Regarding Melanie Sill, executive editor for news at Raleigh's News & Observer, a McClatchy paper, many readers made a prediction: Sill wouldn't answer questions concerning statements she made that were disputed by other news editors and evidence from the N&O's archives.
Sill's made her statements in response to readers' questions and comments regarding why the N&O delayed publishing on the Air America loan scandal for almost 2 weeks after other news organizations began reporting it.
While I don't disagree with readers' predictions about Sill's not answering important questions, I think Sill herself would.
So let's take a look at a few recent examples of how Sill’s responding to questions and comments.
(Note: If you're already familiar with the back-and-forth between Sill and readers, you may just want to scroll down to the paragraph that begins: "In the face of questions ... " I put those 5 words in bold as a marker. If you're new to the story, keep reading.)
When Sill claimed "(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication," her statement was promptly disputed by editors of major newspapers. They said it was common newspaper practice to use material from other papers, even those with whom a paper had no formal agreement, so long as credit was given to the paper originating the story and a whole story wasn't lifted. You can read more of what they said at this post.
Here's a quote from it:
All four editors interviewed for the blog report said Sill could have published on the Air America story if she wanted to. One editor said, “If she’s really telling you something different … you’re getting stiffed.”“(R)egardless of any formal contract we (newspapers) have with one another, we can take stories from each other,” one editor explained. “We do it all the time. You can't lift the whole story; and you're supposed to give credit. But a few paragraphs? No problem. You can even take from a couple of different newspapers and blend.”
Sill’s credibility was further damaged when evidence from the N&O's archives directly contradicted her. LexisNexis searches of N&O archives revealed the N&O has frequently and recently used as news sources some of the same news organizations that had been reporting the Air America story. Examples are here on this thread at Sill's blog.
In the face of questions and criticisms from many readers challenging what Sill has said, she's made a few responses. Here's an example you'll find on this post's thread at her blog.
Here's Editor Sill’s response in full on the same thread:Comment from:DeputyHeadmistress [Visitor]
08/20/05 at 15:40
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.
Further along the same thread, I sent Sill the following comment referencing among other readers’ comments, those of the dep. Headmistresses. My comment in full:Comment from:Melanie Sill [Visitor)• http://blogs.newsobserver.com
08/21/05 at 09:47
Dep.Headmistress: Can you say more about which part seems puzzling -- how the news service queues work?
Sill responded this morning on the thread to my comment. Here, in full, is her response:Comment from: John [Visitor] • http://www.johnincarolina.com
08/21/05 at 23:01
Melanie,
You say J. Stuart "misunderstood" what you said.
I see nothing where he "misunderstood" what you said, especially regarding your statements to readers about why the N&O couldn't publish on the Air America loan scandal.
J. Stuart's comments are based on LexisNexis searches of the N&O's archives.
Those searches produced information that directly contradicts statements you made to readers about news sources available to the N&O for publishing on the Air America loan scandal at the times in question and with the news sources available to it.
Why haven't you spoken to those contradictions?
And why have you said nothing in response to those editors of major newspapers who strongly disputed what you told readers about the sources available to you for use in the N&O on the Air America loan scandal?
Why are you silent on such important questions?
The dep. headmistress said to you:
"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."
Who does not understand what the dep. headmistress is saying.
And, Melanie, you responded:
"Can you say more about which part seems puzzling -- how the news service queues work?"
John
Readers will quickly see Sill said nothing to actually dispute what the editors said.Comment from: Melanie [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
08/22/05 at 09:30
John: I'm sorry you had to talk to people off the record, I would have said some of the same things on the record (the accurate parts, not the rest). Why won't these great editors use their names in discussing fairly straightforward issues? In general you've misrepresented much of what I've said, both here and in your own blog... an anonymous blogger quoting unidentified people in criticism of something I didn't say. In some cases I think you confused comments made by others in the thread with my responses. You also interpreted, or misinterpreted, my responses in certain ways. So be it... I expect some of this in blogging.
Meantime I think you'll understand there are other stories and other issues, and this blog is not intended to respond to just one or two people, no matter how persistent. I'm hopeful other readers will weigh in on many different issus and stories. Again, thanks for taking part.
Sill also said nothing to dispute the evidence from the N&O's archives which directly contradicts what she's told readers.
And Sill again ignored the real and important question the dep.
headmistress asked.
Anyone who goes to posts at Sill's blog here and here and here and reads the threads, will see that Sill has not responded to scores of informed questions and comments bearing on the same matters the dep. headmistress raised.
Her silence in the face of those questions is telling.
Sill's comment beginning: "John, I'm sorry you had to talk ....." is a reminder of the lawyers adage:
When the evidence supports what you say, argue the evidence.
When the evidence contradicts what you say, ignore the evidence and attack the witnesses.
Much more soon.
6 comments:
John,
Could you clarify what the editors told you?
It seems to me you are saying the editors told you that they can reprint, verbatim and without permission, a few paragraphs of what other papers have printed as long as attribution is given.
But my reading of "...we can take stories from each other,” one editor explained. “We do it all the time. You can't lift the whole story; and you're supposed to give credit. But a few paragraphs? No problem," in the context of précis, is that newspapers can take the subject matter of the story, summarize it in a couple of paragraphs, give attribution to the party that broke the story, and then write their own original and independently sourced article based on the précis taken from the other publication.
Or are you expecting that the N&O will publish a few paragraphs from another publication -- verbatim or not -- attribute it, and leave it at that?
"(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication,"
"...evidence from the N&O's archives directly contradicted her. LexisNexis searches of N&O archives revealed the N&O has frequently and recently used as news sources some of the same news organizations that had been reporting the Air America story."
