Once again, The (Greensboro, NC) News & Record's Jeri Rowe comes through as a stand up guy, taking his time to answer
my question of how he can substantiate, in
writing about why voters elected Bill Knight over incumbent Mayor Johnson, that "
they wanted someone white, not black ." A stand up guy; a reporter with room for improvement.
I'll let you read Jeri's response yourself, in its entirety below, but I wish Jeri would think a little about what he did here. He justifies what he wrote by saying that people he talked to off the record said they heard that voters wanted a white mayor. Leaving aside the fact that asking someone to go on record makes them accountable--assures that they give some thought to whether or not what they are saying is really accurate and whether or not they want to be accountable for it--in this case, as you'll see when you read Jeri's explanation, people are not even relaying their own opinions anonymously. They are, as unnamed sources, saying that they heard something from other unnamed sources. Third-hand information: A reporter reporting what other people said they heard. Impossible to independently verify. That is a really low standard, in my opinion.
In fact, Jeri's use of anonymous sources in this manner is contrary to his
editor's views on anonymous sources. His web site does not even allow them. Editor John Robinson
having written:
"I don't like anonymous comments, as I've said many times before. I think people should be accountable for what they say, especially when what they say attacks someone else."
And now, Jeri's explanation:
====================
After the election, I knew I wanted to do two Sunday columns looking at the new mayor and old mayor. Basically, I wanted to find out what Yvonne Johnson was going to do next because we hadn't reported that, and I wanted to find out where Bill Knight wanted to take the city because now he’s become the symbolic face of Greensboro.
That was the basic premise.
Now, you question my sentence "And according to some, they wanted someone white, not black.'' Let me break down why I wrote that.
What piqued my curiosity was something Gerald Witt, one of our staff writers, wrote for our Nov. 5 issue, two days after the election. He crunched numbers and looked at how Knight won. His story was under the headline, "Western, northwest turnout pushed Knight's mayoral win.''
Near the end of Gerald's piece was a quote from Sharon Hightower, who leads Guilford Unity Effort, that caught my attention. Here's what it said.
Sharon Hightower, who leads the Guilford Unity Effort, sees the election result as a local backlash against local leadership.
The mayor, schools superintendent, commissioners chairman and city manager are black.
"Too much African American leadership in this town prompted people to go out and remove and eradicate what they may have viewed as too much liberalism," said Hightower, who did not work on Johnson's campaign but backed her candidacy.
"I can't blame it on anything other than we didn't get out to vote," Hightower said.
I had heard that, too, around town while I was on assignment, at church, at school and in my neighborhood. Still, I wanted to check it out for myself to see if that sentiment was indeed true.
With this piece on Yvonne Johnson, I had a list of people I called for background. These were community leaders who I asked the question, “How did Yvonne do?’’ Now, when I ask people to talk for background, I tell them I won’t quote them and I won’t use their names. I just need them to give me guidance, some insight of what they see and believe.
Why? I want them to speak freely, without any worry of feeling the need to be politically correct. So, in thoseround of interviews last week, I asked them about that statement from Sharon Hightower. And yes, they said, they had heard that, too. Then, I asked them to expound on it.
That’s where that sentence came from “And according to some, they wanted someone white, not black.’’
I talked to four people, all of whom are community leaders. I can’t give you their names because, in discussions for background, I promised them I won’t give it out because I want them to speak freely. I know that frustrates you, Roch. But I won’t. I’ve done these kind of background discussions for two decades as a journalist, and I have to stand by my promise to them.
Here’s what I will say. Some of the folks I had talked to for the Sunday piece on Yvonne Johnson were some of the same I talked to two years ago when I did what I call the trust-funk series.
Some quick background. It was the idea of my boss, John Robinson. He wanted me to do a piece that looked at “How can GSO heal?”’ I admit. I thought it was a crock, and I told him so.
Then, two days after talking to few folks face to face about what John thought. I came back and told John that he was onto something. I spent six weeks on that, talking to 44 people – 43 of them face to face in an hour to two-hour interviews in places where they felt comfortable – to get a handle on this healing thing.
None of them were politicians, except one, the new mayor, Yvonne Johnson. They all were ministers, neighborhood activists, business owners, non-profit leaders, longtime residents, etc. Black, white. Young, old. Conservative. Liberal. I also pored through all those surveys about how we don’t have trust, yada, yada – and used those figures to help anchor a Sunday piece that started a four-part series that ran in December 2007.
I mention this because that’s why Sharon’s quote caught my attention.
After 20 years as a journalist in central North Carolina, I’ve come to believe we as a city obsess on race too much at times. But Greensboro’s civil rights history – from the Levi Coffin to the founding of N.C. A&T and Bennett College to the Greensboro Four to the Magnolia House – helps shape the city we live in, and it’s part of who we are.
Also, as we all know, the discussion of race in Greensboro is always thorny, and I believe when we raise the issue of race it can divide us as a city. And I wanted to make sure it fit because I’ve heard it, too – “There they go again at the N&R. Playing the race card.’’
I say all this because I didn’t come to that sentence lightly. And I wanted to make sure I had fully vetted it and asked the main question to myself – “Is it relevant?’’ before I wrote anything.
But in this case, I believe it was relevant. Not to stir things up. Just to state what I had found out after talking to folks after reading the statement in Gerald’s piece. Because I believe we as journalists have a responsibility to report what we find out – no matter how disturbing – with the idea of how it can help generate discussion, provoke thought, even stir debate into how to make the city we live a better place to live.
I truly believe that.
For what it’s worth.
Roch, hope this helps.
Jeri
