Memory loss

GREENSBORO, NC -- Former New & Record editor John Robinson bemoans the N&R's loss of institutional memory. It seems the paper has a short term memory problem too.

From a letter to the editor today:

The complete list of candidates who have filed to run for mayor of Greensboro, from the Guilford County Board of Elections:

News & Record: Sleepwalking through illusion

GREENSBORO, NC -- The News & Record has reported on more than one occasion of the economic projections of the proposed "Project Haystack" and attributed them to a study paid for by the City of Greensboro.

Indeed, the City paid a company $48,000 to conduct a study of the project. I've obtained a copy of what the City of Greensboro says is that study (you can see it here) and it contains none of the economic projections the News & Record says it does.

Why would the News & Record report the contents of a study they obviously did not read?

From an article by Joe Killian on December 14, 2013:

"A feasibility study funded by the city of Greensboro projected a possible $6.5 billion in private investment and the creation of 5,349 jobs over the next 20 years. "

From an article by Nancy McLaughlin on January 24, 2014:

"A study paid for by the city of Greensboro describes a 3-square-mile campus in eastern Guilford and western Alamance counties that could create more than 5,300 full- and part-time jobs and attract $6.5 billion in private investment over the next 20 years."

Those estimations are just not there. Not in the source to which they are attributed. Take a look at the study for yourself. There is nothing that relates to job projections or that estimates investment. The study evaluates available infrastructure: roads, broadband, electricity, etc. It does not make any economic projections and mentions nothing about jobs or private investment.

Why does this matter?

Economic studies, when the do evaluate jobs and investments, begin by making a set of assumptions. We—one assumes that includes local journalists—must have access to those assumptions to evaluate the legitimacy of the conclusions. It is not enough to simply take it for granted that because there was a "study" its conclusions are reasonable and it is certainly not enough to report on the contents of a study without taking a look at it so that we will avoid coming to think it reports something it does not.

It is essential for us to have accurate information in order for us to have a reality-based understanding of our public policy. If local media cannot provide that to us, they have no value and are simply encouraging us to sleepwalk though a dreamscape of illusions.

How WGHP "corrects" a story

GREENSBORO, NC -- Despite WGHP having had an error of fact brought to their attention last week and correcting it, WGHP reporter, and Elon University journalism graduate, Jasmine Spencer, repeated the error again this week. Here it is as it appeared in the her story on Sunday*:

As WGHP had previously acknowledged, there was not a drop in traffic accidents corresponding to the increased traffic patrols, but actually an increase. Reporting a "21 percent drop in the number of traffic accidents" was wrong, and I emailed Spencer to let her know.

How does a professionally trained journalist make a correction at WGHP? Silently, without acknowledgement and without supplying the actual facts instead: that there was in increase in crashes. Here is how the story appears now*:

I am not a trained journalist, but if I had as my goal supplying my audience with accurate and complete information, I might have added something like this after changing the story:

This story originally reported erroneous information about the number of traffic accidents during the period of increased patrols on Wendover Avenue. According to police, there was a slight increase in accidents compared to the same period during the previous year. We regret the error but are happy to make the correction because we value your trust and strive to keep you accurately informed.

But what do I know?

* Actual screen captures.

WGHP stubbornly immune to the facts

GREENSBORO, NC -- Last week, Bob Buckley of WGHP MyFox8 reported of a multi-month Greensboro Police Department intensified traffic patrol on Wendover Avenue, that:

"the number of crashes dropped dramatically as a result."

That was at odds with what other media had reported, so I emailed Bob and the news director to ask them what their source was. The news director attributed the reporting to a GPD press release that he forwarded to me. However, the press release itself actually contradicted WGHP's reporting of a decline in crashes. It claimed that, as a result of the Wendover traffic initiative:

"There was a slight increase in the number of crashes."

Once this was brought to WGHP's attention, Bob said they'd correct it on the next newscast and in the accompanying website article.

It didn't stick. Once again today, WGHP MyFox8 is reporting on their website:

"During the same initiative on Wendover Avenue, police reported a 21 percent drop in the number of traffic accidents."

That's false and in direct contradiction to the GPD press release WGHP previously cited.

