in Media, Politics, Reviews

Criticism and praise for the N&O

The News and Observer has gotten me talking about it, which in my view of the media is usually a good thing.

The criticism

Earlier this week, N&O Executive Editor John Drescher defended T. Keung Hui’s reporting on the Wake school superintendent search, a story on which he extensively quoted former board member Ron Margiotta. Margiotta must have been in on confidential board discussions, and some allege boardmember John Tedesco was the source. Says John:

Margiotta’s comments angered some board members, including chairman Keith Sutton. The board members didn’t dispute the accuracy of Margiotta’s comments. But they were upset because they believed a board member must have told Margiotta, who left the board at the end of 2011, about the vote for Merrill.

I am a staunch supporter of our “Sunshine laws” and the First Amendment. Anyone doing public business need to answer to the public for their actions. That said, the most important decision a public board can make is the hire of the administrator who will actually carry out its decisions. The law provides an exception to the Open Meetings law for these personnel decisions and rightfully so. Job candidates take a huge risk in interviewing for these positions because the likelihood is high that word will get back to their current employer.

By reporting on who was being considered for superintendent Hui jeopardized the hiring process, potentially driving away the best candidate for our kids and unraveling weeks or months of the board’s work. If the media expects public bodies to respect the parts of Open Meetings that benefit the media, the media should also be willing to respect the parts of Open Meetings that protect what legitimately confidential business that public bodies perform. Furthermore, starting a candidate search over again from scratch because a board member showed poor judgment in leaking is not the best use of anyone’s tax dollars. It also puts the paper in the position of affecting the news, rather than being an unbiased observer. That’s not good journalism practice.

Just because you can do something doesn’t mean you should. If Hui had the inside scoop on the hiring process, the story should have waited until the ink was dry on Merrill’s contract, not before. Of course, this is not the first time I’ve been critical of Hui’s reporting and it won’t likely be last.

The praise

After News and Observer printed conflicting editorials taking the Raleigh City Council to task for alternately being too involved and not being involved enough, I composed a letter pointing this out. Days went by and I thought for sure the paper had buried it, not wanting to address their inconsistency. To my surprise it ran in today’s paper:

Which is it?

Just weeks ago, a News & Observer editorial took a dig at the Raleigh City Council for being too hands-on in “Russ makes fuss.” Then in the Aug. 21 editorial “Missed warnings,” you knocked the council for not being involved enough.

I hope Obamacare kicks in soon because I think I have whiplash.

Mark Turner
Raleigh

I have to give the N&O credit for printing a letter critical of it. It was a good-natured ribbing, sure, but I didn’t think it’d see the light of day. Kudos for the N&O for hearing me out!