A recent goof in which we referred twice in the same paragraph to utility "polls" brought some barbs from readers, including my home copy editor (husband), who thinks we rely too much on spell check programs.

That's not the case -- we have editors who read stories and should catch such errors, though we do use spell check tools. This error was basic and avoidable through care, not special action. Beyond fundamentals, though, we have stepped up training for N&O journalists to raise our skills and improve the quality of our work.

Here's a report outlining what we've done -- it's on the web site of Tomorrow's Workforce, a nonprofit organization working to improve training in the newspaper industry.

Readers also suggest training from time to time; your thoughts welcome.

05/12/06 at 08:10
Ms Sill, your goofs are minor , but the retraining your staff desperately needs is in objectivity. I truly am not trying to "bash" you or your staff. I believe there is an effort afoot to banish stereotypes of the past (why else the need to keep reinforcing how inteligent these "escorts" are), But you have gone so far as to have been just as equally biased in reverse. The articles, the adjectives, the placement of stories must be looked at as a whole. You have humanised the young women in the case and demonised the young men. Is that the role of the hometown paper in a story as volatile as this? What purpose do these sympathetic personality pieces serve in the interest of justice? Yesterday's article tells us Kim has a 4.0 GPA. Was that verified? Or just accepted because it fit the profile you wish to create? "Readers, this is another brilliant, noble woman just like her colleague the soft-spoken "dancer" who "got an A in a hard class." The boys from the line-up pictures however are arrogant and a public nuisance." No matter where the truth lies, you have continually reported this story IN THIS CONTEXT. Fuzzy, pink reporting on the girls; take-no-prisoner reporting on the players. And you have played the Race Reverse card. Readers should watch and remember. When the day inevitably comes that some rich white girl cries rape against a black man, will you tell us of her 4.0 GPA and her soft voice, run a sympathetic piece on her before the Grand Jury even charges? Will you print line-up pictures of the black accused and his friends? Will you define the black suspects by their "swagger" and tell us of complaints that they pee in the street? Will you detail every misdemeaor and felony charge in the black suspects have in their past BEFORE we know if our little white girl is lying. I certainly hope not. But in this paper, in your worldview, it's okay in reverse! That's your standard today. Readers, watch and remember. Really,... watch and remember.

05/12/06 at 22:52
Melanie,

Joan’s right: "polls" instead of "poles" is a very minor mistake.

I hope you weren't too hard on The N&O staffers who made it, especially as The N&O regularly makes much bigger mistakes.

For example, The N&O published Feb. 15 a page one, headline story saying a group of state employees had been “caught cheating.”

But they hadn’t. They were decent, honest state career employees who were only doing their jobs.

No other newspaper in North Carolina made the same false claim about them The N&O made.

So The N&O was forced to issue a “correction.”

But The N&O’s never offered an apology to the employees who had to face their neighbors, and whose children were taunted at school.

Yes, N&O fans don’t think an apology is necessary.

But most decent people do.

How about an apology?

You might frame your answer in the context of N&O reporting that the Duke lacrosse team “swaggered for years” and “was out of control.”

And why not explain some other important things?

For example, The N&O refused to publish any of the Danish cartoons. You said that had nothing to do with making it more likely that hate groups would target N&O staffers and your newsroom.

You told readers not publishing the cartoons was a matter of The N&O’s “sensitivity.”

What’s more, you told readers The N&O could report on all the threats and riots in response to the cartoons in such a way that N&O readers would have no need to see the cartoons in order to understand what all the arson, riots, killings and injury were about.

But when "reporting" the Duke lacrosse case, The N&O did something very different.

You published the "vigilante poster" with face-photos of 40 Duke lacrosse players and "WANTED" stamped on it, even as people warned you that publishing the poster would do nothing but stir passions and make it more likely the lacrosse players would be targeted by unstable individuals and hate groups.

Of course, The N&O made sure not to mention the names of any of the “good citizens” who designed and printed the “vigilante posters.”

Melanie, your “talk” about “polls" and "poles” is suitable for a junior high school audience.

Mostly adults visit this blog; and most of them care more about The N&O’s frequent failures to provide fair and informative reporting than about “polls” and “poles.”

So tell readers why it was important for The N&O to publish 'the vigilante poster" but not publish the Danish cartoons?

After doing that, you could explain why, in a 2000 word, front page Apr. 9 story concerning Duke's reputation, every Duke student or alum you quoted was very critical of the university.

There were then as now thousands of undergrads and alums in the area who would have spoken positively of Duke. But not one appeared in your story. Why not?

And why does The N&O continue to refuse to tell readers anything about the man who drove the accuser to the party that night? The N&O knows quite a bit about him.

I'll say more soon, by which time I hope you’ll have spoken to my questions here as well as questions other readers have asked and which you’ve still not answered.

