Post by Aggie77 on Jun 2, 2007 18:31:39 GMT -5
THE EDITOR's LOG
John Robinson, News & Record Editor
May 30, 2007
Too much N.C. A&T?
We got an e-mail today that raises questions about our A&T coverage.
Apparently the News-Record is no longer a newspaper for the masses, but instead is focusing all too often on A&T University. I have no dog in the fight with A&T, but it seems there is too much focus on it.
The headline, Thursday, May 24--"A&T decision 'shameful,' trustee says."
The headline, Saturday, May 26--"A&T audit finds financial abuses."
I am sure there is no overpowering national news more important. If you are going to call yourselves a newpaper, then give us more news that qualifies as such on the national level.
Perhaps you should rename the paper, "THE A&T TIMES."
The writer doesn't even mention today's story, "A&T's recovery could take years."
For some reason, A&T in the paper is a lightning rod. The criticism seems to run the gamut. Some people don't like the school's ads on the comics pages. Others don't like photos we run sometimes. Now this. (It's clear the writer wants national news on his front page, but if the financial malfeasance at a local state institution isn't newsworthy, I don't know what is.)
So, I ask you, do we write about A&T too much?
Posted by John Robinson at May 30, 2007 2:50 PM
Comments
It's local news right? So if it's newsworthy, big friggin deal what people think. If it was UNCG, you would get the same blow back. If you focused too much on anything or anyone, you would get the same results, just different people.
Everyone has something to b*tch about. The question is: are you following your mission? I think that you are.
Posted by: darkmoon at May 30, 2007 4:27 PM
I doubt you'd get the same complaints if it were UNCG.
UNCG made national news when a former A&T student came and shot up UNCG not too long ago.
What happened at A&T IS big news involving big dollars and big wigs. The only reason it isn't bigger news is because it is almost expected from prominant black institutions and leaders in this area.
Posted by: nitpicker at May 30, 2007 4:59 PM
Without comparing universities, just focus on A&T's forthcoming-ness (or lack of same) with information. For some reason, they refuse to offer information that is otherwise available to the public; that doesn't make sense. It almost makes A&T appear like they don't "get it," which is not where you want an academic institution to reside.
What about it, John? Does A&T stonewall the N&R over information that in turn makes it *appear* as if they don't want to move toward transparency?
I was disappointed with the (lack of) information regarding the re-renaming of the new education building. The current report controversy is silly because the report is available to the public. I'm sure there are other historic incidents.
Why doesn't A&T want to share the bad news with the great news that they produce and be a more forthcoming member of the community?
Disclaimer: A&T is a great community partner for ConvergeSouth and they work hard at accommodating the conference. I'd love to see that carried over to the information arena.
Posted by: Sue at May 30, 2007 5:26 PM
My only question is where were you when this "financial malfeasance" was going on? Maybe you were too busy fawning all over the big wigs/guilty parties to ask the hard questions?
All this "coverage" seems a tad late to do the public any real good (like save some money).
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson at May 30, 2007 5:28 PM
Continue destroying them N&O. Pump out 10 more damaging headlines over the next 2 weeks. You have them down on the ground, right where you want them. Might as well finish ole A&T off.
Posted by: Ron at May 31, 2007 5:59 AM
Continue destroying them N&O. Pump out 10 more damaging headlines over the next 2 weeks. You have them down on the ground, right where you want them. Might as well finish ol' A&T off.
Posted by: Ron at May 31, 2007 6:02 AM
"financial malfeasance"
That subject does not get any coverage when it pertains to Mitchell Johnson.
Posted by: whytry at May 31, 2007 1:35 PM
See what I mean? Everyone has an opinion about A&T and the paper.
Sue, A&T, like many, many institutions, doesn't like bad news associated with its name. We have no trouble getting access on positive stories. But the negative ones? It's more difficult. To their credit, some weeks ago when all this started to unravel, Chancellor Hackley was accessible and forthcoming. Why it stopped at this audit, I don't know.
