Opinions need fact checking too

This is what we're talking about when we say The Observer editors could care less about about what's true. As long as they give equal time to the opposing point of view, they evidently feel they've done their job. So the Green Cheeze Journalism is in full effect. Basically, they'll print anything regardless of how wrong it is and they probably justify it to themselves by saying that is what open discourse is all about.

But printing ignorance without calling attention to the ignorance is like yelling "FIRE" and then under your breath muttering: "is a bad a thing." It's not helping anyone. The damage is done.

And it's not just in The Buzz, although today's Buzz is typical of the crap the Editors allow to get in print:

Will the Supreme Court next allow the Guantanamo detainees to receive stimulus checks?

The main purpose of our government is to defend our country from those who would harm us, not to defend those who have killed our troops and our citizens.

If Congress really wanted to help all Americans, they would stop taxing us to death and drill for oil.

No, more and more it's in the letters to the Editor as well. The Editors are just lazy, and figure if someone wrote a letter, they should print it.

Check out this woefully ignorant gasbag:

Now everyone's a citizen! Even accused terrorists get these rights. People, this country is falling apart.

John Myers, Charlotte

It serves no purpose to print letters from readers who base their opinions on fundamentally incorrect information. When the Editors know the reader has the facts wrong, they shouldn't print their opinion or, at the VERY least, should print the facts along with it. The Supreme Court decision to re-instate Habeas Corpus applies to anyone in custody, not just citizens.

Would the Editors print a letter that said Black people are inferior intellectually because they were all inbred when they were slaves? I should hope not, but who knows. Evidently, they think opinions based on ignorance are the same value as opinions based on fact.

Obs lets Berry off the hook with Q&A

There's a letter to the Editor in the Sunday city edition (do they even have other editions any more since McClatchy took over the entire region?) that casually mentions the Observer's recent investigative piece on the conditions for workers at the House of Raeford poultry processing plant and the Pulitzer prize in the same sentence. While The Observer's excessively long series was useful in some ways -- for example, at pointing out the general lack of accountability in this instance -- and took some enterprising to be sure, it was hardly Pulitzer material.

So we find it generally ironic that the letter appeared on the same day as The Observer's Question and Answer forum with NC Labor Commissioner Cherie Berry which essentially gave her an open platform to spin her organization's complete disassociation with regulation as well as to campaign for her re-election. One would think that the Obs would use the opportunity to really grill the person in charge of the organization charged with overseeing worker safety, but instead Obs reporters simply wrote down what she said and left it at that.

No follow-up, no analysis. No criticism or comparison. Just turn on the recorder, fire a few questions, say thanks and be on your way. Non harm, no foul (wink). No awkward moments.

This is our favorite exchange and a classic example of the kind of timid reporting we now get from most corporate newspapers these days.

Observer: Workplace safety inspections at the state's poultry plants have dropped sharply in the years since you've been labor commissioner. Given that, how confident are you that the state will be able to catch most of the serious problems that exist inside plants?

Berry: According to the Employment Security Commission, there are 37 poultry sites in the state. Last (fiscal) year we visited eight, so that's about 22 percent. But let me emphasize ... that the last fatality at a poultry facility was March 14, 2004. And that was when a worker fell doing ventilation work. Since that date, 103 construction workers have lost their lives. And I think your readers would understand the need for a comprehensive approach to worker safety. ... You have to understand, you have to have a reason to do an inspection. We can't just go and inspect.

So the commissioner of Labor is proud that they visited 22 percent of poultry sites and begs us to "understand" that she has to have a 'REASON" to inspect. That answer in itself should have spawned about five follow up stories that should have accompanied this sloppy wet kiss of an interview. How can a newspaper that pats itself on the back every chance it gets (about its public service awards and annual NC press association awards just to name a few) in good conscience even print this ridiculous Q&A without putting it in perspective?

