Talk To Me
Well said, well documented, well researched. Well, well, well. We'll see what develops.
So, Grier repeatedly lied and in doing so did a disservice to our County's children while seeking to take credit for doing the opposite.
I wonder if the uproar will be equivalent to Skip Alston's name-calling about which half the County is in utter apoplexy.
Thanks for reading and commenting on the character education story. I appreciate you pointing out the Rotarian connection. I added a comment on my own blog (The Chalkboard at News-record.com) giving the Rotary Clubs and Greensboro College credit.
I had no intent to slight the private individuals and clubs. As I was researching the story, no one mentioned their contribution to me.
As for the federal grant, I'm double-checking this. The school system told me that it received a federal grant in 1996.
As for information about Charlie's history with the district, I didn't see anything in the story that was factually inaccurate. However you provide more detail about the history of his involvement with the school system.
I won’t offer an opinion as to whether Dr. Grier should or should not support the program. This story was not intended to go into depth about whether Dr. Grier’s supports or doesn’t support the character education program.
And finally, I think it's worth pointing out that you are focusing on two brief paragraphs in a lengthy article and those paragraphs aren't particularly germaine to the overall focus of the article: how character education is taught in the local schools and how well it works.
Bruce, I did not attack the veracity of your entire article. I pointing out the misinformation that made its way into your article, then took my post in a different direction.
You wrote that Dr. Grier eliminated the CE coordinator position immediately after you stated Charlie took the job with the state. Your story creates the impression that Grier simply chose not to fill an open position, rather than effectively killing a program he now claims to support. How could you think that is factually accurate when readers have no reason to infer they are reported in reverse order?
I mentioned the connection to Rotary and Greensboro College as background to the more important points of my post that 1) Grier misled the public when he claimed he cut costs by slashing CE; and 2) When quizzed in public about his statements about CE, Grier's audiences knew he was not truthful.
I recognize the point of your article and noted that you covered it well. You will notice that I did not tie the issues I raised to the need for or the effectiveness of local CE programs.
I tied those issues to the fact that our superintendent now cheers publicly for a program he previously squashed. And furthermore, he has been less than honest about a program that is all about being honest and respectful.
Grier. If you can't say anything good, just blog about it.
What we said was, "Guilford Superintendent Terry Grier eliminated the county’s coordinator position to cut costs." That's all.
I think you're reading way more into that than was intended. If so, that's my fault; I should've done a better job explaining it.
Interesting: blogger as public fact-checker. That should raise eyebrows of journalists everywhere -- including this one. In defense of Bruce, a former colleague, I don't see that your criticisms merit a correction of the story.
The first two sentences you criticize are, strictly speaking, accurate. Abourjilie DID leave GCS after the state legislature's action; Bruce didn't specify a date or even a year. And, absent an alternative motive that Abourjilie apparently didn't allege to Bruce, Grier DID eliminate the coordinator position to cut costs. (One minor point: I would have attributed that statement to Grier or GCS, who I assume is the source.) The rest of your criticism -- that Grier "torpedoed" the program out of spite, I guess, rather than budgetary concerns -- is, absent corroboration, merely an opinion.
The accuracy of your second criticism depends on information we don't have. Did the program actually begin before 1996? Your post doesn't say; "late 1990s" isn't good enough. My guess is that the private contributions were used as a match to win the federal grant, and the program did in fact begin in 1996, as Bruce wrote. If that's not the case, the school system owes Bruce an apology.
Just so you might understand Bruce's reluctance to correct his story and my exacting defense of it: Many publications, including the News & Record, catalogue their writers' errors -- large and small -- and use that information in performance evaluations. In other words, corrections can cost writers money or even their jobs. We are thus conditioned to be both painstakingly accurate and painstakingly defensive when that accuracy is challenged.
One final question: Did you first privately address your concerns about the story to Bruce, or did you proceed directly to a public lambasting?
"Public lambasting?"
An overstatement, given Patrick's measured tone.
Conversation happens.
