This week's Rhino included a front page headline "Unsubstantiated Allegations Make News." Although about another matter, the headline could have been regarding editor John Hammer's editorial in which he wrote:
"To get the support of the Simkins PAC, City Council candidates reportedly had to promise not to vote to fire Mitch Johnson." [emphasis added]
and
"What reportedly put Mitch Johnson over the hump was an agreement to keep Lt. James Hinson on the police force, which meant getting rid of Wray." [emphasis added]
Reportedly? Where? When? John is too experienced not to know the kind of journalistic prestidigitation he's trying to pull off here. A journalist writing to a higher standard doesn't say something has been reported unless it has been reported. A journalist who can't confirm something but wants to stoke people's suspicions will use "reportedly" in the manner John does. It is manipulative and a sign that John thinks that some of his audience is too unthinking to notice.
That Hammer does not cite a source is not the only indication that his claims can't be substantiated, they are also countered by people with first-hand knowledge of the events in question. Trudy Wade says she wasn't asked by the Simkins PAC to promise not to fire Johnson. Zack Matheny says he wasn't asked to make such a promise. On the promotion of Johnson to city manager, Hammer's "reporting" is refuted by Robbie Perkins and Sandy Carmany, two people who were on City Council at the time of that decision.
Another possibility to explain Hammer's assertion regarding the reported requirement to support Johnson-- perhaps the candidates were asked about it, verbally or on paper, and decisions were made to support them or not support them based on that response as one of the chief criteria-- understanding that Wade's case may have been treated differently because of other factors.
ReplyDeleteHowever, it would be good, Roch, for you to provide us with an explanation of how sentiment changed on the city council over a period of one week -- from apparently supporting a move to fire Johnson or request his resignation, to allowing him to stay on board. What happened over that week to change things?
Moreover, what were the chief selection criteria used by the PAC to endorse candidates, and were they applied evenly, or unevenly? What is it that they were prioritizing in terms of what they expected from candidates or were looking for in candidates? What and how did they communicate to candidates verbally regarding their expectations?
If you are certain that Hammer was incorrect, tell us what you think the truth is on these matters. And it can't all be sweet and innocent.
Finally, can you believe what these politicians say-- folks like Perkins and Matheny, for instance?
Joe Guarino
Joe, you set up a bunch of straw men. The questions you pose are all irrelevant to the facts that Hammer made unsubstantiated allegations, pretended that they had been "reported," and has had them refuted by named sources with first-hand knowledge on the record.
ReplyDeleteIt's interesting how the burden of proof shifts from one situation to another. On the one hand, we have the Wray fiasco, where folks (rightly) say the burden of proof is on Johnson to show wrongdoing on the part of Wray. No evidence? Then there's no reason to believe Johnson's claims.
ReplyDeleteThen we have this situation, where the few known facts contradict Hammer's article. Yet Hammer is somehow not required to present any evidence or support for his claim, and it is accepted anyway.
The double standard is evident in the current printed issue, railing on the front page against unsubstantiated allegations, yet offering up the same a few pages later.
ReplyDeleteRoch, let's advance the conversation from the points you made about the substantiation behind Hammer's reporting. I have to presume you may have reason to believe what he reported may have been untrue, because otherwise I do not know why you would challenge it as intently as you have.
ReplyDeleteReporters often do not reveal their sources, and Hammer's article was not a pure news article. It was commentary.
So I do not see straw men. I would like for you to reveal what you know about the process the Simkins machine used to evaluate, question and screen candidates. Tell us what you know about the process back in the fall of 2007. Tell us what you understood their key issues to be, if you know what they were. Surely they were looking for SOMETHING when they were deciding to make endorsements last year. What was it? Otherwise, why bother with the whole process of making endorsements?
This is important, because it is precisely what Hammer was addressing in the article. If Hammer was wrong about what they were seeking, then what is the truth?
Roch, it would be really helpful for you to answer the questions I have made in this post and the last one.
Anthony, Hammer is not a government official. He is a journalist with an alternative weekly paper that does not attempt to becloud the fact that it reports from a certain point of view. As I noted above with Roch, reporters often do not reveal their sources. For instance, Ahearn and Townsend did not reveal all their sources during the early stages of the GPD mess.
But yes, I do hold a governmental official like Johnson to a higher standard of proof than a journalist. Governmental officials should make every effort to be entirely open with the public-- indeed, they are often supposedly required to be open by law.
Joe Guarino
Anthony, Hammer is not a government official. He is a journalist with an alternative weekly paper that does not attempt to becloud the fact that it reports from a certain point of view. As I noted above with Roch, reporters often do not reveal their sources. For instance, Ahearn and Townsend did not reveal all their sources during the early stages of the GPD mess.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, I do hold a governmental official like Johnson to a higher standard of proof than a journalist. Governmental officials should make every effort to be entirely open with the public-- indeed, they are often supposedly required to be open by law.
And most recently the "Pulpit Forum" (what a crock) refused to revel thier source...........