When it comes right down to it, the original series was not all that comprehensive in the first place and focused mainly on just the one processing company from the viewpoint of a few former employees and industry researchers. Granted, life is tough in factories and this company's lack of standards may very well be indicative of the industry, but just one decent series that points out the obvious hazards of the industry and the toll it can take on its workers is nothing exceptionally groundbreaking.

Continually and consistently holding the elected officials in charge of oversight accountable and using the power of the press to skewer them when they ignore their charge would be. But giving them a free pass by simply printing their lame answers to gingerly asked questions is not.

It's the Green-Cheese reporting that gets us

Some people call it he said-she said reporting. We call it Green-Cheese journalism. Whatever name you prefer, it's when a newspaper reporter (and their editor, who is just as culpable) is either too lazy or too clueless to interject any common sense into their writing and they'll unquestioningly report anything as long as someone says it out loud. (i.e....The Moon is made of Green Cheese, officials said.)

We submit for your perusal Tuesday's opus on the how great a room full of ridiculously rich CEOs and their pet legislators think Globalization is for workers as reported by Christina Rexrode:

Globalization does displace some workers, said the panelists, who spoke to a crowd of about 200 at Central Piedmont Community College's Harris campus.

But its numerous advantages are often ignored: It opens up new customers for domestic companies and enables businesses to cut costs, which fuels domestic economic growth. It also enables the U.S. to influence foreign politics.

And displaced workers, panelists said, can be retrained for new jobs, provided that the public and private sectors offer those opportunities. Fain said that 2,000 of the 4,000 people who lost their jobs at Pillowtex entered some kind of work force training.

Where does one start? How about with the expression: "displaced workers."

Do you suppose the father of four who lost his job of 25 years (including his health benefits and pension) so the company that fired him could be "more competitive in the global market" by moving their operations to countries that have no restrictions on child labor and can exploit workers making 30-cents a day feels "displaced?" Do you suppose the reporter ever actually asked the CEOs wearing the $2,000 suits and $10,000 rolexes what "displaced" means?

What about this one:

"...It opens up new customers for domestic companies and enables businesses to cut costs."

Do you suppose the reporter realizes that "displacing workers" is what they mean by "cutting costs?" Do they ever displace CEOs in order to "cut costs?"

And of course, our personal favorite from our very own state Secretary of Commerce Jim Fain:

And displaced workers, panelists said, can be retrained for new jobs, provided that the public and private sectors offer those opportunities. Fain said that 2,000 of the 4,000 people who lost their jobs at Pillowtex entered some kind of work force training.

Do you suppose the reporter bothered to ask if any new "opportunities" had actually been provided by the public or private sectors or even more so, do you suppose she asked Fain whether training on the deep fryer at McDonald's counts as "work force training."

By the way, Mr. Fain, what about the other 2,000 workers? What happened to them? Do you suppose the reporter asked that question? Not likely. She was too busy smooching the behinds of panelists.

By the way, you might ask, well just who was on this panel?

Monday's panel was sponsored by the Financial Services Forum, a Washington policy group composed of the CEOs of 20 major financial institutions. Wachovia's Ken Thompson, who provided Monday's opening remarks, is the chairman. Bank of America's Ken Lewis is also a member of the Forum.

Other panelists included Ellen Ruff of Duke Energy Carolinas, Jay Reardon of Hickory Chair Co., Thomas Nelson of the National Gypsum Co., Marc Lautenbach of IBM and Daniel DiMicco of Nucor Corp.

Do you suppose the reporter bothered to find out anything about these participants or the roles they're playing in Globalization? Not likely. If she had bothered to do any reporting other than simply parroting their words, she might have included the fact that it's not just manufacturing that is moving jobs overseas now, it's all industries. She might have included that some industry experts estimate that IBM, for example, now outsources almost 40% of its work force and Bank of America has moved whole divisions overseas.

Or maybe the reporter might have stumbled across the fact that since Globalization began in earnest in the early 1990s and most, if not all, of these companies have shown record profits, the average worker's cost of living has risen 15 times faster than their incomes and the number of people living in poverty has skyrocketed across the developing world, as well as in the United States.

