside.
Not to be confused with fair-skinned, which she also is. Not to be confused with fair....

You'll notice some nice diversity in her newsroom. But don't let it fool you. SHE'S IN CHARGE. SHE WILL NOT BE BULLIED!
Oy.

There's a difference there between diversity and equality.
Things are a little more equal for Ms. Sill than for the rest of her staff.

She's compensating!

Comment from: JC [Visitor]

02/17/07 at 09:19
Thanks for replying Ms. Sill, and I do hope you have a good and safe trip.

I think you'll be hard pressed to find anyone (among your readership or among your colleagues at other newspapers) that agrees with your editorial policy of not including the full police description of at-large suspects. It's mindbogglingly irresponsible and unreasonable. But, unfortunately, it's also unsurprising coming from the N&O editors these days.

It's as unimportant to the N&O that the public knows what an at-large suspected rapist looks like as it is that the public know what fantastic lies a false accuser told the N&O back in March 2006. The truth is not even a consideration for the N&O.

Wow.

- Jim Curry

Comment from: Scott [Visitor]

02/18/07 at 16:33
Ms. Sill,

Long time reader, first time poster. Your latest rationalization of your paper's decision to not include a suspect's description (I mean real description) have done the impossible, pushed me into posting. Having kept up with the ongoing discussion around the N&Os coverage of the Nifong Hoax, it is obvious that you believe with all your heart that you are doing the right thing. Yet that unwavering belief should be the ultimate reality wake-up call for you when presented with so much well-reasoned information as to errors in your judgment. It is time for you to personally apologize to all those harmed by your irresponsible journalism in the Nifong Hoax case and, for the greater good of the N&O, turn over your management and decision-making duties to a qualified person.

Sincerely,
Scott

Comment from: John [Visitor] · http://www.johnincarolina.com

02/18/07 at 17:55
I think Jim Curry and the other commenters here and at other EB posts are just asking for what an honest newspaper would give readily give readers.

Why won't Melanie and the rest of the cover-up crowd at the N&O tell us everything that was said during the interview with the False Accuser?

Why were we told only the parts of the interview that could be used to frame innocent people?

Why was the rest of the interview withheld from readers?

Why did Melanie call Jim Curry a bully?

He's doing a citizens duty.

If Melanie Sill wants to call people bullies, she might think about the people at the N&O who made the decision to withhold from readers for many days the news that the Duke lacrosse players had in fact cooperated with police.

Hang in there Jim Curry and all the rest of you.

If we keep pressing, we may yet get some the truth out of the N&O.

But it won't be easy.

John in Carolina

Leave a comment:

Remember: We reserve the right to delete any comment we deem to be obscene, profane, off topic, harassing or an impersonation. Please be civil.
Name:
Email:	Your email address will not be displayed on this site.
Comment text:	Allowed XHTML tags: <p, ul, ol, li, dl, dt, dd, address, blockquote, ins, del, span, bdo, br, em, strong, dfn, code, samp, kdb, var, cite, abbr, acronym, q, sub, sup, tt, i, b, big, small> URLs, email, AIM and ICQs will be converted automatically.
Options:	Auto-BR (Line breaks become <br />) Remember me (Set cookies for name, email & url)