More on "reportedly"

The (Greensboro, NC) News & Record editor John Robinson commented on this post, in which I expressed dislike for his use of the word "reportedly." Here is what he wrote, followed by my reply:

Oh, please.

It's reported because a couple of my reporters told me about it. Does it have to be "published?" I say no. I guess you say yes. OK. We disagree.

But given the sorts of things the blogosphere talks about, particularly as it pertains to candidates and the newspaper, I was surprised that this wasn't commented on.

One of the "reports" is that you discussed the issue of talking with the newspaper with Ben, Roch. Did you?

My reply:

Which explains and informs? Naming your sources or saying "reportedly?" Which works to add confusion, mystery and to obfuscate the facts? Naming your sources or saying "reportedly?" Whether information has been published or not is not the question, the use of the word "reportedly" to hide where the information is coming from is what is troubling.

It seemed as if you were going out of your way to create mystery and confusion and avoid cutting to the chase:

1. You avoided naming the candidate in question in both of your posts on this matter.

2. You avoided simply stating the source for your information, substituting "reportedly" for "Reporter X says...".

3. You exaggerated what was going on, saying that a candidate had decided to "not talk" to the N&R. That is, reportedly, not true at all. Ben has talked to and continues to talk to elections reporter Amanda Lehmert and even, reportedly, had her in his home the day before your post.

On the other hand, I do appreciate you taking the time to comment here. You are always welcome. I would have commented on your blog, but I find the inability to do so without registering inconvenient. Reportedly, I am not the only one.

Before you brought this up on your blog, I was going to write a post about it. My focus was going to be on the N&R's online candidate profile for Ben reporting, in the place of any information, that the candidate declined to answer questions and that it even left out information election reporter Amanda Lehmert knows independent of answers from the candidate.

But I called Amanda to discuss and found my interest changing: From critic to facilitator--thinking that I might be able to help bring about an outcome better for both Amanda and Ben (and therefore, the public).

In a nutshell, those conversations consisted of a lot of listening, then some "translating." My comments to Amanda, as I remember them, were essentially that Ben's alarm bells went off, that he has a history of tussling with the N&R and that he perceived this to be another round in that match.

My advice to Ben, as I remember it, was to stay on his game; to be the man he will be if he gets elected, to imagine himself responding not as the old Ben working out lingering beefs with the N&R, but to respond as he would were he the district 1 council representative; and to give Amanda a chance.