Wednesday, November 07, 2007

What about John In Carolina?

I want to report that John in Carolina has recently been the subject of both praise and criticism.

A few days ago said [excerpts]:

One of the Bloggers that we read everyday is John In Carolina. His investigative reporting on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax case has been excellent.

His articles on CrimeStoppers Cpl David Addison are of the quality that should be in the Washington Post. […]

LieStoppers wants to commend John. He is someone who should be read daily. When he isn't commenting on the Duke Lacrosse Hoax you will still get a mighty fine education on Winston Churchill!
Ol’ JinC is very appreciative of Liestoppers generous words, especially as they come from an outstanding blog.

Still, honesty compels me to point out that the folks at LS, while smart and reliable, are not what MSM news organizations refer to as “real professional journalists you can trust.”

To make this post fair and balanced, I think it’s only right I include a much less positive assessment of JinC from one of those “real professional journalists you can trust.”

She’s Melanie Sill, until a few days ago executive editor for news at the Raleigh News & Observer. Sill recently announced at the N&O’s Editors’ Blog :
"John, there will be no further N&O response to your accusations, which include greater distortions with each repetition.

We have responded repeatedly; see previous posts under category of Duke lacrosse coverage to see accusations and responses."
Sill’s announcement came in response to questions and suggestions I'd directed to John Drescher, who was promoted from managing editor to fill Sill’s position when she moved to the Sacramento Bee, where she’ll be executive editor for news.

Here’s part of what I said to Drescher after he, without citing any supporting data, accused Newsweek of plagiarizing from the N&O:
Editor Drescher, instead of getting into an ego-driven snit-fight with Newsweek, the N&O would better serve truth, the community and its own long-term interests if you do the following:

1) Publish a detailed story which holds nothing back in explaining why you withheld for 13 months the exculpatory news Mangum gave you on March 24; and what it was like for N&O staffers to watch the players indicted, threatened, and savaged by most major publications while you were sitting on news that could have changed all that.

2) Retract your March 25 story which you told readers was about an “ordeal” that ended in “sexual violence.” You and the informed public know it was based almost entirely on lies.

3) Publish on your front-page a detailed account of how the fraudulent March 25 story was created, including an explanation of why you left out of it the news you had of the players’ cooperation with police; an explanation of how you came to get the interview with Mangum; and an acknowledgment of whatever involvement Nifong and others working the attempted frame-up had to do, as anonymous sources, with the story.

4) Issue a full, unconditional apology to the players, their families, Coach Mike Pressler and his family, who were the people most harmed by your story.

5) Apologize to your readers and the rest of the media whom you deliberately misled.

6) Apologize for publishing the "Vigilante" poster and assure everyone that the people responsible for publishing it no longer work for the N&O or any other McClatchy publication.

Thank you for reading this comment.

I look forward to your response which I’ll copy and post at JinC.


John in Carolina
The only “response” was Melanie’s announcement. Drescher said nothing.

Well, there you have it, folks. Praise and criticism of JinC.

I reported. You decide.


Anonymous said...

Another great post.Don't pay attention to those attacking you for standing up for America.

Keep on exposing the N&O, Nifong and Duke.

Don't forget KC and Taylor are in the sack with the N&O.

Stick to it.

Anonymous said...


Whew! That was a close one! For a minute I thought you were going to say we were “real professional journalists you can trust.”

Baldo of LieStoppers

Anonymous said...

Reminds me of a few local political battles I was involved in when we'd agree we'd rather lose with the people on our side (the good guys) than win with the people we were fighting.

You're with the good guys and you're winning. That's as good as it gets.

Anonymous said...


"John, there will be no further N&O response to your accusations, which include greater distortions with each repetition."

The lady doth protest too much, methinks.


Anonymous said...

9:36: I admire John. I love the Chhurchill stories, and I appreciate the different perspective on the Hoax I get from JinC. But I don't think we need to shoot our friends. There are enough enemies to go around.

Locomotive Breath said...

Speaking of shameful newspapers, wanna' give me odds on the N&O publishing this photo and the story that goes with it?

Julian said...

Thanks John, for not having a short memory.
After the case starting falling apart and the N&O changed their tune, people soon forgot that the N&O were one of the biggest hoax enablers.
The only way we're ever going to get the truth out of the N&O is to put Sill and her cohorts under oath testifying in court.

Insufficiently Sensitive said...

Melanie's dug her heels in like Dan Rather. It's most likely the case that the N&O still considers its word infallible, except for minor quibbles like spelling, and that it had the narrative right on the day they published it, and that 'the facts' changed afterward but were properly evaluated on first publication.

scott said...

Come on, JinC --

Don't you know that the actions you posed to Drescher represent "Piling On"? You should know by now that it is extremely "unfair" to ask legitimate questions that socialists don't want to answer.

Sure, the N & O has responded, just as Sill states. But those responses have been pure horse-puckey. They have never once addressed the concerns you raised or their statement that it is N & O policy not to rely on anonymous sources. In fact, the Khanna / Blythe piece of March 25, 2006, was based completely on an anonymous source (Mangum, who was never identified by name in that story). And was a total fabrication to boot. Sill should have been fired and consumed with shame that such a piece was even printed during her watch. Instead she received a promotion and then feels entitled to rant at you.

Joe Neff did some decent work (excluding his anonymous source statement) after the story started unraveling, but it was no more than what I would expect from any legitimate newspaper. The problem is there are so few legitimate newspapers, especially in recent years. Most have become so devoid of a straight reporting of the facts that anytime a reporter does, it's a news event in itself and one the industry feels is worthy of the highest praise.

I'd rather have the support of 1 Liestoppers than 1000 NY Times or Raleigh N & O. After more than 30 years, I moved from California because it has too many Melanie Sills and not enough JinCs. She'll be real comfortable in her newly adopted cesspool at the Sacramento Bee.

My fantasy is that one day, there won't be a whiff of a NY Times, N & O or Sacramento Bee. They will all have been replaced by "citizen reporters you can trust" -- like the ones at Liestoppers or JinC.