Regular visitors here know The McClatchy Company's Raleigh News & Observer's Senior Vice President and Executive Editor, Melanie Sill, has recently made a series of threats to delete comments I've made at a blog McClatchy sponsors called The Editors Blog.
Sill has made such threats for months but they intensified and became more frequent following my questions and criticisms concerning what many people see as The N&O's biased and inflammatory reporting of the Duke lacrosse case.
For recent examples of what I'm talking about read some of Sill's blog posts and read down the comment threads here, here, here, and here.
You'll see on the comment threads that I've asked many questions Sill hasn't answered. Here's just one example:
Why did The N&O, after refusing to publish any of the Danish cartoons, go ahead and publish the "vigilante poster" with face-photos of 40 Duke lacrosse players and "WANTED" stamped on it, despite warnings that publishing the poster would only stir passions and make it more likely unstable individuals and hate groups would target the lacrosse players?Today Sill made another "delete" threat to which I responded.
A few hours later I received from Sill the email below. After completing this post, I plan to comment at The Editor's Blog. I'm going to ask Sill to cite specific examples of the unsubstantiated claims she makes concerning my comments.
I also plan to tell Sill there's no reason correspondence between her and myself should be anywhere but where blog readers can see it.
McClatchy CEO Gary Pruitt calls such readers "the audience." Why cut the "audience" out of an ongoing correspondence which may lead to one member of the "audience" being barred from commenting? Cutting the rest of the "audience" out of that conversation destroys the transparency Pruitt says McClatchy wants at its blogs.
Now you most likely want to get on and read Sill's email, so I'll end.
More tomorrow.
And don't forget to visit The Editor's Blog.
John
_____________________________________
Sill's email:
John,
I'm writing directly to you to ask your help in working with me so that
you can continue to comment on my blog in a way that's workable on both
sides. I'd ask that you not post this exchange publicly -- I'm sending
this note out of respect and a desire to work this out.
Here's what I'd ask:
*That you try to address the issues in the posts and not cross-post
the same comments on multiple threads. If you don't see a post on
something you're interested in, email me and I'll see if I have
something to say so that you can comment.
* That you respect my request that your comments be shorter, in
general.
* That you understand that I have only part of each day for the blog,
and that I can respond briefly to some specific questions but I can't
get into a protracted dissection of your arguments. I have answered
your questions, but this seems to result in a barrage of new questions
or a picking apart of my responses in some cases to misrepresent me. I
will pledge to try to address your questions as often as possible.
All blogs have guidelines and owners. I'd like to have you as a
continued commenter. These are my guidelines. Let me know what you
think.
Melanie Sill
Executive editor and senior vice president
The News & Observer
P.O. Box 191 Raleigh, NC 27601
919-829-8986
msill@newsobserver.com
8 comments:
Ms. Sill has yet to adjust to a world in which she does not arbitrarily control the dialog. Ms. Sill needs to know that, collectively, we have her little newspaper out-numbered out-educated and surrounded.
locomotive breath,
I've read Sill's latest at The Editor's Blog.
I'm thinking about my response.
Any thoughts?
Others are welcome to join in.
Thanks for commenting.
John
Sent her this John;
05/17/06 at 15:20
"Good reporting goes beyond what the police and the lawyers say. I have no apologies for our fundamental reporting, which has been deep, thorough and much more careful than other news outlets in avoiding anonymou....."-Sill
If that is your opinion, explain to me again why your initial report of the interview with the alleged victim was edited to conform to what was in the official police report and not to conform with what she actually said in that interview when her statement conflicted with what she had previously told police. That is what you said the N&O did, How does that jibe with your statement above?
You see? That's the problem with lying. You get tangled up.
Keep her feet to the fire!
I've added my two cents over at her blog.
And I commented again today.
It's classic. Yesterday I commented that when they don't have any actual news they get a columnist to write an opinion piece. So guess what? Today, it's Ruth Sheehan's turn to boil the pot.
locomotive breath,
You're Sheehan comment nails it.
I was surprised she would go back to the Duke lacrosse case after how wrong she was first, for attacking the players for doing no more than exercising their constitutional rights upon advice of counsel; and than, second, demanding Duke "dump" Coach Pressler. As you know, a faculty committee report later said Pressler took seriously and did something about any lacrosse players' behavior.
Thanks for the heads up and the comment.
I'll post on Sheehan today.
John
Ms. Sill challenged me for a source on the "Kim said racist things too" point of my post. As you might expect, it was in the Durham Herald Sun but not in the N&O. I pointed her to it. I think Ruth Sheehan thinks she is well informed because she reads the N&O and nothing else. What else could there be?
Post a Comment