Posted by: John Robinson at May 31, 2007 1:43 PM
Today's headlines and related stories help answer John's question as to why A&T hasn't released this critical information: 1) the report was apparently not complete, as some of it was marked "draft", and we now read that approx. $225,000 is being questioned as misappropriated, not the $2 million previously bleated, or 2) the report belonged to the UNC Office of the President, and A&T was not authorized to release it, or 3)the reporters, not journalists, didn't bother to research all the facts and the intricacies of governmental financial operation.
It's apparent that A&T administrators were working the problems--three employees were fired and either jailed, have trials pending, or are being investigated. Other administrators have been allowed to move on--has anyone interviewed the former provost under whose administration the admission standards slipped, or the former development/foundation chief? Nowhere in the report are Allen Johnson's comments that the books are in "such disaray" or Lanita Withers' false interpretation of the details. If the graphics or marketing dept. at the N&R overspent their budgets, would the CFO proclaim "overspent, misappropriation, N&R books in total disarray"?
Please. Universities and State government agencies report their total budgets status, receipts, and expenditures to the State Controller and Budget offices on a monthly basis. Intra-agency budgeting relates to priorities and mission.
One blogger maintains that lower standards for HBCU's make this a minor story, almost expected. I think there is also a large population that knows how the media twists partial truths to its own benefit and therefore we must read between the lines.
Posted by: Phil Dennis at June 2, 2007 12:49 PM
That's certainly a positive way to look at it, Phil.
Nowhere in our reporting do we say that anyone has backed off the audit report of $2 million in federal funds that were misused. A&T also certainly was able to release the audit report.
It is a public document, as the office in Chapel Hill knew.
What part of "governmental financial operation" needs more reporting
Are you saying, no big deal? Or are you saying, hey, they're working the problem so leave them alone? Are your saying the books aren't in disarray, that $2 million is properly accounted for?
Finally, what part of the story is wrong?
Posted by: John Robinson at June 2, 2007 1:45 PM
blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2007/05/too_much_nc_at.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
John Robinson, News & Record Editor
May 30, 2007
Too much N.C. A&T?
We got an e-mail today that raises questions about our A&T coverage.
Apparently the News-Record is no longer a newspaper for the masses, but instead is focusing all too often on A&T University. I have no dog in the fight with A&T, but it seems there is too much focus on it.
The headline, Thursday, May 24--"A&T decision 'shameful,' trustee says."
The headline, Saturday, May 26--"A&T audit finds financial abuses."
I am sure there is no overpowering national news more important. If you are going to call yourselves a newpaper, then give us more news that qualifies as such on the national level.
Perhaps you should rename the paper, "THE A&T TIMES."
The writer doesn't even mention today's story, "A&T's recovery could take years."
For some reason, A&T in the paper is a lightning rod. The criticism seems to run the gamut. Some people don't like the school's ads on the comics pages. Others don't like photos we run sometimes. Now this. (It's clear the writer wants national news on his front page, but if the financial malfeasance at a local state institution isn't newsworthy, I don't know what is.)
So, I ask you, do we write about A&T too much?
Posted by John Robinson at May 30, 2007 2:50 PM
Comments
It's local news right? So if it's newsworthy, big friggin deal what people think. If it was UNCG, you would get the same blow back. If you focused too much on anything or anyone, you would get the same results, just different people.
Everyone has something to b*tch about. The question is: are you following your mission? I think that you are.
Posted by: darkmoon at May 30, 2007 4:27 PM
I doubt you'd get the same complaints if it were UNCG.
UNCG made national news when a former A&T student came and shot up UNCG not too long ago.
What happened at A&T IS big news involving big dollars and big wigs. The only reason it isn't bigger news is because it is almost expected from prominant black institutions and leaders in this area.
Posted by: nitpicker at May 30, 2007 4:59 PM
Without comparing universities, just focus on A&T's forthcoming-ness (or lack of same) with information. For some reason, they refuse to offer information that is otherwise available to the public; that doesn't make sense. It almost makes A&T appear like they don't "get it," which is not where you want an academic institution to reside.
