Maybe I'll take up needlepoint. This blog thing isn't working our real well right now because it seems that instead of reporting on a problem, I might be creating more of them.
Now from the top....
On Sunday, The N&R reported on an economic incentive for Cone Mills - free methane gas from the landfill. The article went on to say some City Council members didin't recall the details of the deal - I took that to mean the deal was done behind closed doors. Not true. Reporter Matt Williams straightened me out in an email yesterday...
...As for whether the Cone gas agreement was done in open or closed session, the story only says that the deal was finalized in November without any discussion. It was an item on a consent agenda that approved the actual contract between the city and Cone to provide the gas for free. There was no discussion then about what the item was....
Apparently the "free" part was discussed during a briefing session - which is also an open session. It's just that some members of Council didn't remember the "free" part - or so it seems.
Then, I came back in and said, according to John Robinson's blog, Councilman Philips suggested to all who would hear during Tuesday night's Council meeting that all members of the Council might want to consider refraining from speaking to reporter Williams. I took that to mean Philips' ire was raised because of erroneous reporting on the "gas" story... not true... Philips was referring mainly to another story.
In another email, Editor John Robinson set me straight on that one...
"...Council member Phillips was upset last night with the report on the SCAT service. His comments didn't specifically note the Cone gas story that I recall. As I said, we clarified our reporting of the SCAT story. He was upset with the Cone gas story as well as other stories we've written dating back to the Coliseum-hockey stories. It is his right to refuse to talk with our reporter, of course, although, given the other media that actually cover City Council, I'm not sure that serves democracy.
As for council member Carmany, we made a mistake in our reporting, which we corrected this morning. This idea that we consistently make mistakes in covering City Hall, though, is plainly wrong...."
So there. But...
Councilwoman Carmany, who was actually able to make a comment on this confounded software, liked the gist of what I was trying to get across yesterday about equal prominence for corrections for erroneous reporting in the newspaper...
"...AMEN to your comments about lack of accuracy and the almost-hidden corrections that subsequently appear. (The correction about me finally appeared in this morning's paper.) Once something's out there, it's hard to repair the damage.
It's getting quite frustrating to me as a councilmember when inaccurate reports are written about council actions. Those inaccurate reports often generate unnecessary alarm in our citizens (such as the report of council eliminating monthly SCAT passes, also erroneous) and in turn, require a tremendous amount of time and energy on city staff and councilmembers' parts to explain the truth and "put out the fire." I wholeheartedly believe in freedom of the press, but that freedom should have the responsibility of accurate reporting attached to it. My experiece lately indicates that responsiblity is not always being met."
Now that everyone is up to speed... I've got some needlpoint to complete.
7:12:02 AM 
|
