MICHAEL FEENEY - ANOTHER GREAT JOURNALIST MYSTERIOUSLY DIES (BLOCK FREEDOM OF PRESS)

MICHAEL FEENEY - ANOTHER GREAT JOURNALIST MYSTERIOUSLY DIES (BLOCK FREEDOM OF PRESS):

Michael Feeney
Michael Hastings
Andrew Breitbart
Serena Shim
Nicholas Wiltgen
Sue Lloyd-Roberts

~ ARE OBAMA & OTHER WORLD LEADERS BLOCKING 1st AMENDMENT SPEECH TO INTIMIDATE CITIZENS??

*** Role Model' With A Bright Smile; Journalist Michael Feeney, Dies at 32

Michael J. Feeney, a former New York Daily News reporter and rising star among black journalists who became known for his exclusive interviews with celebrities such as Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Rihanna has died. He was 32.

"They (doctors) worked on him, and worked on him but couldn't get him back," said Feeney's mother, Reba Willis, 63, of Teaneck, New Jersey in a tearful phone Monday interview one day after his death. "The doctors didn't see this coming."

But Feeney, who died from complications from a staph infection to his kidneys, may have.

And as his conditioned worsened, the former journalist who covered the death of legendary pop singer Whitney Houston nearly four years ago, laid in a hospital bed crafting his own obituary.

"I'm going to die in here," Willis said Feeney told her days before dying.

He spent a total of three weeks this month as a patient at Holy Name Medical Center in Teaneck.

Feeney, who served as the president of the New York Association of Black Journalists from 2011 until December, was known among his colleagues and friends as someone who pushed for diversity in newsrooms across the country.

He also mentored high school and college students who aspired to be professional journalists.

Newsday reporter Aisha Al-Muslim asked Feeney for career advice on a few occasions.

"He was a role model for young journalists and for anyone who sought advice," said Al-Muslin. "I'm going to remember him for his dance skills and bright smile."

Feeney, who had recently accepted an entertainment reporting position with CNN.com, joined the Daily News in 2009 first as a police reporter and later covering Harlem.

It was there where he made his mark, landing exclusive interviews and taking popular selfies with A-list celebrities like Alicia Keys, Jay-Z, Beyoncé and Rihanna while also writing about the historic Apollo Theater.

In 2010, he was named the Emerging Journalist of the Year by the National Association of Black journalists.

Feeney covered the Baltimore unrest after Freddie Gray's death for NBC News and NBCBLK, filing stories beyond the front lines of the marches; inside crowded churches, on college campuses with Black millennials stepping up as change agents, and beside the patrons of New Beginnings Barbershop.

As news of Feeney's death spread, so did the wide-ranging acknowledgements.

"He was a beacon of hope for young BLACK journalists.

He was passionate about creating a blue print for people to get ahead in the industry," said Candace Amos, a New York Daily News reporter. "He wanted to see you succeed and he would do anything in his power to make that happen."

Marlon A. Walker is an education reporter with the Atlanta Journal Constitution and Vice-President of Print for NABJ.

“It’s quickly becoming known the importance that somebody with Feeney's passion can have on people," Walker said.

"Everyone is talking about him, including people who didn't know him. For the people who did, the loss is much greater.

New York City Mayor Bill de Blasio, the Rev. Al Sharpton, political analyst Roland Martin and Hot 97 host Charlamagne Tha God tweeted about Feeney's death.

By Monday morning, Feeney was trending on Facebook, something unthinkable for a newspaper reporter.

"The outpouring has been unbelievable," said Willis, who saved a voicemail from her elated son when he interviewed his idol, retired New York Yankees shortstop Derek Jeter.

Funeral arrangements are pending and a memorial fund has been set up in his honor, the proceeds will be sent to his family.

Sources: NBC News, BBC, Independent.co.uk, NY Mag, AJC, NY Daily News, Youtube

Democrats & Progressives Retaliating Against Freedom Of Speech?

NPR Under Fire: Is News Giant Stepping On The Right To Free Speech?

NPR deems itself, and is deemed by millions of loyalists and paying subscribers, a bastion of liberal principles and guardian of all that's progressive, literate, urbane and fair about the news media. National Public Radio is an institution, its sonorous and soporific voice bringing sanity and intelligence to a crazy world.

It stands for liberal principles and constitutional tenets. It is reliably measured and fair, open to all points of view.