John

05/13/06 at 10:10
You have to be one of the most disingenuous people I have ever been exposed to, and one of the worst con artists.

It takes real effort to be an insult to both honest and dishonest people, one through lack of integrity the other through lack of ability.

Do you really believe your insignificant little mea culpa will divert attention away from your egregious editiorial behavior, which has inflamed passions and prejudice but done nothing to provide objective fact or truth?

05/13/06 at 10:47
Ms Sill: the person who needs "journalism training" is YOU, not anyone else.

I will discuss below a N&O article on the Lacrosse case that first appeared last night on your website and was rewritten by editors (likely yourself) this morning

This is the new version….
http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/439196.html

So where is the old version...In your most manipulative practice, you eschew the now accepted internet practice of indicating that an article was _substantially_ revised from its earlier version....And providing a link to that early version so readers can see the bigotry that was inserted by the Editor.

If you go to the website for the old (infinitely more accurate and balanced) story from last night http://www.newsobserver.com/102/story/438877.html

....you find a deleted page (I am working from an archived version for this analysis)

Shameful.

Much more concerning is that in your Editor's rewrite of the initial fair and accurate N&O story, you inserted a entirely new prejudicial paragraph as the "new" lead, and buried the actual news of the press conference in paragraph 6.

"Burying the lead" has become a synonym for deception (and yellow journalism) for a reason, Ms. Sill.

In the original story, this shocking bit of news (hidden from the media by Mike Nifong) was the lead:

"defense attorneys also said further genetic evidence "from a single male source" was found on a vaginal swab taken from the dancer. That man, whom the attorneys declined to identify, was not a Duke lacrosse player or student."

It was the second sentence in the original article.

Here is the new paragraph inserted as the lead in its place by the Editor of the piece:

However, the results show that genetic material found on a fake fingernail that the dancer says was ripped from her hand during the attack are consistent with the DNA of one unindicted player, whom defense lawyers declined to name. That means the player could not absolutely be eliminated as a suspect, defense attorneys said, but is a finding that falls short of ironclad proof.

What is wrong with that paragraph? Well it is a veritable tissue of misstatement (or lies) and bias.

1. The words bolded were said by no one at the news conference and were inventions of the editor (likely, you, Ms Sill). They were meant to inject the editor's personal opinion. I will note that they were not there in the original story.

2. The article also provides _no_ support for your statement that any defense lawyers said that the new DNA evidence was worth anything, much used the phrase "could not be absolutely eliminated". This is a quote that was almost certainly made up completely (i.e. fabricated) by the Editor. Which is getting into Jayson Blair territory. This “quote” was certainly not there in the original online N&O story

3. The statement "..that genetic material found on a fake fingernail that the dancer says was ripped from her hand during the attack" is a complete fabrication by the Editor. Unless N&O has leaked testimony from the accuser, this statement is a fantasy meant to express the Editor's personal opinion that a rape occurred. This "fact" is not published anywhere nor is it in evidence that the accuser said anything about this fingernail, which was retrieved from a trashcan where it had been buried for 2 days. (This is in evidence, Ms Sill) . Some defense lawyers have said that they suspect the nail was never worn at all.

4. Your discussion of the vaginal swab evidence appears intentionally obfuscatory (likely for a reason since it is so damning to your and Nifong’s case). The person whose DNA and semen was found (essentially proving that he had recent sex with the accuser) is in fact named in the report, and will be available as public record soon enough. What Joe Cheshire clearly indicated in the news conference was that it was Nifong's business to release it since he (Cheshire) "didn't want to drag any more innocent people through the mud". A good quote missing that I point out is missing from your story.

5, The headline of the article was changed to be more prejudiced and to be bad English "No firm link in test 2 of DNA" is awful. The original headline "Second set of DNA results returned" would have been better. It avoids prejudicial half-truths like “firm lin”

There is much, much more bias in the edits you made, Ms Sill, but for brevity’s sake I will stop there.

You are a terrible editor, Ms, Sill, and a lousy journalist. A person whose own bias taunts all of your work. If the N&O has any interest in their reputation, you would long gone by now.

05/13/06 at 12:37
Dear Melanie,

Mindful that you've often told readers you have a sense of humor I offer this comment a visitor left at my blog:

"Wee will have to weight and sea weather or knot they Polish there behavior."

John

05/13/06 at 14:26
This is a copy of an email I sent to Ms. Sill's reporters this morning

To the hack journalists of the N&O:

Here's a simplier and cheaper way to do journalism training at N&O...read the AP wire and copy it word-for-word

Here's my course material:

Just read any of Aaron Beard's story for the AP on
this case. Every single story he has written has been
well-sourced, contains new reporting and has
been essentially free of detectable bias.

