Speaking of idiots

A Mark Underwood writes a letter to the News & Record in which he takes to calling the victims of the November 3rd, 1979 murders by Klan and Nazis in Greensboro "idiots."

Mark then goes on to write:

"Passions still run high among the few interested, but the true facts are impossible to determine."

Let's get this straight: Mark is convinced that the "true facts" are impossible to determine yet, despite this, he is confident enough to know that the people killed and wounded were/are idiots.

That's the convenience afforded by ignorance: One can put forth any opinion at all if one willfully leaves them unexposed to the facts.

Mark should read the Truth & Reconciliation Report. It's chock full of "true facts," gathered from a vast array of reputable sources. Were he to read it, Mark might come to understand who the real idiot is.

Bye Dell

I'm looking around for a new desktop computer. I have some specific needs. Dell used to have a great website that allowed one to custom configure a computer, to add and remove features and options. It was great because one could see what an ideal machine would cost, then make adjustments that would change the price if one needed to bring it in line with a budget

It allowed people to dsicover, "Hey! I can afford a slightly larger hard drive" as much as "Hmm, I think I can get by with a little less RAM."

That's gone.

Now nearly all Dell machines are take-it-or-leave-it configurations. That means one cannot get a 2 terabyte hard drive in anything but the most expensive of their computers. HP and Lenovo, on the other hand, offer large hard drives in their mid-range computers - as an option — for the customer to decide along with a full range of options for RAM, processors, video cards, etc. As it should be.

Sorry Dell. Maybe next time.

Malpractice: News & Record prints Anthony Bundros' plagiarized falsehoods

GREENSBORO, NC -- Allen Johnson, editorial editor of the News & Record, when recently called on the carpet by Ed Cone for publishing falsehoods on the editorial page (previously and previously), responded with:

"The News & Record’s policy is to screen and edit letters for factual errors."

He's not doing a very good job. Today, he publishes a letter that is both false in its assertions and plagiarized. The News & Record gives it credibility by adding the title: "Our inept president has changed the U.S.."

The letter is signed by Anthony Bundros of Greensboro. It offers what the author suggests is insight into the thinking of Barack Obama, which he advises can come from understanding the "the eight levels of control to create a socialists state," from, Bundros says, Sal Alinsky.

Two problems: Bundros did not write the bulk of his letter and the "eight levels of control" are not from Alinksky.

Plagiarism
Descriptions of the "eight levels of control" Bundros includes in his letter, can be found word-for-word from other sources. The earliest I could find was in an unedited public forum on the Beaufort Observer's website on January 13, 2014 by a Joseph Leary. Bundros did not write what he represented as his own.

Falsehoods
Although Bundros describes what he says are Sal Alinsky's "levels of control," fact-checking Snopes says these are not from Alinsky and Snopes can identify no source beyond chain emails. Snopes rates as "false" an email circulating since January of 2104 that attributes these to Alinsky and which includes, nearly word-for-word, the "eight levels of control" cited by Bundros. Snopes discredits it as:

"[A]nother example of a political linking of the names of Saul Alinsky and Barack Obama. It's not something taken from the actual writings of Saul Alinsky, though, and to those familiar with his background it doesn't even sound like something he would have written.  

When the needle on my (amateur) B.S. meter is jumping off the scale, one would expect the seasoned professionals at the News & Record to have been at least a little curious. Curious enough to take two minutes for a web search. It's what they get paid for, right? Editing. It's what distinguishes them as professionals, right?


Anthony Bundros was hoodwinked to mistakenly believe, we assume, the falsehoods he read. Who knows what motives he had for signing his name to something he did not write? But for the News & Record to publish this claptrap, for it to escape their notice that the piece was not only plagiarized but that it also asserted demonstrable falsehoods, is nothing short of malpractice. For them to slap a headline on it that gives the fabrications credence is egregious. Greensboro deserves better.

Now THIS is journalism! Kudos News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- From the News & Record today:

He came back to life, according to a story Bonnke tells, when his wife took the body to one of the crusades.

Some critics are skeptical of that account.

See? Very balanced. A dead man may have come back to life but, maybe not. You decide, it's not a reporter's place to say.