Regurgitating press releases is bad enough—a correlation between crime, accidents and increased traffic patrols does not prove a cause and effect and it's lazy to say so—but completely misreading a press release when doing so and grossly misreprorting what it says is really amateurish.

You may recall that WGHP MyFox8 was the instigator for the wildly exaggerated story of "Nearly 400 people" and "hundreds of students" involved in a "massive brawl" in downtown Greensboro last summer. (Police reported there were a handful of small fights over a seven hour period that Saturday night, never a several-hundred student brawl.) That malpractice by WGHP was one of many among a persistent pattern of WGHP getting their facts wrong, a pattern that continues today.

It seems to me as if WGHP would benefit from a focus on increasing its attention to detail, fact checking and critical analysis. You know: journalism.

Local media: the less you know, the better

GREENSBORO, NC -- It puzzles me when the local media assume their job includes keeping information from their audience.

Here is how a police press release described a suspect in a downtown stabbing this morning:

"The suspect is described as a black male, approximately 5’9, medium build and wearing a white tank top shirt."

Here is how WGHP MyFox8 reported the suspect's description:

"An ample suspect description was not available."

And the News & Record:

"According to the victim, he was involved in a fight with a man near Washington and Elm streets and the other man assaulted him with a knife, police said."

So tell me, when we can subscribe by email, feeds and social media to official government announcements, what value do news outlets add when they regurgitate press releases but filter details?

WGHP MyFox8, who needs reality when you have us?

The News & Record, the most trusted source for newsish morsels.

N&R racist bullshit: "Video of young black people fighting and running as a shot rang out..."

GREENSBORO, NC -- Joe Killian of the News & Record writes:

"Video of young black people fighting and running as a shot rang out was played repeatedly on local TV stations."

Questions for Mr. Killian:

1. To what video are you referring that shows people fighting? I have seen multiple videos of the evening in question and none show anybody fighting. What video Mr. Killian? Can you make a screen shot or link us to some video and tell us where in it you see fighting?

2. To what video are you referring that records a shot ringing out? Again, I have not heard such a thing on any of the videos, most of which are silent.

Show us. Prove it.

UPDATE: Joe Killian says he agrees that the videos shown on TV do not show people fighting.

News & Record fabricates "dodging bullets" quotation

GREENSBORO, NC -- Without comment or acknowledgement, the News & Record has quietly rewritten a posted news story to remove a fabricated quotation.

In a story about possible police misconduct, reporter Joe Gamm originally reported a woman telling a 911 operator that she "must have dodged some bullets" from a police officer. That's not true—she didn't say that.

“A police officer just tried to kill me. I must have dodged some bullets,” she said. 

Although the N&R posted a recording of the 911 call with this story, it did not, in fact, have anybody saying: "I must have dodged some bullets." The fabrication has been removed without comment from the story with no explanation of why a made up quotation found its way into the story to begin with.

The terrible, horrible and insipid News & Record

GREENSBORO, NC -- It's depressing. Seriously. No-hope-in-sight we-are-doomed depressing — the level of incompetence at the News & Record; and it just keeps getting worse.

City reporter Amanda Lehmert, the city editor and chief editor Jeff  "Grits" Gauger, all let the following gross errors of fact make it to the front page of their print edition in the story 'Increased fees, closing Greensboro Sportsplex proposed' about the City of Greensboro budget.

Error one: "[O]fficials try to balance a $260 million budget, based on recommendations Roth presented to City Council members Tuesday."

Fact: The city's total budget last year was over $450 million. It was projected to be around $470 million in the coming fiscal year. There is a portion of the city's budget called the general fund that is about $260 million, but that does not include things like water resources that the N&R article discusses as if it were part of the $260 million. The City's budget is about $450 million, not $260 million. 

Error two: "Roth suggested keeping the local property tax rate the same — 63.25 cents for every $1,000 in property value."