In contrast to 98% of the stories N&O has written,
especially those edited by M. Sill which are dishonest
hack jobs with made-up quotes and an agenda, as I have
previously illustrated

An fine example of Mr. Beard's work today:
http://www.news14charlotte.com/content/top_stories/default.asp?ArID=119709

05/14/06 at 01:22
Slings & Arrows, Miss Melanie, Slings & Arrows.

Ask yourself, does the above seem like valid criticism, or venting. Are the bloggers making valid or invalid statements. Can you and your staff do better? What would happen if you shook the collective "tree" at the NandO, and clean house. There are bunch more, brand new jounalism grads, looking for a job starting on Monday. Dip yourself in the water, and be reborned with the purity you had when you are a cub reporter. Honesty, integerty, unbais reporter is what the people want. We want to be able to "trust" our local newspaper. Thanks!

05/15/06 at 12:15
Thanks for the comments, all are welcome.

05/15/06 at 12:23
Additional note to DJ: On Friday night, we initially posted the AP story on what was said at the press conference. Our reporters and editors worked together on our story for the morning editions, which went beyond what the laywers said with other information -- that's the benefit of taking more time in reporting and developint stories. If you want a news source that simply takes dictation at press conferences or uses the AP, there are plenty of other options.

05/15/06 at 16:14
Melanie,

You’re not answering so many informed, fact-based questions readers are asking you on this thread and others.

Why not?

Here's a little bit from the comment I left above that you haven't responded to:
______________________________

Melanie,

Joan’s right: "polls" instead of "poles" is a very minor mistake.

I hope you weren't too hard on The N&O staffers who made it, especially as The N&O regularly makes much bigger mistakes.

For example, The N&O published Feb. 15 a page one, headline story saying a group of state employees had been “caught cheating.”

But they hadn’t. They were decent, honest state career employees who were only doing their jobs.

No other newspaper in North Carolina made the same false claim about them The N&O made.

So The N&O was forced to issue a “correction.”

But The N&O’s never offered an apology to the employees who had to face their neighbors, and whose children were taunted at school.

Yes, N&O fans don’t think an apology is necessary.

But most decent people do.

How about an apology?
_________________________________

Why, Melanie, won't you respond to my question about an apology?

I mean, a lot of people think if you say someone has cheated and it turns out that not true, you should apologize.

They think it’s not enough to say, "OK, you didn't cheat."

They think you should also say you’re sorry for the false accusation, even that you should explain how you came to make the false accusation and what you're doing to make sure it doesn't happen again.

When I call folks at The N&O I'm sometimes put on hold and I'll hear a promo tape for The N&O that mentions the hundreds of thousands of people who read The N&O every day.

All those readers were told some state employees were "caught cheating" when they hadn't.

Please say something about why The N&O hasn't issued an apology and explanation.

Thank you, Melanie.

John
www.johnincarolina.com

05/15/06 at 16:37
John,
I've asked you respectfully to keep comments brief and on point to each particular post, and also noted that you are asking rhetorical questions as part of your arguments and inevitable criticisms of just about everything we report.

In regard to the headline you mention, we corrected the error in question on page 1. I doubt readers here know to what you refer, so I'll add that this was a correction to a headline on a story about the state lottery logo, for which the lottery staff had used clip art and the lottery director had mistakenly said it was an original design. I posted on this Feb. 17.

05/15/06 at 18:35
Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] ·

05/15/06 at 12:23

.....l If you want a news source that simply takes dictation at press conferences or uses the AP, there are plenty of other options.
------------------------

Ms Sill- I your above comments, you are essentially admitting to bias and saying you don't give a damn what anyone thinks. You addressed none of the substance on my piece which documents your various manipulations and made-up quotes in the piece I analysis

And the atrocious reporting continues. In today's report of the Evans indictment

http://www.newsobserver.com/1185/story/439902.html

You close with this incredibly inflammatory sentence that it tangential to the rape allegations

"The accuser, a black woman who attends N. C. Central University, and a second escort service dancer, a woman of mixed African-American and Asian ancestry who was hired for the party, have said that men at the house referred to them as "niggers."

Other than being incredibly offensive, what is wrong with this sentence as fact:

1. You do not source it, and that is a big problem. We all known that Kim Roberts said this (and many other contradictory things in her public statements) but you provide no source whatsoever that alleged victum

2, In a situation where the N&O (and you yourself) have already played such a detrimental in fueling the racial animosity and race baiting surrounding this case to inject this again is pure agenda-driven hate speech.

Disgraceful behavior on you or your reporter's part for doing this.

05/15/06 at 20:01
A followup:

The story on Evans' indictment has now been rewritten by over 30 different news sources across the region, state and nation.

Having read them. NOT A SINGLE ONE OF THEM, except the N&O feels mention the swear contest between Kim Roberts and a few Lacrosse players at the player. Needless to say not a single article features the word "Niggers" , much less attempts to smear and villify Evans by connecting him with it.

Disgraceful, race-baiting.