Top notch!

I'm looking forward to these upcoming reports:

Sasquatch may be headed to the N.B.A., critics skeptical.

Flying carpets to become popular mode of transportation, critics skeptical.

Alien spacecraft causing global warming, critics skeptical.

</sarcasm>

This is the kind of tripe the News & Record thinks people will pay to read.

Barnes & Nobles' stupendously moronic business model

GREENSBORO, NC -- After reading rave reviews of Jon Duckett's Javascript and Jquery: Interactive Front End Web Development, I thought I'd buy a copy. I checked Barnes and Noble's website to see if it was in stock at the Friendly Center store. It was. The price shown was $22.07.

I located the book in the store, but its cover price was $39.98, so I went to the customer service counter to ask about the discrepancy. Before I could even finish my question, the nice lady was nodding knowingly. As she explained, books at Barnes and Nobles are more expensive if purchased in the store.

I must have had quite an expression on my face because the lady responded with, "I know, I know."

"That's really dumb," I said, "now I'm going to leave the store, without making a purchase and go buy it online, probably from Amazon just to further express my displeasure with such gouging." (Alibris looks like a good option.)

"But you can have it today if you buy it in the store," the lady tried to convince me.

Nice try, but an 82% premium for instant gratification just wasn't a selling point.

"And, the money will stay in your community and you'll be supporting your local store," she said.

Yeah, but my local store is trying to stick it to me, that hardly engenders the kind of goodwill that makes me want to support that store.

I buy local plenty, I shop the farmers markets when I can and I prefer independently-owned restaurants and stores to chains; but they aren't gouging their customers. Barnes and Noble, on the other hand, is trying to make a business out of sticking it to local shoppers.

I feel sorry for the people working at the store, but geez o'man, somebody in the chain of command needs to get a clue.

The News & Record stinks so bad

From Joe Gamm in the News & Record today, reporting on the City of Greensboro settling a lawsuit brought by former police officers:

"[Former Police Chief David] Wray resigned in 2006. Plaintiffs alleged he maintained a “black book” that was used to unfairly investigate black officers. Wray contended the department used the book to investigate a sexual assault."

The News & Record continues their atrocious willingness to let competing assertions substitute for fact, but the truth is the realities of the "black book" are far different from what the News & Record portrays. It wasn't just Wray who said the book was a legitimate investigative tool, it was the City of Greensboro, in a sworn affidavit, signed by the very city manager who locked David Wray out of his office, who said the book was compiled for the purpose of solving a crime.

Furthermore, the city also admitted in that affidavit, that it had no evidence of the line-up book being misused. Finally, the use of the book was investigated by the SBI, the FBI and the Department of Justice, all of whom found no improper use of the book. Only one police officer was tried as a result of investigations into the "black book"—for improper use of a federal computer—and he was acquitted.

The News & Record ignores the context of these details and reports the purpose of the black book as unknown beyond the competing assertions of two parties. There is no truth here as far as the News & Record is concerned, they are content to commit what renowned journalism professor Jay Rosen calls the ethical lapse of he said/she said reporting. It makes them look incompetent, or worse, contemptuous.

News & Record's irresponsible dissemination of outright falsehoods

GREENSBORO, NC -- What responsibility does the News & Record have to its readers to see to it that outright falsehoods are not disseminated on its pages? Apparently, none.

While people are entitled to their own opinions, they are not entitled to their own facts, but not so on the opinion pages of the News & Record where the editors don't concern themselves with factual accuracy; case in point, a letter to the editor today from one Ned van Buren, in which he writes:

"Buried in the Affordable Care Act are what the Economist magazine (Oct. 5, 2013) describes as death panels designed to “unplug Grandma.” Section 1553 of Public Law 111-148, page 259, tells how the risk of death increases by withholding treatment, but not for the purpose of causing death." 

The claims of fact presented by Mr. Van Buren here are false. The News & Record printed them anyway.

Did the Economist magazine describe death panels "buried in the Affordable Care Act?" No, it did not and it would have been an easy thing, as it was for me, for the News & Record to check, find Van Buren's statement false, and invite him to resubmit his letter without the falsehood. 

