Truth, Readers & The N & O

Raleigh News & Observer managing editor John Drescher recently said:

[In] the first week of the [Duke lacrosse] story, our reporting was hampered by the unwillingness of the Duke players, their parents and their lawyers to speak to us.

But Drescher’s never explained just why he thinks the players, their parents and the defense attorneys are responsible for the N&O’s decision to repeatedly tell readers Crystal Mangum was the victim. Or why they’re responsible for the N&O’s decision to withhold news of the players’ extensive cooperation with police and instead promulgate the “wall of solidarity” falsehood?

Drescher needs to explain all that. I’ve been asking him to do it for months and I’ll stay at it.

Meanwhile, Drescher had just posted at the Editors’ Blog “N&O readership up.” It’s includes this:

Our readership isn’t declining. It’s growing nicely.

N&O daily and Sunday circulation have risen each of the last 11 years. Some of those gains were modest.

I've just left the following comment on the thread at the Editors' Blog:

Please, Editor Drescher, tell us what those gains were in raw numbers and percentage terms.

How do year over year N&O circulation percentage increases compare with year over year population percentage increases for the N&O's circulation area.

Two years ago the Durham Herald Sun’s weekday and Sunday circulations were in the low 50Ks. Now they’re in the mid-30Ks.

The N&O has made a big effort to pick up those 15K or so former H-S readers. What do your circulation growth numbers suggest about whether your effort has paid off yet?

Now that McClatchy owns both you and the Charlotte Observer, I hear the Charlotte paper has been told to back away from your circulation area so one McClatchy paper isn’t competing against another McClatchy paper in the same circulation area. Can you say more about that?

You go on to say:

But online growth has been robust – page views are up more than 40 percent since 2003. In January, 2 million different users came to our Web sites (newsobserver.com, triangle.com and our community sites).

The marketplace is speaking. And it’s saying that more and more readers turn to us for revealing reporting on the speaker of the House, for perspective on the Monet exhibit, for scoops on ACC basketball, and, increasingly, for the multimedia report on our Web sites (check out some of the photo galleries from our superb photography staff).

Are we changing? Yes. More people want to read us online. But they still want to read us.

A lot of those online readers who leave comments are demanding you release the whole story of the “anonymous interview.” They say you’re like Nixon at Watergate only releasing parts of tapes.

Why not give readers the full story you withheld from them last March? Who would be hurt if you did that?

When did the N&O first learn of the players' cooperation? When and in what detail did the N&O first report that cooperation to readers?

Those players, parents and attorneys you've been bashing want to know the answers to those questions.

So do your readers.

Why can't you answer those questions, Editor Drescher?