Regarding Melanie Sill, executive editor for news at Raleigh's News & Observer, a McClatchy paper, many readers made a prediction: Sill wouldn't answer questions concerning statements she made that were disputed by other news editors and evidence from the N&O's archives.
Sill's made her statements in response to readers' questions and comments regarding why the N&O delayed publishing on the Air America loan scandal for almost 2 weeks after other news organizations began reporting it.
While I don't disagree with readers' predictions about Sill's not answering important questions, I think Sill herself would.
So let's take a look at a few recent examples of how Sill’s responding to questions and comments.
(Note: If you're already familiar with the back-and-forth between Sill and readers, you may just want to scroll down to the paragraph that begins: "In the face of questions ... " I put those 5 words in bold as a marker. If you're new to the story, keep reading.)
When Sill claimed "(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication," her statement was promptly disputed by editors of major newspapers. They said it was common newspaper practice to use material from other papers, even those with whom a paper had no formal agreement, so long as credit was given to the paper originating the story and a whole story wasn't lifted. You can read more of what they said at this post.
Here's a quote from it:
“(R)egardless of any formal contract we (newspapers) have with one another, we can take stories from each other,” one editor explained. “We do it all the time. You can't lift the whole story; and you're supposed to give credit. But a few paragraphs? No problem. You can even take from a couple of different newspapers and blend.”
All four editors interviewed for the blog report said Sill could have published on the Air America story if she wanted to. One editor said, “If she’s really telling you something different … you’re getting stiffed.”
Sill’s credibility was further damaged when evidence from the N&O's archives directly contradicted her. LexisNexis searches of N&O archives revealed the N&O has frequently and recently used as news sources some of the same news organizations that had been reporting the Air America story.
Examples are here on this thread at Sill's blog.
In the face of questions and criticisms from many readers challenging what Sill has said, she's made a few responses. Here's an example you'll find on this
post's thread at her blog.
Comment from:DeputyHeadmistress [Visitor]
08/20/05 at 15:40
I must be lacking in imagination, but I cannot see how these two statements could be characterized as anything other than falsehoods:
"We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story"
"(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication."
If you could explain to your readers how these were truthful, honest, and accurate statements, I am sure they would be glad to hear it.
Here's Editor Sill’s response in full on the same thread:
Comment from:Melanie Sill [Visitor)• http://blogs.newsobserver.com
08/21/05 at 09:47
Dep.Headmistress: Can you say more about which part seems puzzling -- how the news service queues work?
Further along the same thread, I sent Sill the following comment referencing among other readers’ comments, those of the dep. Headmistresses. My comment in full:
Comment from: John [Visitor] • http://www.johnincarolina.com
08/21/05 at 23:01
Melanie,
You say J. Stuart "misunderstood" what you said.
I see nothing where he "misunderstood" what you said, especially regarding your statements to readers about why the N&O couldn't publish on the Air America loan scandal.
J. Stuart's comments are based on LexisNexis searches of the N&O's archives.
Those searches produced information that directly contradicts statements you made to readers about news sources available to the N&O for publishing on the Air America loan scandal at the times in question and with the news sources available to it.
Why haven't you spoken to those contradictions?
And why have you said nothing in response to those editors of major newspapers who strongly disputed what you told readers about the sources available to you for use in the N&O on the Air America loan scandal?
Why are you silent on such important questions?
The dep. headmistress said to you:
"I must be lacking in imagination, but I cannot see how these two statements could be characterized as anything other than falsehoods:
'We've checked our news services in recent days and do not find this story'
'(I)n checking our many news services I did not find a story available to The N&O for publication.'
If you could explain to your readers how these were truthful, honest, and accurate statements, I am sure they would be glad to hear it."
Who does not understand what the dep. headmistress is saying.
And, Melanie, you responded:
"Can you say more about which part seems puzzling -- how the news service queues work?"
John
Sill responded this morning on the thread to my comment. Here, in full, is her response:
Comment from: Melanie [Member] • http://www.newsobserver.com
08/22/05 at 09:30
John: I'm sorry you had to talk to people off the record, I would have said some of the same things on the record (the accurate parts, not the rest). Why won't these great editors use their names in discussing fairly straightforward issues? In general you've misrepresented much of what I've said, both here and in your own blog... an anonymous blogger quoting unidentified people in criticism of something I didn't say. In some cases I think you confused comments made by others in the thread with my responses. You also interpreted, or misinterpreted, my responses in certain ways. So be it... I expect some of this in blogging.
Meantime I think you'll understand there are other stories and other issues, and this blog is not intended to respond to just one or two people, no matter how persistent. I'm hopeful other readers will weigh in on many different issus and stories. Again, thanks for taking part.
Readers will quickly see Sill said nothing to actually dispute what the editors said.
Sill also said nothing to dispute the evidence from the N&O's archives which directly contradicts what she's told readers.
And Sill again ignored the real and important question the dep.
headmistress asked.
Anyone who goes to posts at Sill's blog
here and
here and
here and reads the threads, will see that Sill has not responded to scores of informed questions and comments bearing on the same matters the dep. headmistress raised.
Her silence in the face of those questions is telling.
Sill's comment beginning: "John, I'm sorry you had to talk ....." is a reminder of the lawyers adage:
When the evidence supports what you say, argue the evidence.
When the evidence contradicts what you say, ignore the evidence and attack the witnesses.Much more soon.