What the Economist described, in an article about "Ted Cruz, bomb throwing reactionary," were the fears of some people that the Affordable Care Act would result in "death panels," the scare quotes are theirs. The Economist did not describe such a thing as being in the Affordable Care Act, as Van Buren wrote, it described a fear of such a thing existing in the minds of people: Not in the law, but in some people's minds. Furthermore the term itself—"death panels"—was put in quotes by the magazine to identify it as a catachresis—a strained metaphor—not the Economist's description. Here, read it for yourself:

"Obamacare seeks to insure millions more Americans and rein in sky-high medical costs. Lots of insiders suspect that change will hurt them, whether via higher premiums, skimpier coverage or government 'death panels' with the power to unplug Grandma." 

What about the second part of Van Buren's claim, the confused but seemingly ominous observation that a provision in the Affordable Care Act provides for withholding treatment? Again, the News & Record could have, should have—as I did in two minutes—checked Van Buren's citation to see if it says what he says it does. It does not.

The provision Van Buren "describes," right down to the page number, deals with assisted suicide, specifically PROHIBITING the denial of health care funds to health care providers that DO NOT offer suicide assistance. In other words, it demands the exact opposite of what Mr. Van Buren seems to think it says. It mandates that insurance MAY NOT require services "for the purpose of assisting in causing, the death of any individual, such as by assisted suicide, euthanasia, or mercy killing."

From his woefully wrong "facts," it is a short hop for Van Buren to come to his Nazi comparison—fully accommodated by the News & Record.

This should not happen. If the News & Record is going to allow just any claim, no mater how wrong, to appear on its pages, it could save hundreds of thousands of dollars a year by dismissing its editorial staff and just allowing people to post to its Op-Ed pages directly from the internet. Presumably, the News & Record employs editors to add value superior to the cacophony of bull crap that abounds on social media. That value should begin with filtering for blatant falsehoods.

News & Record changed copyrighted piece without permission

Clarification, from Michael Crowell, the author of the original piece: "I knew they were going to publish it, am glad for papers to do that, did not know they were going to alter it."

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a letter to the editor in today's News & Record from Michael Crowell, a professor at the UNC School of Government, complaining about the News & Record having published a copyrighted work of his on its editorial pages and editing it without his knowledge or permission. The News & Record attaches a weasley anonymous note to the letter to the editor explaining that the piece was "shortened" to make room for an advertisement. There is no explanation or apology for using the article without permission.

In truth, the News & Record did more than shorten it, substantially, without permission, they also added portions the author did not write and deleted portions that affected the meaning. Here are some selected comparisons of significantly edited portions.

Original:

For the last 30 years North Carolina, like most states, has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s the only way you could register was to go before an official of the local board of elections in person.

In the News & Record's copy:

For the last 30 years, North Carolina has been making it easier to register and vote. In the early 1980s, you had to register in person at your county board of elections office.

---------------
Original:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote added since 1980 appreciably affect voter turnout or not?

The answer is not clear cut. In tracking voter turnout with election law changes since 1980 it is hard to discern that any particular election law change has made an appreciable difference in how many people vote. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but other presidential elections have not brought as many people to the polls, and turnout in non-presidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 presidential year jumps are simply anomalies, with unusually high interest, and not indicative of any trend.

In the News & Record's copy:

Did any of the expanded opportunities to register and vote appreciably affect voter turnout?

The answer is not clear. Yes, voting in North Carolina in the last two presidential elections was notably higher than before, but turnout in nonpresidential elections is still as low as ever. It may be that the 2008 and 2012 jumps were anomalies, with unusually high interest.

---------------
Original:

While this review of North Carolina data is not very sophisticated, it is consistent with recent political science research, discussed below, which suggests that early voting may actually decrease voter turnout. The same research shows, on the other hand, that same-day registration and voting can increase turnout somewhat. When done together, early voting and same-day registration neutralize each other. And, as one might expect, factors other than election laws have more to do with how many people vote. 

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

Data about voter turnout and election law changes in North Carolina from 1980 through 2012 is found on this chart... [snip] A list of all elections may be found here.

In the News & Record's copy:

[Removed entirely.]

