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.

Horrible, horrible; just pathetically and absolutelty the worst

GREENSBORO, NC -- Yesterday, the News & Record reported of a robbery in which a gaming console was stolen at gun point:

"Armed men tried and failed to rob two people... The suspects ran from the scene without taking any property." (Emphasis added.)

That story is still online.

It's bad enough the News & Record turned a press release from the police advising of a "robbery from person" into a fiction completely contrary to the facts, but today, when the police issued another press release about that crime, consistent with their first but adding new suspect information, the News & Record "reported" it again, this time writing that one of the suspects pulled a gun and took the gaming console:

"[O]ne of the two men pulled a handgun, took the system and the two alleged suspects ran off."  (Emphasis added.)

So now, at the illustrious News & Record, one can simultaneously find two accounts of the same crime, one where suspects fled without taking any property and one where property was taken. Both contradict each other, only one is accurate, the other remains uncorrected and yet both are online together.

It Matters

For all the thought and effort that various people and institutions put into advancing Greensboro, I am firmly convinced we will be forever held back from making the kind of progress we could as long as we are burdened by the dung heap that is the News & Record.

How can we as a community ever properly address our shortcomings and understand our strengths if our primary "news" outlet is a sloppy and indifferent pustule of perpetual misinformation and ignorance undemanding of itself and deceiving us about who we are and what's going on?

Day after day, the News & Record offers up mistake after mistake and each reveals a troubling fact: Our daily newspaper is not careful, not a checker of facts, rarely a source of insight or enterprising inquisitiveness* and not even any good at the simple task of regurgitating press releases.

Greensboro deserves better.



* This makes the situation even worse—that there are one or two reporters there who manage, against what must be monumental institutional momentum to the contrary, to occasionally deliver some quality reporting. I feel as bad for them about the burden of the News & Record's institutional incompetence as I do for my city.

Making it up: Another day, another News & Record fail

GREENSBORO, NC -- It's pretty bad when your local newspaper cannot even accurately regurgitate information from a press release.

The News & Record "reports":

"Armed men tried and failed to rob two people who arranged on Craigslist to sell a gaming system, according to a police news release." 

and:

 "The suspects ran from the scene without taking any property, police said."

The police did not say that. The robbers did not fail. Exactly the opposite. The suspects did not flee the scene without taking any property. They took property. That's what made it a robbery and thus the headline on the police press release: "Robbery from person."

All of this was clear in the police press release. It only became confused when the News & Record put their hands on it. From the police press release (emphasis added):

"Officers discovered two victims in the parking lot who stated that they had been robbed at gunpoint during the sale of a PlayStation 4 that had been arranged on Craigslist. No one was injured and no other items were taken."

I wonder what the News & Record sees as their mission and if they think they are doing a good job at whatever that is.

News & Record's huge error on drunk driving stats

GREENSBORO, NC -- There is a certain type of reporting error that astounds me, I call it an affront to common knowledge, where an assertion goes unchecked even though, on its face, it seems to violate common sense. It is the kind of thing a reporter or editor with general curiosity and some basic knowledge of the world would be compelled to stop and double check.

Today at the News & Record:

"In the United States, a drunken driver causes someone to die every 52 seconds." 

Reporter Danielle Battaglia doesn't cite a source for that tidbit but, on its face, it sounds hard to believe.

Just some quick math challenges the possibility this is true: If there is a drunk driving fatality every 52 seconds, then that's 69 drunk driving deaths every hour; 1,661 a day; 11,630 per week; and 606,000 per year. 

And here is where a lack of general knowledge comes in: That is a huge number of deaths per year for any single cause. It should jump out to a professional reporter and her professional editors as extremely unlikely. 

A quick search of "leading causes of death" would show that such a number would make drunk driving fatalities the leading cause of death in the United States, ahead of the roughly 598,000 per year from heart disease, the 577,000 from cancer and the third place 143,000 from lung disease. (source: Centers for Disease Control)

The fact is, according to the National Highway Traffic Safety Administration, "In 2011, 9,878 people were killed in alcohol-impaired-driving crashes." That's far from insignificant, but it is nowhere near the hysterical one every 52 seconds the News & Record reported. It is about one every hour to give you a sense of just how far off the N&R is.  

And a big thumbs down to WGHP MyFox8 who copied and pasted this error to their website from the News & Record without correction.

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.

Greensboro votes to fund P. R. B. S. while cutting city services

GREENSBORO, NC -- It was sadly ironic that, on a night when Greensboro city council approved a plan to cut city services, they voted to give $35,000 to WFMY for a "marketing initiative." (Story)

Greensboro too often grasps at shortcuts. Rather than doing things, we think we can just manage appearances. To seem, rather than to be is the motto we live by. It's a shame and a fat check to a local TV station for what councilwoman Nancy Hoffman called a great opportunity to "brand" the area is a sign that we remain a city lacking ideas and motivated by desperation. In this case, the desperation is compounded by sloppy thinking.