05/15/06 at 23:47
Ms. Sill

I think it is a fair question to ask how Mr. Niolet and your editors "developed" today's story by ending it with the claim that the men at the house referred to the ladies as "niggers." How did this statment advance today's story?

Tom Scannell

05/16/06 at 00:26
They don't answer no stinkin' questions from readers 'round here....no Mr Niolet (a white guy I mention for completeness sake) just says "niggers" and walks away like he's done some big public service.

(BTW, Kim Roberts is on record as proclaiming the 42 lacrosse guys as "llimp dick white boys" in their sparring match and getting them tl all run away-which I think would have been a better end of Niolet's story anyway. Since she appears to have been right)

Whatcha wanna bet that Mr Ted the Reader's Advocate doesn't have cahones to touch this one. What would Kim say about him I wonder?

05/16/06 at 14:43
Tom and DJ (and others),

In interviews with N&O reporters, the woman who reported the rape and Kim Roberts both said the men at the house used the word "niggers." The editor who worked with the story yesterday decided to identify the word rather than to use the term "racial slurs," which we have used in the past.

Other questions from DJ:
* I generally do not edit stories personally. Assigning editors and other front-line editors do the bulk of that work; the managing editor and I generally provide broader oversight.
* The N&O's story differed from the AP story from the night before; this is usually the case, different news organizations cover events and make varying decisions.
* What the AP was reporting was what was said at the press conference. The defense lawyers did not release the DNA reports.
*What we work to report is what we know and can verify. We tell readers everything we can, and if we don't report it, that's because we don't have the information to support it.
* In some cases we have information others don't; in today's editions, for instance, we reported on a profanity-laced outburst from DA Mike Nifong, apparently unhappy with defense lawyer Joe Cheshire.
* Thanks for all the comments.

05/16/06 at 19:14
Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] ·

In interviews with N&O reporters, the woman who reported the rape and Kim Roberts both said the men at the house used the word "niggers."
----------------------

And that in a nutshell is exactly the problem.

1. No attribution or sourcing of the N-word sentence in your article, as you have finally given above.
2. No balance. Kim Roberts was also using racial epithets that evening.
3. No direct relevance of the N-word incident to the Evans indictment for forcible rape and kidnapping, which was the subject of the article. In fact, quite the opposite, this sentence (especially as the final paragraph) was inflammatory, predjucial and implied that Evans called them the N-word himself.

It would be a bonus for your new openness if you could also said bluntly, that the night editor was wrong in their judgement to include this sentence in the piece.

05/16/06 at 20:39
Ms. Sill

I respectfully disagree that the racial slurs added anything to the particular story being reported that day, but I do appreciate the courtesy of your response.

Tom Scannell

05/17/06 at 08:11
My frustration is the inability of this Newspaper to acknowlege or even have a meaningful discourse on how SPECIFIC editorial decisions may have contributed to the racial divide in Durham and beyond. Can you truly NOT see how the 1. vigilante poster,
2.the "Swagger" piece and "nigger" comment
3.the sympathetic interview with the accuser where Vaden admits you omitted any statements of hers that did not concur with her official police interview. If there are real discrepancies will you allow the defense to look at those notes? Or is it your official position to protect a possible false accuser? You never reply to specifics.

05/17/06 at 09:41
Joan,

1. The poster appeared on an inside page days after it was released. It was not a prominent element. However, I have addressed this in the past and said that we did not have the internal discussion we should have. I'm not certain we would have decided against running it, but we erred in not discussing it.
2. The "swagger" headline came on a story that was ahead of other reporting and has been confirmed by the work of the Duke faculty committees. Our story reported then, and the committees reported in greater detail, on a party culture on the lacrosse team that included getting in trouble for incidents that often involved excessive drinking.
3. The interview with the reported victim came the day after the DNA roundup. We took care not to include new accusations that were not part of the police report because we were not able to get the players or their lawyers to respond. This was an abundance of caution to be fair to the players, not to protect or help the woman bringing the accusation. The information in the police report was public record and constituted the basis for the investigation and the reason the players had been brought in for tests. We have since drawn on other elements of the interview because we have been able to report further on the details she provided and also to represent the other side. Hope that clarifies. We do not have a side in this case; we report everything that we know that can be verified or that comes from an on-the-record source accountable for what they say.

05/17/06 at 11:53
Thank you. That does help clarify for me. My only agenda is the ardent hope for an atmoshere in Durham wherein a fair trial is possible. Thank you for your time.

05/18/06 at 23:17
Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] ·

We do not have a side in this case; we report everything that we know that can be verified or that comes from an on-the-record source accountable for what they say.
------------------------------------------------------
There is absolutely nobody who has been following the case and the N&O disgraceful pro-prosecution witchhunt coverage that believes anything that you say.

Ms. Sill, you are simply NOT credible or truthful. End of story.