But maybe not when it comes to remarks that run counter to the established NPR canon.
That's the wall Juan Williams ran into, and he was bounced out by NPR.

Now the debate has heated up, drawing in liberals, conservatives, commentators, celebrities, journalists, and political operatives. By Thursday afternoon, an odd group found itself on Williams' side: Karl Rove, Whoopi Goldberg and Sarah Palin, and many others, including Politics Daily's Matt Lewis.



Williams, a news analyst for NPR, also appears regularly on Fox News, which is a hard act to pull off, something of an oxymoron. Can't serve two gods.

But he has managed it for years, not always smoothly, but he has survived going from one to the other. On NPR he's a thoughtful voice, a respected black journalist and civil rights writer. On Fox he's the house moderate-liberal, a sensible commentator who straddles a fine line and brings a bit of fresh liberal air to Fox's conservative hothouse.



On Monday, Williams appeared on "The O'Reilly Factor," and speaking about the extremist Muslim threats around the world, he told the host Bill O'Reilly, "I'm not a bigot. But when I get on a plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous."

He went on to make a few remarks about the Pakistani who recently pleaded guilty to trying to plant a bomb at Times Square. "I don't think there's any way you can get away from these facts," Williams said, referring to such threats.
On Wednesday, NPR fired him, saying that Williams' statements were "inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst for NPR."

Hard to figure out where he crossed the line.

Sure, he was dumb to say anything that could remotely be construed as bigoted. But did his remarks merit firing him?

Imagine the scandal if the situation were reversed, and Fox News had canceled Williams for remarks that could be construed as liberal or inappropriate on Fox News. For instance, what if Williams had said on Fox that remarks from Tea Party candidates such as Sharron Angle at times bordered on ethnically or racially offensive? What would happen if Fox News had ended his contract over such a remark? I think we know what would happen. Liberals and other anti-Foxites would be up in arms.
Now inevitably Sarah Palin is joining the fray. "I don't expect Juan Williams to support me (he's said some tough things about me in the past) – but I will always support his right and the right of all Americans to speak honestly about the threats this country faces," Palin wrote in Facebook.

"If NPR is unable to tolerate an honest debate about an issue as important as Islamic terrorism, then it's time for National Public Radio to become National Private Radio,'' she wrote. "It's time for Congress to defund this organization."

Palin has a point, and to underscore it, she wrote on Twitter: "NPR & LSM: you're shocked at public outrage over your censorship of Juan? This is what happens when our Constitution starts shaking her fist." (LSM stands for lamestream media.)
It's not a matter of siding with any one opinion, Williams's or NPR's.

It's a matter of upholding his right to say what he believes without fear or favor. If we fire news commentators for making an unpopular or politically incorrect remark, we are in trouble. It's a basic right, people. Not two ways about it.





Juan Williams' Firing: Censorship Or Partisan Games Between NPR And Fox News?


Always vigilant at resisting any and all attempts to squelch liberal voices, the political Left has been exhibiting an untoward inclination to suppress the speech of those with whom they do not agree.

This disquieting impulse reveals itself in myriad ways, from shouting down Karl Rove in a Beverly Hills bookstore and boycotting businesses that contribute to Republicans, to advocating an Orwellian-named "fairness doctrine" designed to muzzle right-wing talk radio or demanding the firing of commentators who run afoul of their sensibilities.

The caveat should be added that this instinct is not true of all liberals (certainly not among "good liberals," as Bill O'Reilly might say), but this week the censorship impulse managed to win the day in the very bastion of levelheaded liberalism -- the corporate headquarters of National Public Radio.

Late Wednesday night, while Americans with proper priorities were watching the Giants-Phillies game, NPR issued a terse statement announcing its firing of commentator Juan Williams for comments he made to Bill O'Reilly on Fox News during a Monday night discussion about how Muslims are referenced in the context of terrorism.

Prescient in a way he couldn't have imagined, Williams prefaced his remarks by saying, "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality." Williams then confessed his own discomfort at seeing passengers in "Muslim garb" boarding airplanes he was traveling on.

Williams went on to decry intolerance and to point out how unfair it would be to hold Christians accountable for the Wichita mob that boycotts the funerals of fallen U.S. troops or the would-be Koran burner from Florida. Williams also lauded leaders such as George W. Bush, whom, he said, stressed to their fellow Americans: "It's not a war with Islam."