Fact: The city's tax rate is currently 63.25 cents for every $100 in property value, not $1,000. This wasn't a typo, fingers don't slip and add a comma and an extra zero, then get the stamp of approval of editors. It is the result of people slumbering through their work so inattentive, so unconcerned, so uncritical and so detached from the subjects they cover, that it didn't occur to them—any of them—that such a rate would put their own taxes at a tenth of what they know them to be. Neither the reporter, the city editor or the editor in chief did the quick math that would lead them to say, "Wait a minute, my property taxes are about $1,200 a year, not $120." Not to mention that it should just be automatic for the city beat reporter to just know that tax rates are reported as per $100 in value.

This is what the N&R puts on their front page. This is what the N&R offers Greensboro as their best.

Several weeks ago, the N&R published another Lehmert article in which she announced the new "release" of a city transcript that was actually released by the City of Greensboro in 2007. Although flat wrong in announcing that the transcript was "now" available "seven years" later, the story remains uncorrected, a punchline to the depressing joke "Did you hear about the News & Record's awesome grasp of the facts?"

Chances are that this article too will remain uncorrected—the people responsible too small, too unprofessional, too disrespectful of their audience to set the record straight.

It is no wonder Mayor Robbie Perkins cheered the demise of the watchdog weekly the Rhino Times. He'll walk all over the News & Record and they won't even be aware — or care.

Fact check: Greensboro Guardian's claims of Guilford County schools

GREENSBORO, NC -- Charles Davenport, Jr. at the Greensboro Guardian:

"In 2009, according to NAEP results, only 32% of the state’s fourth graders were proficient in reading. Among blacks, the figure was 14%. (These are statewide stats, but GCS [Guilford County Schools] results are approximately the same.) Only 29% of eighth-graders were proficient readers (and 12% of blacks)." 

Davenport provides no link to his source. You'd think the editor of an online publication would have that minimal skill—maybe he doesn't want us taking a closer look. But let's anyway.

According to End of Grade (EOG) test results (p. 8) for 2012, 66.9 percent of fourth grade students were proficient in reading as were 69 percent of eight graders in Guilford County Schools.

(Hat tip: Jeff Martin)

Hammer's big lie

"Last week we reported that Greensboro had given out confidential police reports to Yes! Weekly." -- John Hammer, Rhinoceros Times 

"Information that falls under the criminal investigation or criminal intelligence exception to the public records law is not public record, but it is not confidential." Frayda S. Bluestein, North Carolina School of Government, to Ben Holder.

As he is so very good at, Rhino Times editor and publisher John Hammer has begun constructing a narrative through his tried and true tactic of the firm and steady repetition of a claim he never bothered to explain or substantiate in the first place.

This time, Hammer is attempting to implant the notion in the public conciousness that the emails released by the City of Greensboro to his competitor Yes!Weekly were "confidential." (From here, it's an easy slide into Hammer's favorite past time of berating city staff as incompetent, which seems to be his real objective.)

One problem: The records are not "confidential." (They are not "reports" either, as Hammer says. They were emails. "Confidential police reports," sounds more sinister, I suppose, but it was emails that were released, not reports and Hammer surely knows that.)

As Frayda Bluestein of the North Carolina School of Government explains, courtesy of Ben Holder, "confidential" has a specific meaning in regard to government records and the documents to which Hammer is referring don't meet the test.

City employees, even police, cannot simply slap the word "confidential" on an email and make it off limits. These records fall into the area where cities have some discretion about their release. The records the City released are of the kind that Bluestein explains:

"[T]he statute leaves it to the public agency to decide whether and when to release this type of material."

The city legally released this information. It offered a glimpse of the way local police conduct surveillance on law-abiding citizens and revealed that at least one police lieutenant considered a city council person to be a "confidential informant."

I would argue that it's good for civilians to have this kind of insight into their police force and elected representatives. Others may disagree, but it's a big lie to express that disagreement by pretending that that such records are "confidential." They are not and Hammer should stop saying they are. He's misleading his readers.

Flushing credibility

Ben Holder on a News & Record reporter deleting his questions about a wildly inaccurate story that remains uncorrected and unaddressed:

I went back and checked yesterday and learned that my comment about her inaccurate reporting was no longer even there.  I went back today and checked and guess what?  Still nothing.  It appears that Amanda has deleted my comment from her Facebook page.  I was kinda surprised.  I would expect this from Tony Carmany, Robbie Perkins, Zach or Nancy Vaughan.  But, a reporter? 