Of course, that would be actual reporting and that takes time and effort when it's so much easier to simply be a cheerleader for the chamber of commerce.

2007 Ups & Downs; 2008 Suggestions

Since the Obs loves lists so much, especially at the end of the year, we'd thought we'd follow suit. Here are the Top 3 Ups and Downs of 2007 and the Top 3 Suggestions for the Obs in 2008.

UPS, 2007
1. Transit Vote Coverage -- The Obs didn't cower in the face of a small, but very vocal group of anti-government zealots and played the role of advocate for something that this area needs desperately. Extra kudos for outing the ring leader's shady past, although the Obs could've gone even further and drilled in a little more on the role the right-wing John Locke Foundation played in the whole thing.

2. Foreclosure Embarrassment -- Way out front of the mortgage industry's meltdown in 2007, the Obs did an excellent job of showing how predatory mortgage practices, overzealous real estate agents and shady homebuilders all contributed to a huge problem for low and middle income families.

3. Lisa Zagaroli -- Unfortunately not a local, but a McClatchy reporter, Lisa Zagaroli's work covering Washington and the state legislature deserves mucho kudos and much more prominence. Unlike the local political writers for the Observer who seem obsessed with polls and John Edward's hair, Zagaroli actually provides relevant, timely info on how our elected officials are spending their time. We would like to see more.

Honorable mentions: Cherry Neighborhood feature; Charlotte Schools sports eligibility investigation; Catawba River special feature.

DOWNS, 2007
1. Development Coverage -- Doug Smith may be a native to Charlotte and a nice guy, but his coverage of real estate development borders on the obsequious. His weekly feature "The Next Big Thing" provides nothing of value for readers except a regurgitated version of the developer's press release and a self-serving comment from said developer about how great their project will be for Charlotte. Meanwhile, nearly all of the development featured is way too expensive for the average family in Charlotte and we never see any information on the drain all this unfettered development is placing on the community's infrastructure. (Note: same goes for the weekly Real Estate sections. Based on what makes it into that section, you'd think every family in Charlotte lived in a million-dollar home.)

2. Celebrity News -- Page 2-A's celebrity features and the obsession with celebrity news on the Charlotte.com website is an embarrassment for the Observer. We're quite sure the appearance and prominence of wholly useless information like this is in no small part due to some consultant or hair-brained marketing wonk's belief that this kind of clap-trap sells newspapers to younger readers. But the community and the subscribers would be so much better served if this crap just disappeared and the Obs used the space for real news.

3. Sports Coverage -- The Observer sports section is full of opinions but woefully short on compelling sports stories. What makes sports great is the drama that drives athletes and the stories behind the scores. What the Observer seems to think makes sports great, is incessant speculating on coach's jobs and opining about what it's like to be a sportswriter on the road covering national events even though there is little, if any actual tie to Charlotte. There's scant little coverage of Knights baseball, Checkers hockey, community sports or local sports figures who make the Charlotte sports scene unique to Charlotte. All we get is commentary, and useless commentary at that.

Dishonorable mentions: Anemic feature sections such as Arts, Travel and Celebrations (sections waste a lot of space on non-local canned features, gossip photo spreads and arcane subject matter); Business coverage (why must the Obs be a cheerleader rather than a critic? Forget the stockholders for once. Write about the plight of the working class); Local TV & Radio coverage (rather than "partnering" with a local TV station and smooching local TV personalities in print, why not point out the uselessness of our local TV news and the growing bile on local radio?); Local Bloggers (rather than forcing your staff to blog about things that didn't make the paper, why not turn over the blogs to your readers and see what they have to say. If it is interesting enough to warrant a staff writer's time, why isn't it in the paper?)

Suggestions, 2008
1. Kill the marketing wonks and get back to real news -- Even though it's not fun to read about the hundreds of casualties in Iraq each month or easier to cut the opinion from paid media columnists and print solid analysis of the economy, it's what a newspaper is for and what readers really want. Don't believe the hype, editors. In-depth, enterprise NEWS sell newspapers a helluva lot more than campy commentary about Paris Hilton and pictures of cleavage-barring pop stars.

