Sunday, March 18, 2007

N&O Editor Is Upset

Raleigh News & Observer managing editor John Drescher is upset because many readers commenting at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog don’t identify themselves. Drescher criticizes those readers (whom he calls “bloggers,” the better to obscure the fact his criticism is really directed at N&O readers).

You can read Drescher’s post here.

I left the following comment on the thread:

Dear Editor Drescher:

Why are you telling readers you’re concerned about bloggers’ anonymity?

Last Apr. 2 the N&O had no trouble publishing anonymously the notorious "Vigilante" poster which targeted only white male Duke students who played on the university’s lacrosse team.

You published the poster on your highest circulation day, a Sunday. You made it large (two-columns wide, 7 inches long) and placed it on the most prominent part of the page (top of the page, in the 4th and 5th columns of a six column page).

The N&O’s “Vigilante poster photo was large enough so that anyone with a little tech skill could further enlarge it and still have very good resolution for face identification of the 43 white Duke students targeted by the hateful people who produced the poster you took, published and distributed to what you say are your half-million Sunday readers.

All of that was done anonymously.

The N&O has never disclosed who produced the” Vigilante” poster.

You’ve also kept anonymous the names of the N&O editors who decided to publish the “Vigilante” poster even after Duke had expressed concerns that doing so would endanger the lacrosse players.

Who were those editors? You know you know who they are.

Some journalists tell me you, Managing Editor Drescher, were one of those who “gave the go” for publishing the poster photo?

Is that true?

And what’s the source of your problem with people who comment at the Editors Blog anonymously?

None of those anonymous commenters (who are also N&O readers) has done anything near as terrible as your publication of the “Vigilante” poster.

You had no problem publishing anonymously on March 25 above the fold on page one with five column-wide headlines what many at the N&O had to know was Crystal Mangum’s false witness.

You had no problem anonymously withholding from the rest of media and trusting N&O readers the critical information that, during the interview, Mangum had ID’ed Roberts and made statements about her which Editor Linda Williams admits were so significant she thinks the N&O would have been libelous to publish them.

You had no problem reporting the anonymous interviews you granted Mangum’s family members and friends so they could defame the students.

Given all of that, wouldn’t it be more honest, Editor Drescher, to admit you use anonymity often to sell the N&O and make your living?

And what do you say to this question other journalists have prompted me to ask you: when you find out who your anonymous reader/commenter/blogger critics are, won’t you treat them even worse than you treated 46 innocent white male Duke students?

Please stop attacking your critics and answer their questions. Mine, too.

Sincerely,

John in Carolina

8 comments:

gak said...

I suspect that this gent Drescher is just making news since the N&O really doesn't know how to report it.

Anonymous said...

Is Drescher simply gearing up for the libel suits against the N&O? The so-called vigilante poster libeled lacrosse players who have never been charged with a crime. The incredibly disingenuous stories in late March, the ones which called the false accuser the "victim," should cause concern on the part of the top N&O editors. McClatchy has deep pockets and an array of expensive libel lawyers.

Anonymous said...

I would like to point out that one must register with his name and email before he can post on the blogs sponsored by the paper.

I don't argue with liars and reprobates. There is no point to it. That is why I don't avail myself of the N&O's blogs.

They have no problem knowing who owns a nom de plume, that makes them liars. They have no problem with anonymity as John has shown, that makes them unprincipled, or reprobates.

Arguing with them is like wrestling in the mud with a pig. The pig enjoys it and except for the better character would be indistinguishable from the staff we are talking about.

Now, delete this if you must, but you can't refute it.


BTW, hope you had a good visit.

Anonymous said...

If one is not a public figure, are the standards lower for proving libel?

Anonymous said...

Jon Ham, of the Right Angle blog, says this of the N&O's corporate owner, McClatchy:

The “some Iraqis” McClatchy speaks with
Posted at 9:47 AM by Jon Ham
The News & Observer’s “Q” section ran a story today with this headline: “What do the Iraqis think?” It was written by McClatchy (The N&O’s owner) Baghdad Bureau Chief Leila Fadel. The story was filed nearly two weeks ago with this headline: “4 years after invasion, many Iraqis look back with longing.”

In her story, Fadel interviews four people and comes to convey that the invasion of Iraq was a mistake. How did she choose these four people? Were they picked at random or did she know in advance they were disillusioned and secretly longed for the days of Saddam? And how did four people become “many” in the headline?

Meanwhile, an actual poll of more than four people paints a different picture. The headline on this story from Britain’s TimesOnline is: “Resilient Iraqis ask what civil war?” This story, published today and not two weeks ago, says:
The poll, the biggest since coalition troops entered Iraq on March 20, 2003, shows that by a majority of two to one, Iraqis prefer the current leadership to Saddam Hussein’s regime, regardless of the security crisis and a lack of public services.
If you ever wanted to know how a biased media can create fiction from truth, go no further than McClatchy’s Leila Fadel.

gak said...

The N&O has an editorial (anonymouse) that TJN has a link to. Another brilliant and insightful piece about the CCI's report. In 2 paragraphs, it blows right by all the facts and calls the report an opportunity

Anonymous said...

Is it just me, or do these editors use the term 'blogger' in a derogotory way, akin to the way the KKK uses a similarly constructed word?

Anonymous said...

Ya know, were I the editor of a major newspaper (heaven forfend) and actually knew how many mistakes my crew made, I'd be a bit more humble about bloggers.

-AC