Joe:
ReplyDeleteIf we go by your standard here, we should have uncritically accepted Ahearn's claims as well, since she's only a journalist and not a government official, right?
"I have to presume you may have reason to believe what he reported may have been untrue, because otherwise I do not know why you would challenge it as intently as you have." -- Joe
ReplyDeleteI'm not challenging anything, Joe. I'm observing that Hammer made unsubstantiated allegations, to which he added the demonstrably false claim that they had been reported.
"Substantiated" has a meaning that does not encompass, "I'll take his word for it."
I don't know whether what Hammer wrote is true or not. I know that what he wrote he did not substantiate and that his unsubstantiated claims are refuted by people with first-hand knowledge who are on the record publicly.
Sources supporting Hammer's allegations: 0
Sources refuting Hammer's allegations: 4
I'm assuming that was Beau's comment about the pulpit forum, based on the lengthy quote with no indication that it was a quote? ;) It would be helpful if you put quote marks around quotations from other comments to make clear what's a quote and what is your comment.
ReplyDeleteBut yes, the Pulpit Forum is a good example too. Since they are not government officials, I guess it's up to others to "disprove" their claims, since we hold non-government officials to a lower standard of proof, correct?
Roch, I have to say that I do not consider the word of machine politicians to be an effective refutation. We know what they apparently said. We do not know what they did not share.
ReplyDeleteWhen journalists use anonymous sources, they do so in confidence--because otherwise they could not feel free to report if they had to reveal their source. This is very common stuff. Sometimes it seems unfair. Sometimes it is not.
When Hammer uses the word "reportedly", I believe he means information that has been reported to him-- not information that has been reported or published elsewhere. You may dispute his use of that word, but I think that is what he means.
I still think you can enhance the discussion markedly if you would try to answer the questions I raised.
Anthony, I have to say that, with respect to Ahearn's reporting and the Pulpit Forum's accusation, I was far more concerned about the internal validity of what was being asserted than the actual sources. I want to know what is true, and what is not true. But they do not have as high a standard of openness and proof as a governmental official like M. Johnson. As in the case of Hammer, people are free to accept or reject what they assert if they do not offer incontrovertible proof.
I still have not seen anyone come remotely close to providing an alternative version of what Hammer reported with respect to what the machine was expecting and/or requiring of its endorsees, and precisely how it assessed and ranked the the candidates-- what issues or policies were given the greatest emphases, what were the key deciding factors, and what was communicated to prospective endorsees.
And we cannot expect that machine politicians will give us the whole picture-- or even the basic truth-- regarding what happened during the 2007 election cycle. I know what I have been told about the way this process works.
I believe Hammer's account regarding the selection of endorsees because it is plausible; because it is consistent with what I have been told from sources seemingly independent of Hammer; and because no other party has presented a credible alternative version of the truth, expecially regarding what the PAC was primarily seeking during the 2007 election cycle on a citywide scale, and also in the individual races.
That was me.
ReplyDeleteJoe Guarino
Joe,
ReplyDeleteI really don't have answers to your questions. I could tell you what I remember of my interview with the PAC in 2001, but I don't think you'd find it relevant.
Other than that, I'm just not up for proffering my own unsubstantiated speculation for comparison.
My reason for the post was to observe the sad irony of the double standards for unsubstantiated allegations--the situational standards applied by Hammer and subscribed to by you too, apparently.
I think the Rhino Times is skewing so far into the "prove and untruth" category that eventually it will become nothing but a Greensboro version of the Onion. How many more months till we read headlines like, "Councilman abducted by aliens" or "Bat boy found in Greensboro". Their readership is dying as is their paper and they are pulling out as many last-ditched efforts they can to not go under.
ReplyDeleteI don't know what Hammer knows, but I do know that there seems to have been an unexplained about face by a few people who were ready to axe Johnson.
ReplyDeleteOne of them, Anderson-Groat, wrote of intense "pressure". From where? Then Matheny essentially flips.
Such things do not occur in a vacuum and we know nothing more now than we did when Johnson fumbled the two page memo story.
Hammer may only be speculating, or maybe he is hearing rumors, but to berate him for offering the theory is a little troubling considering it makes about as much sense- maybe even more so- than anything else considering the strange behavior of some elected officials during that critical week.
As for Johnson, there is no lack of clarity or speculation involved. It has been two years and he has utterly failed to make a case that it was incumbent upon him to make. Why he is still around and guys like Mike Nifong aren't is a mystery to me.
Perhaps it is because Nifong knowingly or recklessly lied, whereas Johnson simply can't admit that he is ever wrong. Neither are traits we should tolerate in government officials.
Sam, I did not berate Hammer for putting forth a "theory," as you distort it, I was scoffing at his unsubstantiated allegations, that he claimed to have been "reported" without citing any source (named or anonymously described) and that his allegations are publicly contradicted by four people with first-hand knowledge.
ReplyDeleteBut good for you for recognizing a theory when you see it. Good for you, bad for Hammer dressing it up as something substantiated.