This is bad because we need a real press.  We need a real press especially when we don't have a real council or a real city managers office or a real police force.  We need reporters to report facts because our leaders embrace lies.

We need reporters that have a sense of responsibility to their readers.  We need reporters that are bothered if they get something wrong.  We need reporters that feel a need to correct mistakes.  We don't need reporters that refuse to acknowledge their own journalistic shortcomings.

This was a simple, honest mistake made by ignorant media personalities and council members.  A simple oops woulda been acceptable.  It would have been forgotten.   What is not acceptable is arrogantly ignoring mistakes and deleting comments.  That will not be forgotten. 

Ben's right. For all the hope that new ownership at the New & Record may portend computer upgrades and more staffing, none of that matters if the people there don't now how to or don't care about restoring credibility.

Silence of the lambs

GREENSBORO, NC -- Have any of the local media (News & Record, WFMY and WGHP) who breathlessly and mistakenly reported the released-in-2007 police chief/city manager transcript as newly-released this week made any corrections? Have any of them walked back their implications that this will either: a) add to the mystery or b) end the mystery?

Of course, what their readers and viewers are really owed is a correction of the same magnitude and the same reach as the original error, but have any even uttered a whisper of a correction?

Grits?
Clinkingbeard?
Koutsky?
Lehmert?
Flash mob?
Jones?
Mickens?
Rivera?

Anybody going to show us how the pros do it? Baaaa -aaaaa -- aaaaa.

[update: 11:42, corrected Jones' name.]

Greensboro media stricken with mass amnesia, blunderfest ensues

[Editor's note: The word "report" is used in this post. It is not always intended to mean researching, investigating and conveying facts or anything like the traditional meaning of the word "report." In some instances, it is used to describe a charade, the way one would describe children in pirate costumes as "sword fighting" at Halloween. They think that's what they are doing, it sort of looks like that's what they are doing, but that's not what they are doing. You know, "reporting."]

GREENSBORO, NC -- I can't stop laughing.

Apparently kicked off by a report in the News & Record, Greensboro's media jumped all over the newly-released transcripts of a recording of former city manager Mitchel Johnson firing former police chief David Wray in 2006.

One minor detail though: The transcripts were released six years ago.

Under the original headline "Transcript in Greensboro police scandal now public," (since changed), the News & Record reported (emphasis added):

"It was a meeting that had ripple effects across city government.

"It led to a police chief resigning, a city manager being fired and several new politicians being elected into office.

"And now, the details of that closed-door meeting are open for public review."

WGHP rushed in to report (emphasis added):

"Seventeen pages of newly-released transcripts read like a never-ending saga"

Cut to City Council representative Zack Matheny:

"It's finally, at this point, seven years later, coming out to what actually happened."

Cut to City Council representative Marikay Abuzuaiter:

"Once I review the information am I going to change any personal feelings I may have had in the past? That's going to be huge for me, that's going to be a huge informational overload that I am going to have to filter through."

Not to be left out, WFMY jumped on the goofwagon and reported:

"A transcript of that 'private' conversation is now public."

WFMY's accompanying video has been removed without comment is back online. In it, a reporter describes the transcripts as "new revelations."

Then, just when everyone was having so much fun, along comes Ben Holder to spoil the blunderfest by reminding us that this "new" information was released six years ago. He posts video of the City Council approving release of the information on September 17, 2007 and of WXII reporting on it two days later:



WFMY report of the release in 2007 too:

Council Releases Audio Conversation Between Johnson and Wray
WFMY News 2
Sep 19, 2007

Most sad though is that the progenitor of this week's mass amnesia, the News & Record, had also covered the original release of this information in 2007 but this somehow eluded them this week even though the original reporter still works at the News & Record:

Wray Lockout Transcript Released
News & Record, by Margaret Moffett Banks
September 19, 2007

.

Does the Internet even matter to the N&R?

On his voice mail message, News & Record editor Jeff Gauger identifies himself as the executive editor of "news record dot com." From last night:




Although that domain name, newsrecord.com, is also on some News & Record newspaper racks (and has been for over two years now), it is not the domain for the News & Record website and never has been.

