Duke lacrosse: What about McClatchy's "vigilante" poster?

On Tuesday, July 25, at the Editor’s Blog which the Raleigh News & Observer’s owner, the McClatchy Company sponsors, the N&O’s exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, told readers:

The "wanted" poster appeared on an inside page as part of a report on the mood on and around the Duke campus. The decision to use it wasn't discussed at the appropriate level. It's fair to second-guess it, and we have.

In terms of candor and usefulness, Sill’s “wanted” comment is typical of what she offers readers when she’s not ignoring they’re questions altogether.

I’ve just left the following comment on the thread of the post, "A few response on Duke lacrosse," where she made the comment that I think all but the most devoted N&O readers will find wanting.

John
_____________________________________

Dear Melanie,

There is so much you need to explain about how and why on Apr. 2 the N&O published the “vigilante” poster, which you call here the “wanted” poster.

Why did the N&O withhold from readers critical information about the “vigilante” poster? Example: The reason why the poster contained face photos of only 43 of the 46 Duke students who were the vigilante’s targets.

Will you please explain why the N&O didn’t tell its readers what other news organizations (e.g. USA Today, Mar. 29, electronic) told their readers: That Duke University, fearing for the players’ safety, removed their photos from the lacrosse team’s website. Duke did that in time to prevent the vigilantes from obtaining the last 3 of the 46 photos of the students the vigilantes were targeting.

Why didn't you tell readers that?

You’ve never told readers why a group of N&O journalists decided to publish a poster they knew would only make the already physically dangerous situation of the players even more dangerous. It’s past time you did. What's the explanation?

The N&O’s poster photo and caption, which months after you published it you told readers was “small” is, as you know, two columns wide and 7.25 inches long.

N&O editors placed it on the most prominent part of the page: At the top of the page and in the 4th and 5th columns of a 6 column wide page.

The photo is nested between two stories relating to DL, neither of which makes any mention of the “vigilante” poster or explains what purpose or effect the poster served in connection with either story.

Melanie, when I read and listen to McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt talk about the high quality of McClatchy editors and how they’re “the best,” I have to wonder. I think any sensible person would. Do you agree?

I hope you and the N&O news team know I’m not questioning their technical journalist skills or ignoring their deliberate effort to “bring” the “vigilante” poster to the attention of N&O readers.

But I do question their journalistic judgment and ethical values. I also question the ethical values of their apologists such as you.

Publishing the poster was not only dangerous to the players; it was dangerous to our community.

If you don’t believe that, Melanie, just ask the Trinity Park pot bangers who initially cheered the distribution and circulation of the “vigilante” poster. They don’t cheer anymore because even they have come to realize the “vigilante” poster, along with much else, stirred unstable people and encouraged hate groups.

The pot bangers now worry about the heightened chance of an incident in their neighborhood which could result in one of them being a victim. Ive even heard a few of them say, “The N&O went too far.”

In truth, both you and they went much too far; and innocent have suffered and will suffer as a result.

Why has the N&O, which you say carefully sourced all its Duke lacrosse coverage, never identified the poster’s source(s)? Readers haven’t even been told whether it was, as some people say, an “inside” source(s) or a “community source(s), as some other people say.

Durham Police Maj. Lee Russ told me in an interview that DPD would be interested to know the source(s) of the N&O’s “vigilante” poster. So would we all, Melanie.

On another matter related to the “vigilante” poster:

In the interest of avoiding confusion, will you and the N&O do what others are doing: Call the CrimeStoppers’ DL posters “wanted” posters and the N&O’s poster the “vigilante” poster? (Melanie, There may be more than one version of the “vigilante” poster, but let’s let that go for now. John)

CrimeStoppers and Durham Police already refer to the CrimeStoppers posters as “wanted,” and in correspondence I’ve reviewed and my interview with him, Maj. Russ referred to your poster as “the vigilante poster.”

Also, everyone I’ve spoken to who’s researching the posters observes the same “wanted” and “vigilante” distinction Durham Police observe. So do nationally recognized bloggers such as KC Johnson, Betsy Newmark, La Shawn Barber, Craig Henry, Wizbang and Johnsville News.

While there are certainly some important elements common to the two posters (eg. DPD Cpl. David Addison authored, subject in at least some circumstances to Maj. Russ’ review, the DL CrimeStoppers posters. Addison’s quoted on the N&O’s “vigilante” poster), there are many critical differences between them that make it essential to have agreed upon terms distinguishing them.

One very important difference: The CrimeStoppers poster is a solicitation of information in return for monetary compensation; the N&O’s “vigilante” poster offers no monetary compensation.

Here are two other important differences: The CrimeStoppers poster identifies its author and sponsoring organization. The N&O’s “vigilante” poster is anonymous and identifies no sponsor, omissions typical of a vigilante poster.

I hope you and the N&O are able to see the reasonableness and importance of observing the “wanted” and “vigilante” distinctions.

Two final questions, Melanie.

Do any of the journalists who made the decision to publish the “vigilante” still work for the N&O or any other McClatchy newspaper?

Will the players and their families ever receive from the N&O or the McClatchy Company an explanation and apology for your publication of the “vigilante” poster?

Sincerely,

John
www.johnincarolina.com