Too late, Juan. The damage had been done, at least in the minds of Vivian Schiller, the network's CEO, and Ellen Weiss, NPR's vice president for news. They terminated his contract that night.

"Juan has been a valuable contributor to NPR and public radio for many years and we did not make this decision lightly or without regret," said the statement, which was issued jointly by Schiller and Weiss. "However, his remarks on The O'Reilly Factor this past Monday were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR."

One assumes that the remarks they had in mind were the ones in which Williams said he gets privately "worried" or "nervous" about seeing people on his airplane in traditional Muslim dress -- and not his corollary point of decrying hate crimes against Muslims. NPR executives certainly couldn't have objected to this statement made by Williams: "We don't want in America people to have their rights violated."
It seemed Williams had more to say in this vein, but O'Reilly kept cutting him off. The verbose Fox News host had his own agenda.

He was defending himself against charges of bigotry that arose when he appeared on ABC's "The View" to promote his most recent book. In the midst of a hard-to-comprehend conversation (everyone kept shouting and talking over one another), Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar apparently took exception when O'Reilly noted that the United States was "attacked by Muslims" on 9/11. The two women briefly walked off the set. It was yet another example of liberals wanting to pull the microphone cord instead of trusting the marketplace of ideas.

They aren't the only ones. After Williams was sacked, conservatives, imitating that which they profess to detest, immediately began playing the same game.
Sarah Palin weighed in, naturally, calling for NPR to be defunded. Mike Huckabee, one of Palin's conservative rivals, echoed that statement and added a flourish of his own: "I will no longer accept interview requests from NPR as long as they are going to practice a form of censorship."

Former House Speaker Newt Gingrich issued a theatrical call for a congressional investigation into NPR. "The U.S. Congress should investigate NPR and consider cutting off their money," Gingrich said on Fox News Thursday morning. "Every listener to NPR should be enraged that there's this kind of bias against an American."

These conservative criticisms, however genuinely felt, managed to achieve the neat trick of being wrong in all respects. For starters, less than 6 percent of NPR's member stations' budgets come from federal, state, and local funds combined. As for Newt Gingrich's belief that Americans would be shocked to find a liberal bent at NPR, all available evidence suggests that much of NPR's liberal audience will be delighted Juan Williams is gone: They never understood how he could be commentating on both Fox News and NPR in the first place.

Finally, Huckabee's gambit -- not going on the air for NPR -- seems to be akin to what NPR did to Juan Williams. No less an authority in the media/culture wars than Bill O'Reilly could enlighten The Huck; O'Reilly explained it to his own viewers.

Why does he go into hostile venues such as the set of "The View" when its entire cast, save Elisabeth Hasselbeck, is made up of liberal women? That's precisely the reason, O'Reilly said: He's able to share a perspective ABC's viewers don't usually get.
And what is that viewpoint insofar as Muslims are concerned? Amid a conversation that managed to devolve into loose talk of "good Muslims" and "bad Muslims," O'Reilly laid out the core of his case: "No one I know wants to insult Muslims, but many are tired of the political correctness surrounding the 9/11 attack.

The truth is that if moderate Muslims all over the world stand with America against radical Islam, the terrorists could not exist. But, obviously, this is not what happened."

That's a superficial worldview, perhaps, but one that merits conversation rather than censorship, boycotts, firings, and scorn. Perhaps there are other reasons for NPR to divorce itself from Williams. Like most men, he hasn't lived a blameless life. Nor was this the first time that comments uttered by Williams on Fox News, which also employed him, infuriated NPR listeners.

They also didn't set well with NPR's hierarchy, which has clearly never been comfortable with having its journalists (Mara Liasson is a Fox regular, too) appear on a rival network known for its conservative sympathies -- but which hasn't been willing to confront the issue head-on.

Alicia Shepard, NPR's always thoughtful ombudsman, first wrote about the dilemma Juan Williams posed for NPR in a Feb. 11, 2009 column in which she noted that in 2008 she received 378 written complaints from listeners about Williams -- by far the highest on the staff. The occasion of that 2009 column was Juan Williams-induced outrage over his comparison of Michelle Obama to black 60s radical Stokely Carmichael. The upshot of that episode was that Williams agreed that on Fox News he would not be identified as an NPR employee.

That agreement apparently never fully mollified the NPR brass. In any event, it was made moot on Monday, when O'Reilly said to Williams: "You live in the liberal precincts -- you actually work for NPR."

