Why Greensboro News & Record is silent on Amendment One
North Carolina’s anti-gay marriage Amendment One goes to voters on May 8. Everyone from Billy Graham to Chelsea Clinton has weighed in on it.
So where does the News & Record in Greensboro stand on this controversial measure?
It hasn’t said.
Multiple sources tell me that’s because socially conservative publisher Robin Saul has banned editorials on “moral issues,” including this upcoming referendum.
This is the email I sent to Saul and editorial page editor Allen Johnson III:
Good afternoon Robin and Allen,
One of my readers sent this email:
“I would be grateful if you could get publisher Robin Saul on the record regarding whether he has banned editorials on ‘moral issues,’ including but not limited to the upcoming referendum on Amendment One, which would add a ban on all civil unions besides heterosexual marriage to North Carolina’s constitution.”
I’d appreciate a response to this.
Johnson sent this reply:
Jim, thanks for your note.
Here’s an official statement:
The News & Record editorial board could not come to a consensus on the marriage amendment issue. Therefore, we’ve elected not to officially support or oppose it. We’ll leave this highly personal decision to individual voters.
Robin Saul
Note that the statement does not address the alleged “moral issues” ban.
Ed Cone points out today that the News & Record and its predecessors “have a proud history of speaking up for civil rights. The late Bill Snider, an editorial legend in this state and the finest of Southern gentlemen, endured a cross burning and other vandalism to his home as he stood up for then-controversial ideals just decades ago.
“And now, silence” on Amendment One.
* A deafening silence on Market Street
Wow. Even in an era not hurting for moral cowardice in the newspaper bidness, that really stands out.
Lex Alexander, N&R 1987-2009
This is one of those situations in which a little more transparency on the part of the editorial board might do a great deal of benefit.
“Endorsements” do not have to always be yea or nay, or John Jackson vs. Jack Johnson. If the editorial board can’t come up with a consensus, then an editorial about the different arguments made by various members of the board — by name.
Many communities are divided on the big social issues of the day. A newspaper serving such communities likely is to have a divided editorial board. The newspaper could do a lot of good to the community to demonstrate that, at minimum, many sides of those complicated issues are represented by the top leaders of a newspaper.
But, of course, if the editorial board has a strong majority view, and the publisher overrides it based on his own personal biases, well, then that is just chicken shit of the highest order.
“… then run an editorial about the different arguments … ” Sorry.
I’m no longer the editor of the News & Record and can no longer speak for the paper. I wish it had taken a stand on the amendment.
However, I can say that as far as I know there is no ban on editorializing on moral issues. Since I’ve left, the paper has editorialized on those issues AND on racial issues, which are equally divisive in this community.
It’s impossible to untangle “moral issue” from “political issue” on this and many other occasions, so the alleged policy is nonsensical on the face of it.
I believe that explanation was floated within the building, but it obviously was a fig-leaf and did not last long.
Let’s be very clear here. According to page A10 of today’s print edition, the N&R editorial board is Robin Saul, Allen Johnson and Doug Clark. Period. Allen and Doug already have gone on record on the same side of this issue, so if the editorial board “couldn’t reach consensus,” Robin Saul is the reason why.
And for Saul to send Allen out to say something as disingenuous as that the editorial board “couldn’t reach consensus” — thus making Allen take the heat — is beneath contempt.
I’m also an N&R alum, and I strongly endorse what Bill Reader said. And what my former townmates Lex, John and Ed all said.
And they say consensus is dead. Ha!
It’s sad watching the grifters die but always better when they’ve gone.
Friday’s Page 1 story in the Greensboro News & Record, a purportedly neutral Q&A to explain the issue, is actually an endorsement for Amendment One. In explaining the implications, it gives final word to a Campbell Law analysis over an indepth UNC Law study. Campbell — owned and operated by the NC Baptist Convention — calls the UNC study “a flawed analysis.” It’s the story’s final word, and thus, the N&R’s endorsement.
Like John R., Justin, Beau and Lex above, I logged a number of years at the News & Record and remember a paper unafraid to speak to the issues facing its community, on or off the ballot. Abdication of this responsibility — regardless of position — sends a much larger message to the community. It leaves dark doubt about the newspaper’s broader commitment to community.
A publisher who’s afraid to tell the yahoos in his community that they’re wrong? That’s certainly unusual in the newspaper business … not. Better silence, though, than forcing his own backward views into an editorial, which is what most publishers would do around the country.
By the way, the Q&A today strikes me as pretty balanced and fair. It’s not an endorsement of anything at all.
I live in Summerfield, NC, which is a small town right next to Greensboro. Today in the mail I received my copy of the weekly Northwest Observer, which covers the news for the people living in the small towns just north of Greensboro in northern Guilford County. Very interesting that Patti Stokes, the editor and publisher, was able to come up with an opinion on Amendment One when the News and Record was not. (She will be voting against it.)
I can’t see the current (May 4) edition on their website yet, but it should be soon. http://www.nwobserver.com/