---------------

Original:

What do the data show about turnout over the 32 years? The chart is a busy document and offers an opportunity for lots of interpretation. Here are a few observations about the data:

In the News & Record's copy:

What do the data show about turnout over these 31 years?

---------------

Original:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The turnout percentages for those six elections, and the results of the presidential voting in North Carolina:

• 1980 — 43.9 percent (Reagan edges Carter 49.3 to 47.2 percent)

• 1984 — 48.8 percent (Reagan routs Mondale 61.9 to 37.9 percent)

• 1988 — 43.7 percent (Bush routs Dukakis 58 to 41.7 percent)

• 1992 — 50.1 percent (Bush edges Clinton 43.4 to 42.7 percent)

• 1996 — 44.4 percent (Dole beats Clinton 48.7 to 44 percent)

• 2000 — 49.6 percent (Bush beats Gore 56 to 43.2 percent).

In the News & Record's copy:

Turnout in presidential election years varied little between 1980 and 2000, regardless of the closeness of the contests or any election law change. The low, as noted, occurred in 1988; the high was 50.1 percent in 1992.

---------------

Original:

Possible conclusions?

In the News & Record's copy:

No obvious effects

---------------

Original:

The changes in election law since 1980 do not appear to have appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

In the News & Record's copy:

The changes in election law since 1980 have not appreciably affected voter turnout as a whole.

---------------

Original:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 32 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become  noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, the level of media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing their voters. The one state election law change that might be argued to have boosted turnout is the 2007 legislation, repealed in 2013, to extend the  deadline for registering by allowing same-day registration and voting  during the early voting period. With even the most generous assumptions,  however, that change in the law could not be said to account for more than  1.5 percent of turnout.

In the News & Record's copy:

In sum, based on this limited analysis, the changes in North Carolina’s registration and voting laws over the last 31 years appear not to have made a significant difference in how many people vote. While it has become noticeably easier to register to vote, and to stay on the rolls, about the same proportion of citizens go to the polls now as before. It seems more likely that voting depends on factors such as the nature of the election, how much seems to be at stake, media coverage, and how much effort candidates and parties put into identifying and mobilizing voters.

Update (4/4/2014): Title changed for accuracy's sake.

News & Record erases story about former mayor

GREENSBORO, NC -- On March 19th, the News & Record published a story titled: "Former mayor's ex-wife claims he failed to pay alimony for March."

It began with: "Today the ex-wife of former mayor Robbie Perkins filed a motion for contempt alleging he failed to pay alimony this month" and reported of a claim filed in "Guilford County District Court" alleging that the former mayor missed a $5,292 alimony payment.

The News & Record has removed the story. Without explanation or correction the story has simply vanished. There is only a "not found" error when one visits the previous link to the story. Searches for the story anywhere else on the News & Record's site come up empty.

Why did the News & Record remove this story? If it was in error, we and the parties involved deserve a correction. If it was removed for some other reason, the News & Record, for the sake of its reputation, should explain why.

(Hat tip, Billy Jones)

Grits Gauger is oblivious

GREENSBORO, NC -- While he is no longer obsessed with grits, wringing his hands about his inability to find a hot bowl of soup in the South or doing his insulting best to mock his new neighbors, Ohio transplant and News & Record editor and publisher Jeff "Grits" Gauger is still demonstrating himself to be incapable of accurately perceiving the community in which he now lives.

In a rambling defense of his paper's misfires on coverage of the Friendly Avenue/Hobbs Road rezoning, Gauger sticks his head in the sand and blows smoke from his exposed end. Incredibly, Gauger writes this:

"These people, the Trader Joe’s fans, were less visible because they had no leaders and did not organize, speak out or attend meetings. They were the silent many, with a less direct stake in, and thus less passion about, the outcome." 