Shepard suggested Thursday that a better resolution would have been for NPR's bosses to give Williams a choice -- them or Fox News. That's in keeping with Shepard's classy style -- the first time she wrote about Williams, she pulled no punches while showing respect to both Williams and his critics -- and it contrasted with CEO Vivian Schiller's gratuitous swipe at Williams on his way out the door. (Schiller said that Williams should have kept his feelings about Muslims between himself and "his psychiatrist and his publicist," a remark Schiller herself characterized as "thoughtless" later in the day while issuing an apology).

For his part, Williams slammed NPR for its "one-party rule" and "one-sided thinking that leads to enforced ideology, speech, and writing." But it needn't have come to any of this. There are, after all, prominent "liberal precincts" where the issue of bias in the media is dealt with more deftly. We're talking about "The Daily Show" and "The Colbert Report." Those venues also annoy conservatives, who complain with some justification that Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert are committed partisans skilled in the art of twisting their opponents' words.

But both sides do that; and in any event, satire is a more sophisticated weapon than the pink slip.


Sources: Fox News, Politics Daily

Juan Williams' Firing Creates National Media Firestorm: Possible Lawsuit

NPR's Hasty Decision To Fire Pundit Juan Williams

IN A DEMOCRACY, the media must foster a free and robust political debate, even if such debate may, at times, offend some people. At the same time, they must uphold standards of civility, including an appropriate respect for the legitimate sensitivities of all members of the public. The eternal question is how to strike the right balance.

No one has a perfect record. And it's even more difficult now, as Americans grope for the right words to address two realities: the growth of an overwhelmingly law-abiding Muslim population in the United States and the threat from Islamist terrorists. Recently The Post spiked a satirical comic strip captioned "Where's Muhammad?" for fear of offending Muslims, who consider depictions of the prophet blasphemous, even though the strip did not actually depict Muhammad. Post ombudsman Andrew Alexander said the decision could be seen as "timid," noting that the artist intended to protest death threats that some of his cartooning colleagues have faced from Muslim extremists.

Now comes NPR's decision to fire pundit Juan Williams, a former colleague of ours at The Post, for his remarks about Muslims and terrorism on Fox News' "The O'Reilly Factor" Monday night. NPR, a radio network supported by federal grants and private contributions, said in a statement that those comments "were inconsistent with our editorial standards and practices, and undermined his credibility as a news analyst with NPR." What was Mr. Williams's sin? He admitted, with apparent chagrin, that he has engaged in a kind of racial profiling in the years since the Sept. 11 attacks: "When I get on the plane, I got to tell you, if I see people who are in Muslim garb and I think, you know, they are identifying themselves first and foremost as Muslims, I get worried. I get nervous." Mr. Williams then alluded to a declaration of war against America by convicted Times Square bomber Faisal Shahzad and added: "I don't think there's any way to get away from these facts."

In making this confession, Mr. Williams undoubtedly spoke for many Americans who are wrestling with similar feelings. His words could be offensive to some, if construed as an endorsement of negative stereotyping. But the full broadcast makes clear that Mr. Williams intended the opposite. To be sure, he struggled to get his point across, because host Bill O'Reilly kept interrupting him. But Mr. Williams did manage to observe that "we don't want in America, people to have their rights violated to be attacked on the street because they hear rhetoric from Bill O'Reilly and they act crazy."

In short, Mr. Williams was attempting to do exactly what a responsible commentator should do: speak honestly without being inflammatory. His reward was to lose his job, just as Agriculture Department employee Shirley Sherrod lost hers over purportedly racist remarks that turned out to be anything but. NPR management appears to have learned nothing from that rush to judgment. "Political correctness can lead to some kind of paralysis where you don't address reality," Mr. Williams told Mr. O'Reilly. NPR, alas, has proved his point.





Juan Williams' Remark Aside, Firing Draws Ire Of Left, Right

The hullabaloo over the Firing of ex-NPR news analyst Juan Williams is far bigger than Right v. Left.

Fox News has assailed NPR for its handling of the situation, calling it an assault on free speech and stoking GOP pundits and potential presidential candidates to demand that NPR's government funding be cut.

But it’s not only the right wing frowning on NPR’s decision. Though a handful have applauded the public radio station, journalists of every shade have come to his defense without condoning his comments. Williams said seeing people in Muslim dress on airplanes makes him nervous, and while plenty view his remark as silly or dangerous, few think he should have been axed.

