Doug Clark's cloudy view; "Nay," I say, "Nay!"

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record's Doug Clark bemoans what he perceives as a pervasive "coarseness" in Greensboro's public discourse. He cites what he sees as multiple examples of "naysaing" ranging from objections to the downtown baseball stadium to questions asked about the performing arts center. It is typical to the antiquated South that merely challenging people in authority is considered coarse, but that is a vestige of this place that lingers on, I don't fault Clark for that.

Clark falters, however, in assuming that his myriad examples are all of a piece. They are not. While Clark would have us believe progress in Greensboro is impeded by some monolithic group of "naysayers," suspicion and distrust springs forth from people as varied as Clark's examples. Sometimes there are objections from people interested in protecting their property or enterprise against encroachment or subsidized competition, sometimes there are civic-minded objections to the self-dealings of people in power, often there are genuine high-minded concerns of fiduciary responsibility of public funds or the protection of the disenfranchised. There is no one group nor one motivation that explains the "naysayers" however convenient to to his misconception it might be for Clark to think so.

There is, however, one common consistency across Clark's examples. It is the News & Record's failure to stand up for transparency and an honest brokering of the facts; to, in a nutshell, capitulate to a favorable opinion under the guise of being prudent and fair but without transparency or complete information. By so often siding with unchallenged propaganda, the News & Record contributes to the need for "naysayers."

From the Fed-Ex hub, to the Ballpark, to the Black Book, the News & Record opinion writers pretended to exercise prudence and sound judgment while failing to ever acknowledge, much less learn from the lessons of time. To these examples that they promoted, specifically, the News & Record never acknowledged: that the promised hub jobs they touted never materialize, that the stadium built with non-profit funds did get quietly transfered to the private team owners, one of whom is president of the non-profit, and its predecessor War Memorial stadium has been left to crumble, and that when we "got to the bottom" of the black book, as they insisted we must, it was nothing like what was described by elected officials for whom the News & Record had carried water.

The News & Record never sought to restore public trust by revisiting these issues and examining how well, or not, their opinions ended up aligning with eventual realities. Although Clark will write a litany of complaints against the "naysayers" neither he nor his colleagues have ever written about time having proven the "naysayers" to have been right about some things. Neither the News & Record nor the "naysayer" have a perfect record, but from the News & Record's perspective, their own misfires are to be ignored while citizens who engage and ask questions are an annoyance to be mitigated. Failing to ever acknowledge their misjudgments — and those occurred on some pretty darn big issues — while at the same time attempting to marginalizing the "naysayers" whose concerns and opinions time has proven legitimate is despicable.

Too often the "naysayers" were right in recognizing some bullshit in the public discourse and too often, the News & Record has carried water for propagandist and been but paper tigers in their pretense of objectivity.

If there is any doubt of this indictment against the News & Record, we have a convenient and timely test: In January, the News & Record wrote this about the negotiations between the city of Greensboro and the non-profit pushing for a downtown performing arts center:

"[C]ity leaders should negotiate an agreement that protects taxpayers’ best interests and preserves the public’s trust."

Now that a tentative deal has been reached, will the News & Record be an honest broker and weigh the facts against its own expectations for protection of the taxpayers' interests? The deal struck relies on blatantly unrealistic financial projections ($25 VIP parking will be sold-out not only for every performance, but for every rehearsal and every load-in, for example). That revenue will surely fail to materialize and taxpayers will be on the hook for additional financial subsidies. The deal also puts the city on the hook for any donor contributions that do not materialize, will the News & Record incorporate these facts and other facts about taxpayer risk into their support of the deal and acknowledge that additional taxpayer subsides are surely in the cards or, with calm assurances and a blind eye, will they gloss over the details and tell readers everything is copasetic and their expectations have been met? Watchdogs or paper tigers? We'll see.

In the mean time, Greensboro needs its naysayers who, often, are really just boosters without blinders. If the News & Record cannot rise to meet the needs of this community for real advocates of honesty and transparency, it can at least avoid trying to marginalize those who care enough to give a damn but who also have enough respect for themselves and their neighbors not to acquiesce to half truths and propaganda. It is, after all, difficult to remain cordial when being marginalized.