Talking to Regulars and Readers - Dec. 10, 2006

(A post in the “old” web log tradition of “notes for others familiar with what the notes are about.”)

Thanks to all of you who provide information, links and “heads ups.” I appreciate them.

A number of you sent along links to “Wanted” and “Vigilante” posters’ information/comments sites. I followed them all. I learned some things I didn’t know.

BTW – In response to questions I’d asked her months ago and recently concerning the N&O’s Apr. 2 publication of a “Vigilante” poster photo, Melanie Sill emailed Thursday that she stands by everything she’s said at the Editors’ Blog concerning the poster and the N&O’s publication of it.

That sets up a situation where I’ll be reporting that as is typical of “Vigilante” posters, the “Vigilante” poster the N&O published is anonymous. No source is cited on the poster; the N&O has never identified one; and no one has thus far come forward to claim he/she/they produced the poster.

After reporting that, I’m going to have to go on and report that Melanie stands by the following on the thread at this EB post


Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
11/01/06 at 19:35
John - listen carefully. The flyers were left out in public, on people's cars. We picked one up and took a photograph of it. We identified the photograph as such. There is no "anonymous source." Clear? Melanie


I appreciated the help with the links to the post at Duke professor Michael Gustafson’s blog.

Michael has often commented here on aspects of the Hoax. Recently he’s begun commenting on it at his Blog of Convenience. If you haven’t visited his blog I hope you do. And Michael, many of us are very glad you're blogging!

“A parachute for Ashley?” has a very interesting thread. If you haven’t read it, I hope you will.

Some journalists commented offline about the post. Some of the points they made: Ashley and H-S owner Paxton have no sense of how to compete against the N&O. They have very little real understanding of the complex social, racial and political dynamics of Durham or the importance of a strong Web presence. Paxton’s reluctance to “put money” into the H-S was also mentioned as was Paxton's lack of experience running a newspaper the size of the H-S.

And there was this comment from a print journalist familiar with Duke’s PR/PI operations: "[T]he fact that Ashley has newspaper experience is of little consequence in today's information environment. In fact, it could be a detriment: Duke's public and internal information machines are Web-oriented to a fault.”

I’ve paid so much attention to the Duke Hoax that I’ve not had much time for N&O posts other than ones relating to its Hoax coverage (Of course, last Spring much of the N&O’s coverage was really Hoax creation/inflammation). I need to get back to paying more attention to the N&O.

But I also want to keep pressing on Hoax matters such as the silences of so many who should have spoken out when Reade Seligmann was subjected to racists’ verbal abuse on May 18, first outside the Durham County Courthouse, and then within a courtroom before the judge entered it.

Time to wrap up with a final item. It’s part of another comment by Melanie on the same comment thread as above (10/31 at 18:58)

John says we use anonymity "often to produce stories and earn our incomes." N&O readers know we rarely use anonymous sources.

Thanks for being part of this blog. And have a good week.