Even if $35,000 of "branding" has the possibility to net some return on investment, it is not going to happen by marketing on a local TV station to the people who already live here. (Forget too the issue of a news organization accepting money from a government it should cover objectively, that's not something I'd expect to cause a blip on WFMY's ethics radar.)

I could see, maybe, some benefit of marketing the city to people and businesses elsewhere, but how in the world does Greensboro benefit from promoting a brand to itself?

In voting to cut city services, councilman Zack Matheny said it would help the city run more like a business. Where was that business sense on this waste of money to WFMY that passed by a vote of 9 to 0?

P. R. B. S. is what this is and council fell for it in a night of mixed up priorities.

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.

Allen Johnson's opinion completely wrong on the facts

GREENSBORO, NC -- What value is an opinion formed on an incorrect understanding of the facts? Not much. So it is with the News & Record's Allen Johnson. In an opinion absolving city council woman Nancy Hoffman of zoning violations, he gets his facts completely wrong.

Johnson: "If she didn’t own the buildings at the time of the citation, as it turns out, she shouldn't be held liable for their condition at that point."

Fact: Hoffman, with her partners as South End Partners, LLC, bought the buildings on October 23, 2013. They have sat in disrepair for nearly eight month, as Hoffman even admits, explaining the delay in making repairs by saying, "these things don't happen overnight." The citation was issued on June 6, 2014. 

Johnson: "She is the owner now, and she has made prompt repairs. Case closed."

Fact: As noted, Hoffman has owned the buildings since October of last year. The code violations were documented in pictures on May 30, 2014 and June 3, 2014, and in the citation of June 6, 2014. If she has made repairs since, and that has not been reported or documented anywhere that I can find, eight months to make such repairs is anything but "prompt."

Johnson is entitled to his own opinion, but not his own facts. In this case, his facts are unquestionably wrong.

It's opposite day for News & Record headline writer

Greensboro, NC -- The headline from a News & Record article:

N.C. plan would join states ending teacher tenure

From the article:

"Only Florida has succeeded in eliminating teacher tenure protections, according to the Education Commission of the States."

"Join states" sounds like we are part of a crowd, a trend — a movement. A more accurate headline would have reflected just what the article reported, that North Carolina's "plan" would make us exceptionally unappealing for teachers.

News & Record: The myth machine

GREENSBORO, NC -- I really don't know if the News & Record intentionally works to deceive the community or if they are just oblivious. Regardless, they often leave out important details, thus feeding the misunderstandings of a deluded community.

Case in point, this from a N&R article by Dick Barron about the downtown ballpark:

"The Joseph M. Bryan Foundation built the stadium with $12 million of foundation money, a $10 million loan and Jim Melvin."

A version not afraid of all the facts would have included this, which the News & Record avoided:

Melvin not only heads the non-profit Bryan Foundation which funded the stadium, but he had an ownership stake in the team for which the stadium was constructed. The non-profit-owned stadium, built for a cost of $21.5 million in 2005, was sold to the owners of the team for about $12.8 million in 2012. 

Why would the News & Record not include this salient fact in its coverage? Is it interested in factual reporting for the sake of comprehensive understanding or does it cherry-pick information for the sake of crafting myths? Which best serves the people of Greensboro?

Team Matheny fools the News & Record again

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last month, the News & Record published a letter to the editor in support of Zack Matheny, the Greensboro District 3 City Council representative who is running for congress. Although the News & Record failed to identify him as such, the writer of that letter was a paid consultant to Mathney's campaign.

Today, the News & Record publishes another letter in support of Matheny from Tiffany Clark of Greensboro. Clark's husband is Director of Client Engagement for G-force Marketing, a company to which Matheny's campaign has paid over $80,000 this year to market his candidacy.

Clark's relationship to the Matheny campaign was not noted by the News & Record.

Get out of that state you're in

GREENSBORO, NC -- It seems Rhino Times editor John Hammer has some complaints about the News & Record's website.

The Rhino Times, with a website design from 1997, designed and maintained by a junior high school student that doesn't adapt to mobile devices, with archaic photo galleries and commenting system and no RSS feed or social media integration goes unaddressed by its editor, but he has the wherewithal to complain about another media site? Is he just monumentally oblivious or what?

News & Record impugns millions with suspect descriptions

GREENSBORO, NC -- At some point, it is going to dawn on the fogies at the News & Record that they are no longer gatekeepers of information, haven't been for a while now, and that much of what they purport to "report" we have already seen from original sources. Until then, their confusion allows us to catch them red handed subverting the facts in the service of ends other than thorough reporting.

In a press release from the Greensboro Police Department describing the robbery of an individual yesterday, the suspects were described as four "black males." In the News & Record's regurgitation of the press release, they scrubbed some of the detail and described simply "four male suspects."