The article had already appeared in public, why should the conversation about it be sotto voce?
I agree that speaking privately to the writer of an article that contains inacurate or incomplete information is probably the polite thing to do, but I have found that it seldom results in additional or better information being seen in follow-up articles.
Thanks for bloggers who get conversations started and additional information out.
Diane
Interesting discussion. We are interested in getting to the truth of the matter and continue to sort through what we know, what we've been told and what Patrick says.
Two points about what Alex says: I don't think Bruce is reluctant to correct his story. My conversation with him about Patrick's post didn't indicate that. We all know that conversing/debating by e-mail is often difficult and simple to misinterpret.
Second, we keep track of the corrections we run because getting the facts right is important. But I've been in this job for 6 years and haven't yet seen a case in which someone got less of a raise or was fired because of the number of corrections they had. That's not to say we wouldn't fire someone who chronically made mistakes, but we haven't gathered evidence of anyone having a chronic problem with it. I doubt that conditions reporters to be "painstakingly defensive" when challenged. As with any group of people, we have our share of people who are defensive and those who aren't. (Not to be defensive about it. 
)
Bruce, my post was not meant to be a condemnation of your CE article. I raised issues which I contend are inaccurate as the starting point for the thrust of my post, which is the continuing peddling of misinformation by some at GCS.
Alex, America entered a war with Iraq that many believe was misguided. Bill Clinton was impeached. In that order, those two sentences are misleading, but they are, stictly speaking, accurate.
I think the article has a couple of errors, but I have not asked for a correction. In fact, in a conversation with one of Bruce's colleagues yesterday, I said that I did not think a correction was necessary. So, I do not understand all the defensiveness.
Alex, the answer to your final question is that Charlie addressed these issues with Bruce five hours before my post. I did alert Bruce to my post as soon as it went up as a courtesy.
Public lambasting, Alex? I think that is a bit of hyperbole best left inside the Beltway.
Thanks for your clarifications, John. Alex's statements about corrections by N&R writers costing them money seemed contrary to your demonstrated commitment to get the facts right, even if it requires multiple tries.
John is wise to note the perils of debate by email.
I should not have suggested Bruce was reluctant to correct his story, not having spoken with him. And in my personal experience, corrections never cost me anything at the News & Record -- though I do recall one unpleasant conversation with an editor once upon a time when I had been too careless too frequently.
The rest, I'll let stand.
This is amazing! I've no worthy contribution to this conversation, but I find it simply amazing that several professional journalists, an Editor-n-chief of our local MSM daily, and anyone else who wishes to maintain a civil tone can become a part of this enlightening conversation. And while this sort of writing isn't what I'm best at, or prefer to do, it's encouraging to think that if I were to want to do it I already have the means.
My thanks to everyone-- especially Patrick-- for providing me this insight.
And now, my two cents: Get Grier outta here!
The factual stuff I'll leave to you guys to hash out, but in another direction...
My normal MO is to post my position on my understanding of an issue. Generally I include names of the players involved and sometimes my 'perceptions' of people. As usual, I also give my opinion of the issue from the information I have gleaned to that point.
On many occasions I have had the named persons to call or e-mail lambasting me for not checking with them before formulating my opinion and creating a post.
In those situations I have explained to the offended party that my post is MY take based on the information in MY sphere of input. That input might include the newspaper, TV, personal conversations or personal observations/correspondence.
Such is the situation with Patrick and Bruce in my opinion.
Patrick was under no obligation to call Bruce. What Patrick knew - he knew. And his take - was his take. And the whole post was every bit as valid as Bruce's article from where I sit.
We now have some additional information that simply gives an informed citizen's viewpoint (torpedoed)that was not in the N&R story, but it takes nothing from Bruce's fine report the way I see it.
I am so proud to be in the middle of all of this I could just giggle - and often do.
If Grier cannot even pass the Rotary's Four-Way test, how is it that he continues to run our schools?
I'm disgusted and disappointed in those that hired him.
I also say "Get im OUTTA here."
Commenting by HaloScan
