Readers Note: This is the fourth of a five-post series providing examples of the Raleigh News & Observer’s arrogance during its Duke lacrosse coverage. The examples also reveal some of the disingenuousness that was an essential and pervasive part of the N&O’s grossly biased, racially inflammatory and often false Duke Hoax reporting during Spring 2006 and thereafter.
This past Sunday Raleigh News & Observer publisher Orage Quarles III told readers:
We have a mission to advance our tradition of excellent public-service journalism and serve our community.When I read that I thought of an email I sent Quarles some weeks ago (see post here) and his response.
Here's part of the email. I resume commenting below the star line.
Dear Mr. Quarles:
I’m an N&O subscriber and blog as John in Carolina.
For many months I’ve been posting concerning claims by Ruth Sheehan that then DA Mike Nifong was an anonymous source for her March 27, 2006 column “Team’s silence is sickening.” For example, in Nifong an N&O anonymous source (Post 1) 7/29/07 and Nifong an N&O anonymous source (Post 2) 8/1/08. ...
No reporter or editor would speak about the matter until recently when, in response to the email in this post - What's really hurting the N&O , Ted Vaden he sent me the email you’ll find in this post: N&O editor's response re: Nifong an anonymous source.
You'll see Vaden’s email avoided my questions and contains statements which are prima facie false.
On Feb. 6 I sent Vaden another email and a link to this post: Is the N&O public editor's job about the truth?
I once again laid out all the material relating to the N&O’s use of Nifong as an anonymous source and asked again the questions I’ve been asking for many months.
I ended my email, which I also posted for JinC readers, with this:
Given all of the foregoing, Editor Vaden, it's difficult to see how a reasonably responsible public editor would claim Sheehan is saying anything other than Nifong was an anonymous source for her March 27 column; or that she is saying anything other than Nifong's source information was passed to her by journalist(s) she reached by phone at the N&O.I’ve not heard anything back from Vaden.
I hope you will now give me and all other N&O readers full and frank answers to the questions I've been asking about the N&O's use of Nifong as an anonymous source in March 2006.
Isn't that the kind of service a public editor is supposed to provide readers?
If you can't provide that service, please direct me to someone at the N&O or the McClatchy Company who can?
I'll publish your response in full at my blog.
Thank you for your attention to this document.
John in Carolina
I ask that you review the documentation and questions in my post and then direct me to the person at the N&O or in the McClatchy Company who can provide full and frank answers to what Ruth Sheehan has said and the questions I’ve asked. ...
Thank you for your attention to this matter.
I’ll publish your response in full at my blog.
John in Carolina
Now, folks, what sort of response to that email should a reader expect from an MSM newspaper publisher who tells them:
We have a mission to advance our tradition of excellent public-service journalism and serve our community?Here in full is Quarles' response:
Dear John in Carolina.Given the matters I raised, including false statements his public editor made to a reader, and the documentation I provided him, I was hoping for something more from Quarles.
We do not provide anonymous source information.
Orage Quarles III
His response is arrogant and disingenuous.
It's an example of both the contempt many MSM news executives and journalists have for readers and of their willingness to overlook the actions of those within their ranks who knowingly mislead readers.
Is it any wonder the public holds journalists in such low esteem?