Gauger is apparently oblivious to what's going on around him — oblivious even to what gets reported in his paper.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans were visible. As early as January, 2012, Trader Joe's fans had started a website called "Bring Trader Joe's to Greensboro"

FACT:  Trader Joe's fans were visible II. The News & Record, in a front page lopsided piece, reported on enthusiasm for Trader Joe's in the area.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did speak out. The News & Record published a number of letters to the editor from Trader Joe's fans on this issue over the past few months.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did speak out II. The Bring Trader Joe's to Greensboro website encouraged people to email Greensboro city council in support of the rezoning to accommodate Trader Joe's. Council member Mike Barber is reported to have said that, of the emails he received, a lopsided number were in support of Trader Joe's, as reported by the News & Record.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans were organized. As reported by the News & Record, they formed a committee to coordinate their pro-Trader Joe's message, they put online the aforementioned website and put a sign on the proposed location.

FACT: Trader Joe's fans did have leaders. Identified as far back as January 2012 on their website, they included prominent citizens such as Tony Collins and Chris Lawyer.

Everyone is entitled to their own opinion, but not their own facts. Clearly Gauger is wrong that Trader Joe's fans were not organized, not vocal and not visible. They were. Their number may have been small, but it is lame for Gauger to ignore their visibility, organization and involvement only so that he can speculate, ignoring facts to the contrary, that their number constituted a "silent many."

If Gauger thinks there was some large second wave of fans beyond those he has ignored, then let him demonstrate as much. Otherwise, Guager is simply offering us more unthinking blather.

Related: Ed Cone: "Show your work, Gauger"

Rolled

GREENSBORO, NC -- You know what would be good for the struggling News & Record? Another big advertiser. One who isn't in this market yet - a brand new revenue source; one that would regularly do large advertising runs a few times a week. Someone like a grocery store.

Thus we get this shameful puff piece of front page crap boosterism by Jonelle Davis singing the praises of Trader Joe's. Although neighbors are fighting the location of a Trader Joe's in their neighborhood, pushing back against further expansion of commercial development, Davis' cheer leading barely acknowledges their existence much less their concerns.

Instead of balanced reporting or actual news, Davis brings us a lopsided Trader-Joe's sploogefest, droning on with enthusiastic anecdotes from media relations people. Once again, the News & Record has thrown a neighborhood under the bus, but never have its self-interested motives been so obvious. This marks a new low.

The unbelievable depravity of the News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- For all the things to which the News & Record could turn their attention; things for which the public begs and pleads for them to step up and do in the name of journalism—to do some investigation, fact checking and original reporting instead of just regurgitating press releases or acting as stenographers of differing opinions—with so much room for improvement, where does the News & Record go?

To the depraved depths of "reporting" on the mental health of a political consultant under the guise of  "election coverage."

What is wrong with that enterprise that it remains forever incompetent?

Matt Brown's conflict of interest

GREENSBORO, NC -- Getting the City Council to approve the new 3,000-seat (give or take) downtown performing arts center involved financial projections based on booking 189 events a year. This was substantially more than the 149 estimated by the citizens committee and professional consultant hired to evaluate the center's prospects, but City staff decided to go with 189—what they called a "blend" of the consultant's estimations and ethereal "staff projections," which was really another way of saying, "the numbers don't work unless we say we'll book 189 events so we're going to pretend we thoughtfully estimated we can book 189 events."

Now comes word that the man whose team is to be charged with meeting that lofty projection has also been tapped, without City Council approval, apparently, to book events for the Lawrence Joel Coliseum in neighboring Winston-Salem.

That's right, City of Greensboro employee Coliseum Director Matt Brown, who, in addition to overseeing the coliseum arena, also overseas Greensboro's other public performance and exhibition spaces including the War Memorial Auditorium, the White Oak Amphitheater, the Special Events Center, the Pavillion and the Odeon theater, representing capacities from 300 to 24,000, has made himself and his employees contractually obligated to booking and supporting events at similar-sized Wake Forest University-owned facilities in neighboring Winston-Salem, including the 15,000 seat Lawrence Joel Coliseum.

How is that not an obvious conflict of interest? Dumb question. It is an obvious conflict of interest. The real question is, how can it be tolerated by those charged with looking out for the interests of Greensboro taxpayers; specifically, city council? How can city council possibly think it is a good idea to have the professional allegiances and obligations of city employees contractually divided between Greensboro's public facilities and competing facilities just down the road, especially since we are soon to encounter the challenge of filling the City's expanded entertainment capacity of the performing arts center?

