Readers Note: What follows is a 1, 2, 3 post
1 – A copy of a comment I recently made on the thread of this post at the Raleigh N&O’s Editors’ Blog;
2 – A copy of a response the N&O’s executive editor for news, Melanie Sill, made on the same thread in response to my comment;
3 – My response to Sill which I’ve just left further down on the thread.
I think reading my comments and Sill’s response will give you a good idea of how each of us treats facts and how we treat you, our readers.
John
_______________________________________
1 - Comment from: John [Visitor] • http://www.johnincarolina.com
01/08/07 at 23:42
To other posters above,
This is a great thread.
_____________________________
Dear Melanie,
Regarding the N&O journalism, can we agree that in just your Mar. 25 story the N&O:
1) Assured readers the woman we now know to be a false accuser was "the victim;"
2) That the false accuser identified the second dancer but you suppressed that news;
3) That the FA made statements the N&O suppressed that it now says it would have been libel had it reported them;
4) That you still refuse to publish a transcript of the interview;
5) That you've told readers you reported "only what was confirmed by the police report;"
6) That there were many police reports containing different accounts by the FA;
7) That a number of the police reports contained accounts by the FA that conflicted with the versions the N&O published and which DA Mike Nifong adopted as his version two days later when he spoke publicly about the case for the first time;
8) That in at least one of the police reports the FA said the second dancer, whom she called "Nicky," robbed her;
9) That in at least one of the police reports the FA said Nicky had assisted the lacrosse players who raped her;
10 Than in another police report the second dancer, Kim Roberts, had told the police that the FA's story of being raped, choked, beaten and robbed was a crock;
11) That the N&O has never told readers which of the police reports it claims to have used it in fact used;
12) That the police had on multiple occasions before your Mar. 25 interview told media of the cooperation the lacrosse players had given them;
13) And that the N&O, for reasons its never explained to readers, deliberately withheld from them the news that the players had been cooperating; and instead reported they had not been cooperating?
There's much more wrong with you Mar. 25 story and many other of your Duke lacrosse stories in which you worked so hard to frame the players.
I agree with others on this thread: You sound so much like Nixon at the time of Watergate.
Sincerely,
John in Carolina
____________________________________________________
2 – Editor Sill’s response to my comment:
Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
01/09/07 at 09:53
John, there are many misstatements of fact in your comment post here. I think you probably know that. We do not agree on your representation, but I think you probably also know that.
____________________________________________
3 - My Response to Sill:
Dear Readers and Melanie:
Editor Sill stoops to slime when she tells readers she thinks I know what I'm saying are misstatements. Sill knows I've never said anything to indicate I doubt the truth of what I said in my comment above.
I'm reproducing part of it following the starline below. Following each of the first three points are supporting data that leave no doubt about the factualness of what I've said.
I could do the same for each of the other points but that would make this comment very long. I don't doubt that the truthfulness of what I'm saying is well known to most of you.
That puts you in a very good position to judge Editor Sill and what she's said about me.
It's not for nothing that her nickname is "The unbelievable editor."
**************************************
Comment from: John [Visitor] • http://www.johnincarolina.com
01/08/07 at 23:42
To other posters above,
This is a great thread.
_____________________________
Dear Melanie,
Regarding the N&O journalism, can we agree that in just your Mar. 25 story the N&O:
1) Assured readers the woman we now know to be a false accuser was "the victim;"
On this post we find the follow two comments:
Comment from: Melanie Sill [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com2) That the false accuser identified the second dancer but you suppressed that news;
10/12/06 at 09:24
A factual note: The much discussed interview with the woman referred to her as "the accuser" or "the woman who reported the rape." Not sure how this has been twisted otherwise.
Comment from: Brian Johnston [Visitor]
10/17/06 at 17:58
[...]
Melanie, please actually read the article of March 25, and these quotes from it:
“It is The News & Observer's policy not to identify the VICTIMS of sex crimes.”
”Jason Bissey, who was on his porch next door during the party, saw the VICTIM that night.”
“He [Bissey] recalled the racially charged statements at least one man was yelling at the VICTIM.”
“Addison, the police spokesman, said that between receiving the call and searching the house, police were interviewing the VICTIM, residents of the house and other witnesses.”
[...]
The following is part of Deputy Mangaging Editor Linda Williams "March 25 interview" post:
"Only two things the woman said at that time did not make publication. She provided a description of the then-unidentified second woman who had also been hired to dance at the lacrosse team party. She also offered an opinion about the other woman’s actions that night."3) That the FA made statements the N&O suppressed that it now says it would have been libel had it reported them;
The following is from Williams' comment made at the EB's "Headline Saturday: DA Mike Nifong and the lacrosse case" post.
Comment from: Linda Williams [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.comIt's not for nothing that Melanie Sill is called "the unbelievable editor."
12/24/06 at 17:17
[...] "As previously stated, the accuser offered a description of the second dancer hired for the party. The presence of a second woman at the party was already known, but she was not identified at that time. The description was withheld because it was irrelevant in the absence of any other available information about the second woman. The accusers' speculation about the actions of the second woman was also not printed.
If we had printed that utterance- an admitted speculation without the slightest foundation to suggest the possibility of truth-- it would have been a conscious act of libel." [...]
3 comments:
John, do you remember my reference to needing a bath in Clorox after corresponding with certain persons?
Does it still sound unacceptable? It removes slime.
What does publisher Orage Quarles think of the late March performance of Melanie Sill, Linda Williams, the two bylines on the false accuser "interview?" And Sheehan's inflammatory column?
I am still confused about what is so significant about the accuser's having "identified" Kim. I know the names of my co-workers, too, and that's without having seen them naked.
If the concern is that the newspaper failed to mention that the accuser had also accused Kim of taking her money, then just talk about that. But her just having "identified" Kim doesn't strike me as being relevant to anything.
Post a Comment