2. Don't be afraid to be an advocate for public service issues -- As demonstrated by Light Rail Coverage in 2007, a newspaper taking a stand for something that is important for the community is a good thing and serves the community well. He-said, she-said reporting helps no one. You're supposed to be on top of the community's needs and issues. So BE ON TOP OF IT and when necessary, take a stand even if you catch hell for it.

3. Double the size of the letters to the Editor and kill The Buzz -- What the community thinks of itself and its resident newspaper is vital to civic discussion, its compelling and most importantly, it's useful. No one really cares or benefits from feckless editorials on arcane subjects. So, use the editorial opinion space more wisely. Get rid of the daily editorials (save them from Sunday), double the number of letters that get printed and kill The Buzz -- printing anonymous political potshots and often erroneous, dubious claims helps no one and does real damage. It might be easy to edit, but is it really helping?

Observer Sports out of ideas, integrity

Here we go again. The Observer sports team is making stuff up again.

Within minutes of the Panthers loss to Jacksonville on Sunday, a poll appeared on Charlotte.com asking if the Panthers should fire their coach, John Fox. This kind of gotchya journalism has been going on for more than a year and has been especially heavy this year as columnist after columnist has openly begun suggesting Fox is about to be fired. Mind you, it's not like the sports writers have any actual inside information that the coach's job is in jeopardy. No sources have actually hinted it's a possibility or gone on deep background to say they're looking around for a new coach. The Obs just decided to start acting like it's a fact.

Why, you might ask, would they do something that would get most real reporters fired?

Because it's so much more fun to create controversy than it is to actually report the facts that exist. They probably figure that because other writers do that kind of stuff in New York and L.A. it must mean you're not a real sports reporter unless you just start suggesting someone will be fired until they actually DO get fired, then you gloat about how you knew it all along.

The Observer has fallen into this practice for years. Remember John Bunting, Herb Sendeck and Chuck Damato to name a few?

How bout some actual reporting fellas? If someone in the organization suggests that the coach might be on the hot seat, report that. But to just wake up one morning and decide you're gonna start the old "they're about to fire the coach" stuff is shoddy journalism and unfair to readers and the Panthers.

FCC chairman gets a pass from Washburn

One has to wonder what exactly Mark Washburn's job description says. As the TV/Radio writer for The Obs, you'd think he's there to cover issues and stories that help citizens understand why TV and radio are so awful these days and what decisions go on in the background to make that happen.

Instead we get fluff pieces on the latest cookie-cutter TV shows debuting this Fall, human resources press release info on who is getting a promotion at the local TV stations and occasionally, his view of who has the hottest weather-clone.

What we don't get is news.

Take this week, for example. The FCC chairman and the National Association of Broadcasters are in town, and rather than use the opportunity to ask tough questions about important issues like: why the FCC is handing over the wireless spectrum to AT&T and Verizon or how can the FCC justify the consolidation and deregulation of media that has led to the loss of legitimate local TV and radio news, what we get is the recap of speeches about swearing on TV, satellite radio vs. digital broadcasting and how four local radio "personalities" feel about their bosses.

Good work, Obs. You've really dug in deep this week. You've given us so much insight into in our democracy and the way our airwaves are being used. Thank you for delving into the reasons why the FCC has sold our public trust to the highest bidders.

We're sure glad you had a reporter there.

Big juicy kiss for BOA amid more job cuts

By reading The Observer today, you'd think that Ken Lewis of Bank of America are in line for sainthood. In a shameless, slobbering ass-kiss of the CEO of the biggest bank in the U.S., The Observer dedicated dozens of column inches, including a front page piece and a giant softball Q&A section to portraying how great Ken Lewis has been for BOA and the country.

No mention of the 4,000 jobs being cut in the Midwest.

No mention of the outsourcing of jobs to India .

I guess we shouldn't be too surprised. After all, BOA buys a LOT of advertising.