Newsrecord.com is a parked domain that features links to other sites like the Triad Business Journal, but it is not the News & Record website—it doesn't even link to them. Promoting that domain as theirs is like giving out a phone number that is close to theirs but not theirs. "Call us at 363-3700, approximately."

With the significant errors that go uncorrected at the N&R involving their website—errors that remain uncorrected for weeks, months, years at a time—I'm getting the impression that the Internet really doesn't matter to them; either that or they don't appreciate precision and accuracy.* Maybe the "executive editor of newsrecord.com" doesn't know how to actually edit the website of which he is the executive editor, but surely an error on his own voice mail is something he can control and would be eager to fix once it was brought to his attention...

if it mattered.



* There are other possibilities, I suppose: that the staff at the N&R would rather let an error stand than respond to a correction from a—gasp!—blogger; or that they don't follow local blogs to begin with, but those seem awfully far-fetched to me.

Hold the presses (and the bytes)

This is the front page of the News & Record's website at this moment.

This is what the top story looks like when you click through to it (in Firefox and Internet Explorer).

Plagiarism at WFMY

Although this article on WFMY's website is identified as "Written by WFMY News 2," the highlighted portions are copied word-for-word from the original source.

Chapel Hill, NC-- North Carolina health officials have a better idea of who is affected most by cervical cancer cases.

UNC researchers examined data from the North Carolina Central Cancer Registry on all cervical cancer cases reported in the state from 1998 to 2007. In total, there were 3,652 cases of invasive cervical cancer and 1,208 deaths in that period.

The study found cervical cancer incidence and death rates varied greatly by county, with less affluent counties having higher rates. While most cases and deaths were among white women (65 percent and 64 percent, respectively), Hispanic women had the highest incidence rate. The rates for African American and white females were 10.6 cases per 100,000 women and 7.3 cases per 100,000 women, respectively.

"In general the rates of incidence and mortality in North Carolina are consistent with national averages," said Jennifer S. Smith, Ph.D., associate professor of epidemiology at the UNC Gillings School of Global Public Health and an author of the study published recently online in the journal Preventive Medicine. "However we do see pockets where the rates are among the highest for any of the 50 states. These are the areas where we need to focus our efforts to reduce, and ultimately eliminate, this highly preventable disease." 

A greater proportion of African American women died from cervical cancer than other races. Researchers believe the findings indicate that education, screening, and vaccination programs in those places could be particularly useful.

-- More than 45 percent of cervical cancer cases were in women aged 30-49, but more than half of the deaths occurred among women over age 50. Almost a third of the deaths were of women aged 70 and older.
-- The highest rates were seen in the least affluent counties (divided into three tiers of economic strength by the N.C. Department of Commerce; tier 1 = least prosperous, tier 3 = most prosperous). Overall, counties' incidence rates varied between 3.2 and 15.1 cases per 100,000 women. Mortality rates were from 0 to 8 deaths per 100,000 women. Ten counties (Anson, Chowan, Duplin, Halifax, Hoke, Lincoln, Randolph, Robeson, Sampson and Scotland) had both high incidence rates (more than 11 cases per 100,000 women) and mortality rates (more than 3 deaths per 100,000 women) of cervical cancer (click link to see related map). [sic]
-- No notable difference was found in the stage at which the cancer was diagnosed for women in rural areas compared to urban settings.
* Women with private insurance were more likely to be diagnosed at earlier, more treatable stages than women with no insurance or with government-sponsored insurance (Medicare, Medicaid, military benefits). There was no difference in stage of diagnosis between women with government-sponsored insurance and no insurance.

Researchers said the cancer registry data will help the state, initiate targeted and appropriate interventions. And is an important step toward eradicating cervical cancer in North Carolina. The analysis also can serve as a model for other states as they bolster the efforts to reduce or end this cancer across the nation." [sic]

WFMY: We right good

From today's stories on WFMY's website:

"It feels like we just changed time back one hour, to gain that fathom hour of sleep."

"In the bathroom there are cultured marble tops, solid wood cabinets and a fiberglass tube that will require very little maintenance."

"Now one vague message or threat can tie up all of an agencies school resource officers."