What about it, John? Does A&T stonewall the N&R over information that in turn makes it *appear* as if they don't want to move toward transparency?
I was disappointed with the (lack of) information regarding the re-renaming of the new education building. The current report controversy is silly because the report is available to the public. I'm sure there are other historic incidents.
Why doesn't A&T want to share the bad news with the great news that they produce and be a more forthcoming member of the community?
Disclaimer: A&T is a great community partner for ConvergeSouth and they work hard at accommodating the conference. I'd love to see that carried over to the information arena.
Posted by: Sue at May 30, 2007 5:26 PM
My only question is where were you when this "financial malfeasance" was going on? Maybe you were too busy fawning all over the big wigs/guilty parties to ask the hard questions?
All this "coverage" seems a tad late to do the public any real good (like save some money).
Posted by: Dr. Mary Johnson at May 30, 2007 5:28 PM
Continue destroying them N&O. Pump out 10 more damaging headlines over the next 2 weeks. You have them down on the ground, right where you want them. Might as well finish ole A&T off.
Posted by: Ron at May 31, 2007 5:59 AM
Continue destroying them N&O. Pump out 10 more damaging headlines over the next 2 weeks. You have them down on the ground, right where you want them. Might as well finish ol' A&T off.
Posted by: Ron at May 31, 2007 6:02 AM
"financial malfeasance"
That subject does not get any coverage when it pertains to Mitchell Johnson.
Posted by: whytry at May 31, 2007 1:35 PM
See what I mean? Everyone has an opinion about A&T and the paper.
Sue, A&T, like many, many institutions, doesn't like bad news associated with its name. We have no trouble getting access on positive stories. But the negative ones? It's more difficult. To their credit, some weeks ago when all this started to unravel, Chancellor Hackley was accessible and forthcoming. Why it stopped at this audit, I don't know.
Posted by: John Robinson at May 31, 2007 1:43 PM
Today's headlines and related stories help answer John's question as to why A&T hasn't released this critical information: 1) the report was apparently not complete, as some of it was marked "draft", and we now read that approx. $225,000 is being questioned as misappropriated, not the $2 million previously bleated, or 2) the report belonged to the UNC Office of the President, and A&T was not authorized to release it, or 3)the reporters, not journalists, didn't bother to research all the facts and the intricacies of governmental financial operation.
It's apparent that A&T administrators were working the problems--three employees were fired and either jailed, have trials pending, or are being investigated. Other administrators have been allowed to move on--has anyone interviewed the former provost under whose administration the admission standards slipped, or the former development/foundation chief? Nowhere in the report are Allen Johnson's comments that the books are in "such disaray" or Lanita Withers' false interpretation of the details. If the graphics or marketing dept. at the N&R overspent their budgets, would the CFO proclaim "overspent, misappropriation, N&R books in total disarray"?
Please. Universities and State government agencies report their total budgets status, receipts, and expenditures to the State Controller and Budget offices on a monthly basis. Intra-agency budgeting relates to priorities and mission.
One blogger maintains that lower standards for HBCU's make this a minor story, almost expected. I think there is also a large population that knows how the media twists partial truths to its own benefit and therefore we must read between the lines.
Posted by: Phil Dennis at June 2, 2007 12:49 PM
That's certainly a positive way to look at it, Phil.
Nowhere in our reporting do we say that anyone has backed off the audit report of $2 million in federal funds that were misused. A&T also certainly was able to release the audit report.
It is a public document, as the office in Chapel Hill knew.
What part of "governmental financial operation" needs more reporting
Are you saying, no big deal? Or are you saying, hey, they're working the problem so leave them alone? Are your saying the books aren't in disarray, that $2 million is properly accounted for?
Finally, what part of the story is wrong?
Posted by: John Robinson at June 2, 2007 1:45 PM
blog.news-record.com/staff/jrblog/archives/2007/05/too_much_nc_at.html
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------
