Blinco police assault story makes the N&O blink

The McClatchy Company owns the Raleigh News & Observer. It also sponsors the Editor's Blog, where the N&O's exec editor for news, Melanie Sill, is supposed to respond to questions and commentary.

Lately readers have been asking Sill a slew of questions about the N&O's failure to report on critical questions concerning an alleged assault by Durham police officers a week ago last Thursday.

The incident occurred just before midnight in the parking lot of Blinco's, a popular Raleigh sports bar frequented by some Durham police officers who witnesses at the scene described as "regulars."

Raleigh police have charged two Durham police officers with assault, but the alleged victim, a cook at Blinco's, says Raleigh police charged the wrong brother officers.

The cook described one of his assailants as fat and bald, a description which fits Durham police Sgt. Mark Gottlieb, principal investigator in the Duke lacrosse case, who was at the scene of the assault. Photos of the two officers charged show them with full heads of hair.

Pruitt's Raleigh N&O, which only a few months ago searched courthouse records to find any misdemeanor charge leveled against anyone whose name appeared on a Duke Men's lacrosse roster going as far back as 1999, just can't seem to work up any interest in finding out about the police assault at Blinco's or the bald, fat officer.

Trying to get news about the incident from Editor Sill or any N&O reporter is like asking them why they deliberately called the accuser "the victim" in their Mar. 24 and 25 "news stories" or why on Apr. 2 the N&O printed and distributed the infamous "vigilante" poster

I think everyone understands why the N&O now refuses to answer questions about it's deliberate framing of the Duke lacrosse players, but why is it silent about a story on its own "doorstep?"

Well, one things for sure: Readers aren't folding like rented chairs or N&O reporters.

Just look at what they're saying and reporting on the comment thread of "A few responses on Duke lacrosse."

All the comments are worth reading, but scroll down to the comment from Markie on 7/27/06 at 17:47 and read down from there for the most recent material.

You'll see readers point out what the N&O isn't telling them: That the bald guy in the police assault on the cook at Blinco's sports bar the cook mentioned as an assaulter was not charged; that two guys with hair were; that the cook then said Raleigh PD had charged the wrong guys; and the N&O ignored it all.

You'll see where a reader does what the N&O may have done but hasn't reported on so far: Visit Blinco's and try to determine how likely it is that a Durham Police deputy chief's statement that the two groups of Durham police at Blinco's at the same time just before the incident didn't know each other were police is true.

The reader/ reporter (doing the job an N&O reporter should have done) concludes that given the relatively small size of Blinco's, it's not very likely that two groups of cops in plain clothes could have been there at the same time without each group not knowing the other was there.

Not very likely.

The small size of Blinco's makes it virtually impossible the two groups didn't recognize each other.

There are two other reasons why it's virtually impossible the two groups didn't know the other were police:

1) Whenever off-duty police out of uniform enter a bar, they almost always identify themselves to the bartender/mgr/owner for all sorts of reasons; not least because they want the bartender/mgr/owner to know that if something happens in a flash (a robbery, for instance) and they needed to draw their guns, the bartender/etc will know they are good guys, and not fire on them with a gun the bartender/etc might have.

2) Again, if one group of officers need "in a flash" to draw their guns, the last thing they want is for another group of officers to take them for "bad guys" and start firing on them.

So off-duty cops always let barkeeps know they're off-duty cops, and always make sure to know who in the bar might also be off-duty cops.

Why is the N&O avoiding reporting critical aspects of this story?