"The plans still have to be approved by the city and the Greensboro Historic Preservation Commission, but he hope to get started on the project within a year." 

"2012 will be the 13th time the Greensboro Coliseum host the NCAA tournament."

"The tradition known to many as 'Spring Forward, Fall Back' which notes the two seasons that time changes has arrived."

In fairness to Billy Yow

The voters will decide the significance of Guilford County Commissioner and sixth district congressional candidate Billy Yow's t-shirt episode, but, as is my practice here, I find it necessary to comment on yet another local media mistake, this one unfair to Yow.

In yesterday's story about BillyYow.com displaying the repugnant Yow inspired t-shirt, WGHP rolled video of Yow posing with the t-shirt. He is wearing a blue shirt while holding up the t-shirt, seemingly identical to the blue shirt he is wearing when shown speaking on camera. The impression created was that the video of Yow holding up the t-shirt is from the present.

It is not.

Prodded by a reader's comment, I checked with WGHP and they acknowledged that the video of Yow holding up the t-shirt was file footage from the spring of 2004. It was not identified as such in the report and that left this blogger with the impression that Yow was, even to this day, still proudly holding up that insipid t-shirt.

He was not.

I'm a pretty savvy and skeptical consumer of media. If this got past me, it probably created the same false impression with other viewers. The facts of the matter—the who, what and when—can speak for themselves; they don't need to be distorted and the file footage should have been identified as from the past. Not doing so created a false impression that, even if unintentional, was unfair to Yow.

(Thanks to Tony Wilkins who brought the discrepancy to my attention.)

WFMY, puppets of the press release

Three days ago, WFMY regurgitated an error from a Greensboro Police Department (GPD) press release, erroneously reporting that homicides in the city rose by 32%. The actual increase was 47% as this blogger noted could have been ascertained if WFMY had just checked the GPD's pronouncements against the data included with the press release.

Despite the error being brought to public attention, WFMY waited until the GPD issued another press release today correcting the error before they regurgitated the correction.*

Publishing press releases independent of any fact checking is stenography, not reporting. Failing to correct errors until prodded by a press release is being a puppet.

* The crime statistic error remains uncorrected in WFMY's original story as does another error about the amount of window tinting legally allowable on cars in North Carolina, also transcribed from an erroneous GPD press release.

WFMY regurgitates another Greensboro Police press release error; 2nd in four days

Twice in four days now, the Greensboro Police Department (GPD) has issued press releases containing errors and both have resulted in local media repeating the errors uncorrected.

Yesterday, the GDP issued a press release on recent crime statistics in which they erroneously said that murders in 2011 were:

"32 percent above the three year average"

That's incorrect. The three year average was incorrectly calculated and homicides were actually up 47 percent over the prior three year average according to the GPD's own data (see table below).

Nonetheless, although the table that afforded the opportunity to double-check the GPD's math accompanied the press release, WFMY apparently made no effort to check the official pronouncement and dutifully regurgitated the error, reporting:

"Homicides rose by 32% compared to a three year average."

Four days ago, a GPD press release erroneously stated the amount of light that state law requires be transmitted through window tinting. WFMY and WGHP repeated the error from the press release. The GPD press release, the WFMY and WGHP stories all remain uncorrected.

To their credit, whether intentional or happenstance, other local media avoided repeating the crime statistic error. Yet these events underscore two troubling circumstances;

1. In both cases, this blogger brought the errors to the attention of the GPD. Neither was acknowledged or corrected. It is troubling that the GPD makes these kinds of math errors to begin with, it is even more concerning when they fail to correct them.
2. The media has a duty to fact check the pronouncements people make, doubly so those made by governmental entities. WFMY has a horrendous history of fabrications, errors and plagiarism—the distinction of the worst, far and away, among local media—with which they seem completely unconcerned or unwilling to address. 

UPDATE: WFMY is now linking from their home page to a shorter version of the story, this one also with an error, it erroneously reports there were 15 homicides in 2010. There were 16.

-----------

Here is the table that accompanied the press release. The average of homicides for the three years prior to 2011 was 17, thus the percentage increase is actually 47 percent, not 32 percent.