WFMY: judge, jury and executioner

GREENSBORO, NC -- Journalism 101: You don't report something as fact just because someone in a position of authority says it is so. That is especially true of criminal allegations. WFMY flunks:

"After an investigation, Winston-Salem police determined Melvin Paul was responsbile [sic] for three other robberies, including an armed robbery prior to the one in High Point on Saturday."  

What do we expect though from a station that sill continues to leave gross errors of historical fact uncorrected?

Zombies or Naive?

"For an agency like the NSA, the data storage units are a goldmine, combining in a single device almost all the information that would interest an intelligence agency: social contacts, details about the user's behavior and location, interests (through search terms, for example), photos and sometimes credit card numbers and passwords." -- Der Spiegel 

On the heels of public revelations that the United States National Security Agency has the capabilities of collecting "a broad spectrum of user data from smart phones," comes Apple's announcement that its new phone will now also collect fingerprints.

 "Who knew in 1984... that [Steve Jobs] would be big brother... and the zombies would be paying customers?" -- NSA presentation 

Was the N.S.A. right, are smartphone users zombies or just confident in the perpetual good intentions of government?

The ghost of Martha Long reports on proposed performing arts center

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record, and Greensboro at large, would benefit greatly from putting a reporter on the city government beat who doesn't approach her job as if she's writing a society column. A little skepticism and inquisitiveness is sorely needed and sorely lacking.

From an article today that claims to report "everything you need to know" about the proposed performing arts center:

"The center will be on a block of North Elm Street downtown. City officials determined this spot was better than other options because it allowed for paid parking spaces."

The community went through a long and well publicized process of public meetings, charettes and consultations involving hundreds of volunteers from across the city assembled into a task force to study, evaluate and make recommendations for a proposed arts center. This was done through the Community Foundation of Greensboro at the official charge of and with financial support, to the tune of hundreds of thousands of dollars, from the Greensboro City Council.

The task force studied several possible locations including the one now deemed best by—according to the News & Record—unnamed "city staff," and they recommended a different site: The old YWCA location. It was with this imprimatur of an inclusive process and well considered recommendation that City Council approved a pledge of financial support and under which assumption private donors made contributions to the effort and opinion writers gave their support.

Now, without explanation, the conclusions of the community have been tossed by the wayside in favor of the recommendations of anonymous "city staff."

Thus there are thee big gaping holes in the N&R's "everything you need to know" story:

1. What was the genesis for "city staff" ignoring the recommendations of the volunteers of the Community Foundation task force? At whose direction did this effort begin and why?
2. The story mentions speculative expectations for increased revenue from premium parking; what is the very real and empirically measurable loss from taking a block of private property off the tax rolls and the loss of the existing city-owned public parking already on the site?
3. Who owns the property "city staff" is proposing be purchased at this new location? Not just the corporate entities, but the stockholders. 

I have little confidence the local media will answer these questions and every expectation City Council will ignore them too on its way to approving this as they make the year-long process undertaken by community volunteers the butt of a big joke.

Too bad Martha Long won't be around to report on the inaugural gala. We'll have the next best thing though.

Official deception: City takes sides in election

GREENSBORO, NC -- This is a screen shot of the title of a City of Greensboro webpage:

"Candidate requests," it says.

That's a lie.

It is an officially sanctioned lie made with the knowledge and without the objection of our current city council.

The fact is, despite its headline, that webpage only shows the requests made by (and information provided in response to) challenging candidates. Incumbent candidates do not have their requests publicized here. Not only is that treatment unfair, the City is lying about what it is doing, clearly in an attempt to obfuscate its unequal treatment.

Despite me having requested to receive the same information for incumbent candidates, the City has provided me nothing.

What could possibly be the point of publicizing the requests and answers for challenger candidates but not incumbent candidates and misrepresenting the action to boot? Well, it's pretty obvious, don't you think?

Accommodating this deceit are our illustrious incumbent city council representatives. Here they are, followed by the names of their challengers.