I've written before of the News & Record's outright deceptions when altering suspect descriptions whereby they falsely explained to readers that descriptions were not available, incomplete or where they simply censored descriptions with no explanation.

Anonymous commenters have defended this practice by saying that it is "irresponsible" to describe suspects with only two or three characteristics because such descriptions potentially describe "millions" of people. How exactly that is irresponsible has not been explained and it implies that the police too must be irresponsible in providing the available details, even if those are "incomplete" descriptions of suspects. Of course, a "complete description" is practically impossible.

It is hilarious though how tightly backed into a corner the News & Record finds itself by pretending they have some professionally justifiable reason for dumbing down their reporting. Today's story is a perfect example.

By describing yesterday's robbery suspects as only "males," the News & Record has committed the very offense it pretends it has been avoiding when scrubbing race from suspect descriptions: They have provided a description that could not possibly be any more incomplete unless they just described the suspects as "people." They have "irresponsibly" provided descriptions that could describe half the population. If there is some theoretical line not to cross where descriptions are too broad to be "responsible," than a description that only provides gender crosses it for sure.

Why did the News & Record describe the suspects as four males instead of four people or instead of four black males?  Maybe there is no legitimate line delineating just enough and too little detail and the News & Record has other good reasons for scrubbing race from suspect descriptions; or maybe there is no good reason.

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 censors police suspect description

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record reported this today about suspects in a robbery. The article was attributed to "staff reports" which is a euphemism for "regurgitated from a press release":

"One of the women was white, had long blonde hair, a piercing over her left eye, was in her 20s and was wearing a light-colored shirt and blue jeans. There were incomplete descriptions for the three men and the second female who asked for the water." 

That is misleading, relying on a very deceptive meaning of "incomplete description." In fact, there were no "complete" descriptions of any suspects — all descriptions were incomplete — but there were other descriptions provided by the police that the News & Record declined to report because they were "incomplete."

Here is the description of the suspects from the GPD press release:

"The black female was described as having a ponytail, wearing a black shirt, black coat and black pants with gold specks. She appeared to be in her 20’s. The white-female was described as having long blonde hair, a piercing over her left eye, and wearing a light colored shirt and blue jeans. She also appeared to be in her 20’s. The white-males were described as wearing tan masks, light colored shirts and blue jeans."

For the News & Record to describe one suspect then decline to describe the others with the explanation that the other descriptions were "incomplete" is disingenuous, at best. None of the descriptions were "complete." The descriptions of the two females had the same level of detail but for the additional description of a piece of jewelry on one of the suspects.  How does it serve the News & Recrod's readers for it to withhold information from them? What purpose does it serve?

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"

Over the head of the News & Record editor

GREENSBORO, NC -- News & Record editor and publisher Jeff  "Grtis" Gauger has a problem with his weekly competitor, The Rhino Times. He finds the Rhino's headline accompanying an article about the retirement of Guilford County commissioner Linda Shaw "odd and daft."

The headline is  "Harper Valley Honey Hangs It Up" -- Grits says the headline is a real "head-scratcher" for an accompanying article he describes as a "straight-ahead account" of an interview with Shaw.

100 bucks says he didn't read the article. If he had, he'd find therein this more than obvious reason for the headline:

Shaw got an early start in life in high-profile elected positions when, at the age of 26, she was elected to serve as president of a PTA in Nashville.  Normally, PTA president isn’t something that counts as a high-profile job.  However, while Shaw was serving in that capacity in 1968, it became one of the highest profile positions in the country: At that time, the hit song Harper Valley PTA, written by Tom T. Hall and sung by Jeannie C. Riley, took the country by storm.

“I was living in Nashville, Tennessee, in the ’60s,” Shaw said.  “When I lived there I was president of the Harpeth Valley PTA, on which the song was based.”

“Tom T. Hall lived a few blocks away,” Shaw said of the songwriter.

The giant hit, Harper Valley PTA, is the story of a mother who wears her skirts too short and perhaps drinks too much, and who gets a note from the PTA rebuking her actions.  In the song, the woman goes to a meeting and calls out the PTA members on their hypocrisy, and the daughter recounts, “the day my momma socked it to the Harper Valley PTA.”

Shaw said that, when the song became a hit, her phone was ringing off the hook from reporters calling.

“I got calls from all over the country,” she said.  “They would ask, ‘What do you think of the song?’”

Shaw said that, at that time she wore some short skirts, but hers weren’t too short she said, adding that they generally fell just above the knees.

One might think the Rhino could have written a more laudable headline appropriate to the carreer of Shaw's public service but, regardless, the headline is not the mystery it was to Gauger. It was relevant to the interesting anecdote of the beginning of Shaw's long political career. Gauger's knee jerk potshots are the real head-scratcher.