I am getting pretty frustrated with my Radio Userland software - again. They have been attempting to make improvements to the 'comments' feature of the service but the only thing they have improved so far is my vocabulary for cussing.
For about a month, when some folks try to comment on a post they report that the software shuns them by kicking back a "Forbidden" message once they attempt to post their thoughts - it has happened to me on occasion as well. Imagine that, my software is telling me I can't comment on my own weblog.
Now, I get a sporadic message telling me (and perhaps you): Note: The Radio comments server is being moved to a new server, you will be unable to post during this time. Even worse, my software is currently showing that there are no comments to any post on my blog.
***********************
My post from Monday about the N&R article on the City's offer of free methane gas to Cone Mills contains some controversy. All of the action is taking place in the comments to that post, but good luck accessing them.
N&R reporter Matt Willliams is being taken to task for his reporting of the deal, most notably this statement from the article: "...The City Council completed the deal earlier this month without discussing it publicly." He then went on to report that several City Council members weren't aware that the City was giving the gas away.
I jumped in with both feet and condemned the City Manager's office for keeping some on the Council in the dark as I also wondered why such an incentive would be negotiated behind closed doors. Come to find out - neither of those things were true.
Williams commented here Monday evening that Carmany called him back with corrected information about what she knew and when she knew it shortly after his initial contact to her regarding the incentive. He went on to say the N&R would be running a correction. Carmany then came in and informed us that the deal was done in open session despite Williams' assertion to the contrary. She even cited where the minutes covering the agreement could be found. (If I could access my comments, I would provide the link for you... but alas...)
Now I read over at John Robinson's place that the N&R article drew the ire of Councilman Tom Philips during Tuesday night's Council meeting. Apparently Phillips urged the entire City Council to not speak with Williams in the future, and adopt his own year-long policy of shunning the N&R's city government reporter because of the faulty reporting.
Robinson goes on to say that the N&R corrected the bad report "immediately" but I haven't seen the correction except in Williams' comment on my blog (but, of course - I am in Charlotte and corrections are not posted on their website - this policy screams for a re-think). But JW, in a subsequent comment to my post, says she wasn't able to find the correction in the paper Tuesday morning.
How should the N&R un-ring the bell? Loudly. If JW couldn't "immediately" find the paper's correction after looking for it in earnest, then I suggest that whatever efforts were made at a correction were woefully inadequate.
I have always thought that corrections should be placed in the same space in a newspaper where the orginal and erroneous information occupied. If a headline such as "Councilwoman Sandy Carmany knew nothing about free gas" was origanally above-the-fold on the "B" section, placing a correction in 10-point font somewhere where no one hardly ever goes is just not balanced.
To the general readership, Mrs. Carmany has been branded as a being derelect in her duty and/or the City manager's office is seen as secretive and/or the City Council is perceived as making back room deals. Those perceptions will stick unless even the casual N&R reader is clearly and properly informed otherwise.
Getting the facts straightened out should command the same amount of ink as getting them wrong - just as I have done here.
8:06:49 AM 
|