INCUMBENTS:
Mayor Robbie Perkins
At-large: Marikay Abuzuaiter, Yvonne Johnson and Nancy Vaughan
District 1: T. Dianne Bellamy-Small
District 2:  Jim Kee
District 3: Zack Matheny
District 4: Nancy Hoffman
District 5: Tony Carmany

NON-INCUMBENT CHALLENGERS:
Mayor: George Hartzman
At-large:  Mike Barber, Jean Brown, Katei Cranford, Ben Holder, Joseph Landis, Chris Lawyer and Marlando Pridgen
District 1: Sharon Hightower and Tigress McDaniel
District 2: Jamal Fox
District 3: Corey Pysher and Wendell Roth
District 4: Bill Knight and John Alexander Underwood
District 5: Sal Leone and Alex Seymor

WGHP's contemptible malice towards Greensboro's black kids

GREENSBORO, NC -- By now, the extent of WGHP's fabrications and distortions about hundreds of kids fighting in downtown Greensboro is well know. Refuted by the police and video records, WGHP's story has been discredited. The world-wide damage caused by their dishonesty is apparent.


Yet, even today, WGHP continues to promote their false version of events. It's bad enough they've made no corrections, but by continuing to push their original false story, it is becoming inescapable that the people responsible—reporters Lindsey Eaton and Brandon Jones, anchors Brad Jones and Cindy Farmer, news director Karen Koutsky and the anonymous staff who are keeping the lies alive—harbor some ill intent towards the young black kids of Greensboro besmeared by their fictions.

City Manager confirms unequal treatment for candidates

GREENSBORO, NC -- Greensboro City Manager Denise Turner Roth announced last week that the city will be posting the records requests made by city council challengers, but not incumbents, to a special webpage on the city's website. Today, she confirms that this will apply only to challengers and that incumbents will not have their requests posted:

"Consistent with the way this has been conducted in the past, we will not list incumbent-requested items on the web-site with items requested by candidates unless otherwise directed by Council."
-- Denise Turner Roth, City Manager

The last time something like this was attempted, city council responded by voting not to have  an information sharing policy. It was then-council-person, now-mayor, Robbie Perkins who made a motion that council abandon the scheme. It passed 8-1, with T. Dianne Bellamy Small as the lone no vote.

Watch the video as city council takes action in response to now-candidate, at-large, Ben Holder:



Unless and until this policy is changed, the obvious solution for council challengers is to use an unidentifiable email address to make requests. The law does not demand that one identify oneself when requesting or receiving records.

-----

UPDATE: District 3 representative Zack Matheny, who joined Perkins in rejecting the previous sharing scheme, weighs in:

"We have to continue to do our jobs.  Being a Current Elected Official and being a candidate is not the same. For example, the way you present this would also imply that being a candidate would mean being able to attend Closed session meetings to discuss Personal Employment Issues, and you know that is not the case.

"I understand and support your fight for Public Records and traditionally support your arguments, this one however, is difficult to support."

Of course, whether or not to post the records requests of all candidates online or only the challengers has nothing to do with the limited situations prescribed by law where council may meet in closed session.

The damage done, thank you local media and Mr. Mayor

GREENSBORO, NC -- What has the local media's hyperbolic and inaccurate reporting of "hundred of kids brawling in downtown Greensboro" and the Mayor's refusal to correct the hyperbole wraught for Greensboro?

Here is a sampling from around the world:

Drudge report:  

400 teens in street brawl in Greensboro.

Altaris, Round Rock, TX:

Well that is great news to hear, since I'll be visiting my cousins there in 3 weeks. :(
Do I need to come ready to ---> ? 

JackMac, TX:

Google...Jerry Bledsoe and Greensboro Police controversy. Crooked department ...not trusted by other agencies. Officers involved in drugs and prostitution and more. Google it and read for yourself. Don't trust them to protect you. Prepare to defend yourself if you live there, is the word.

WTAM Radio, Cleveland, OH:

WATCH: Nearly 400 Teens Brawl In Greensboro; Time For Teen Curfew?

Anonymous, United Kingdom:

i wish i was in the usa airfocre fully loaded , i wouldnt have a problem fucking air striking everyone of the fucking animals

stupid fucking baboons

ABC News Politics Message Forum:

Judging by the video.....planet of the apes. 

Breitbart:

400 Teens Brawl in North Carolina

Daily Pundit:

One word missing:  400 Black teens in street brawl….