Those stories the N&O has recently and frequently used were on one of the many news services and was available for the N&O to publish. She has said that, when she looked on the many news services, there were no stories on AAR that she would have permission to use. That means the news services had not picked up the AAR story from the NY Post or the NY Daily News. There is no contradiction.
John:
J. Stuart here. I just want to say thank you. You've done an amazing job in terms of tracking down other editors who have demonstrated Ms. Sill chose not to publish, as opposed to her original claim which was she could not publish.
At the end of the day, I think this is one area where blogging and MSM news differ greatly. Bloggers who, when caught in contradictions, do not issue correctives are pretty much dismissed. Their screw up is bounced around the blogosphere quickly and they are mud if they don't correct (they are tarnished even if they do).
MSM news writers and editors, such as Ms. Sill, simply believe they can ignore the questions as she has and cough up different answers at given points in time. And when they come into the blogosphere they believe that they remain immune from questioning.
I think it is telling that if a politico had given 4 seperate excuses for not doing something as Ms. Sill has, the N&O would be publishing every one of them in timeline order to demonstrate the lack of veracity. But when I do the same with her excuses, she ignored them.
Keep up the good work, but barring something huge, she's said all she is pretty much going to say. Although I could be wrong, I think she's eager to walk away and pretend this didn't happen.
Julie O,
You ask could I clarify what the editors told me.
Glad to. And I'll add a little more.
The clearest thing I can say about the editors comments is that they all said in one way or another that Editor Sill could have published on the Air America loan scandal during the period she said she couldn't.
Evidence from the N&O archives confirm that.
See for example an Aug 9, 2005 article that ran on pg. 2A. Lead: Wood on teen sex: Explore responsibly.
See also for comparison with the N&O's Aug 9 article, a New York Daily News article of Aug 7. Lead: The Golden One. Super-talented teen star Evan Rachel Wood heads for the top.
The NY News article is 1276 words; bylined; carries publication name; and is copyrighted by the News.
The N&O article is 181 words, carries no byline or publication source at it's head, and is copyrighted by the N&O.
The NY News article contains the following paragraph: "I'm not against teenagers exploring their sexuality," she says. "They should be able to find how to use it in the right way and be responsible about it. But I think the media and adults try to ignore sex and cover it up, which just sends wrong messages and makes kids more crazy about it. If the media and adults would just deal with it, kids would realize it could be a beautiful thing."
The N&O article includes the following 3 paragraphs: "I'm not against teenagers exploring their sexuality," Wood, 17, told the New York Daily News for its Sunday editions. "They should be able to find how to use it in the right way and be responsible about it."
Wood said she thinks the media and adults try to ignore sex and cover it up.
That, she said, "just sends wrong messages and makes kids more crazy about it. If the media and adults would just deal with it, kids would realize it could be a beautiful thing."
The mention of the New York Daily News is the only mention of that paper in the N&O article.
All individuals named in the N&O article as well as every quote and every fact the N&O mentions are in the text of the NY News article or an accompanying sidebar.
The date of the N&O article (or precis maybe?) is ironic because it was at that time Editor Sill was telling readers --- well you know the rest, Julie O.
Thank you for a polite inquiry.
I will try if time permits to leave a comment at your blog.
Good Wishes,
John
To me the most delicious part is not Ms. Sill's tone, history of (er..) dubious statements, or the actual value of the kerfulffle.
It's that she criticizes JIC for using anonymous sources.
Four of 'em.
And she says that she would have said the same thing "except for the stuff that's not true."
Which, I think, is a novel version fo the "false but valid" argument so beloved of the MSM.
-AC
John,
I don't believe Ms. Sill ever said she couldn't assign someone to write a story. She said she couldn't find an article on AAR in the news services she subscribes to. She did said she didn't want to assign someone to write about AAR and Gloria Wise because Gloria Wise is in the Bronx, not in North Carolina, thence not a local story.
The Wood article of August 9 was most certainly not written by anyone at the N&O. It was probably written by a staff writer for one of the news services, who lifted the quotes from the NY Daily News. It was not bylined because generally short articles in A&E sections are not bylined. But you would have to ask Ms. Sill about that.
Local papers cover local issues. They do not have the staff or resources to go to or call people in other cities unless there is a definite, strong local connection.
That is why they subscribe to news services. News services give the N&O access to national and international stories that would otherwise go uncovered in Raleigh.
News services are the ones who lift entire articles from papers like the NY Post and the NY Daily News and make them available to local papers like the N&O. That's why Ms. Sill was able to print those articles.
News services also rewrite articles and lift quotes, as well as write completely original articles and provide their own quotes. That is how Ms. Sill (most certainly, though you'd have to ask her) was able to print the Wood article on August 9.
I also thank you for the courtesy in the exchange.
Julie O,
You say:
"The Wood article of August 9 was most certainly not written by anyone at the N&O. It was probably written by a staff writer for one of the news services, who lifted the quotes from the NY Daily News. It was not bylined because generally short articles in A&E sections are not bylined. But you would have to ask Ms. Sill about that."
If the August 9 article "was most certainly not written by anyone at the N&O," why was it copyrighted by the N&O?
If the article "was probably written by a staff writer for one of the news services, who lifted the quotes from the NY Daily News," then why wasn't there any attribution to that news service?
And as far as the article not being "bylined because generally short articles in A&E sections" are not bylined, the article did not appear in the A&E section. As I mentioned in my comment, the article appeared in the N&O on pg. 2A.
There are many other parts of you comment I could respond to but time presses.
I hope you'll share this comment with readers at your blog.
John
Post a Comment