What the editor didn't tell Raleigh N&O print readers

Melanie Sill, executive editor for news at Raleigh's News & Observer, is at it again.

Most of Sill's column in yesterday's N&O was taken up with a highly select and sanitized version of the upset and controversy caused by her series of self-contradictory statements made in response to readers who complained about The N&O's delay in reporting on the Air America loan scandal.

If you missed Sill's column, it's here. If you're new to the story and want background go here and here at this blog. Also, at Sill’s blog go here and here and here.

Before reading her column, it's likely almost all Sill’s print readers knew nothing of Sill's statements these past weeks. Or the questions and comments they provoked. Or how Sill responded to them.

After reading her column, print readers knew what Sill told them but not what she left out.

For example, Sill didn’t tell them that editors of major daily newspapers disputed what she said regarding not being able to report on the AA loan scandal story that has already been reported in other newspapers.

Sill didn’t tell readers she has made a series of statements. Look back at her column. If you knew nothing else about the matter but what Sill was telling you, wouldn’t you conclude she had made just one statement?

Sill offers readers not a single example of what she calls “good questions” or of her responses, in the few cases where made a response.

Didn’t Sill’s print readers deserve at least one representative example of the questions and comments most of her internet readers were offering?

An example such as this on a post thread at Sill's blog:

Reader comment: "I must be lacking in imagination, but I cannot see how these two statements could be characterized as anything other than falsehoods:

'We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story'

'(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication.'

If you could explain to your readers how these were truthful, honest, and accurate statements, I am sure they would be glad to hear it."

Editor Sill’s response: "Can you say more about which part seems puzzling -- how the news service queues work?"

Then there's the matter of Sill casting herself as a victim and telling her print readers about “some twisting of my words.”

Sill doesn't tell print readers she was twice invited to make a response at this blog to what so many of us were asking, commenting, and blogging. I offered to publish in full her response.

Sill never acknowledged my offers, ones I’m sure most other bloggers covering this story would make to her, if they have not done so already.

But if Sill told her print readers about offers to print in full her response to say, this post in which the editors disputed what she said, it would have been tough to convince print readers her words were being twisted, wouldn't it?

More on Sill’s print column in a day or two.

Look for a related post this evening: The Editor, The Governor, and We, The Readers.

Have a good day.