“First of all, if I got on a plane and someone was in full Muslim attire, I would feel very safe because if you’re about to blow up that plane that’s not the way you’re going to be dressed,” Barbara Walters said Thursday on “The View,” where the controversy ostensibly started. “So if this is what you’re wearing, just as you might wear a cross or a Jewish star, fine. I think it’s a silly statement for Juan to be making.”

Walters, no stranger herself to the line between journalism and commentary, went on to say that “if you are someone who is giving your opinion then you’re allowed to give your opinion. You may or may not agree, like on this show.”

It was on “The View” last week that hosts Whoopi Goldberg and Joy Behar walked off the set during an interview with Fox News’ Bill O’Reilly after he blamed Muslims for 9/11.

O’Reilly was discussing those remarks on his own show Monday when Williams made his controversial statement.

Many analysts, both liberal and conservative, have noted Williams also tempered O’Reilly’s remarks by saying that likening Muslims to extremists would be like saying all Christians were akin to Oklahoma City bomber Timothy McVeigh.

No matter, though. NPR’s CEO Vivian Schiller told the Atlanta Press Club that Williams’ comments undermined his credibility as an analyst and that political activists cannot be reporters or news analysts for NPR.

“This is not a reflection on his comments. This is not a debate. Juan feels the way he feels. That is not for me to pass judgment on,” she said - before passing judgment.

“His feelings that he expressed on Fox News are really between his psychiatrist or his publicist – or take your pick – but it is not compatible with the role of a news analyst on NPR’s air,” she said.

She later apologized for her “thoughtless remark,” but there was no word whether NPR would discipline her for her deviation from the facts.

NPR’s ethics code, repeatedly used to defend Williams’ firing, states, “In appearing on TV or other media including electronic Web-based forums, NPR journalists should not express views they would not air in their role as an NPR journalist. They should not participate in shows’ electronic forums or blogs that encourage punditry and speculation rather than fact-based analysis.”

Williams isn't buying it, though. Speaking to O’Reilly after the Los Angeles Times reported Fox had signed him to a $2 million contract, Williams said he was targeted because of his affiliation with the conservative news channel, where he had been a contributor before his ouster from NPR.

“I don't fit in their box,” he said. “I'm not predictable, black, liberal. And let me tell you something else, you were exactly right when you said you know what this comes down to. They were looking for a reason to get rid of me because I'm appearing on Fox News. They don't want me talking to you.”

Williams also said he was provided no opportunity to present his case “eyeball to eyeball, person to person,” despite having given NPR more than a decade of service.

He said he received a call Wednesday, two days after the remark, from Ellen Weiss, NPR’s senior vice president for news. She asked him what he meant to say, Williams told O’Reilly.

“I said what I meant to say," he recalled telling her, "which is that it’s an honest experience that when I’m in an airport and I see people who are in Muslim garb who identify themselves first and foremost as Muslims I do a double take. I have a moment of anxiety or fear given what happened on 9/11. That’s just a reality."

He said he was told the comment “crosses the line” and Weiss implied it was a “bigoted statement.” He said he wanted to discuss it in person.

“There’s nothing you can say that will change my mind,” he quoted Weiss as telling him. “This has been decided above me, and we’re terminating your contract.”

Many journalists have stated in the last 24 hours that while they disagree with Williams’ categorization of Muslims, they also frown on his firing.

Goldberg even drew a line between Williams' opinion and O’Reilly’s remarks that prompted her and Behar to walk off "The View" set last week.

“What Bill O’Reilly said he was saying as fact and he was painting it as fact, and the reason that I was annoyed is because it’s not a fact. When you say Muslims did this, are you talking about Muhammad Ali? Because he’s a Muslim.”

As for Williams, she said, “The point he was trying to make is, I get nervous and that’s OK to say. Firing him for saying that, I think, is kind of ridiculous."

She concluded by summing up the thoughts of her co-hosts, who run the political gamut: “In all of our opinions, it seems the firing of Juan was a total mistake and sends the wrong message. And NPR, get yourself together because we’ve all got to work on this together.”


View Larger Map


Sources: CNN, Fox News, Washington Post, Youtube, Google Maps

Charlotte Leaders Refusing To Release Full DSS Fraud Report

Charlotte-Mecklenburg County officials Won't Release Full DSS Fraud Report


Charlotte-Mecklenburg County on Monday released more documents from its probe into a Department of Social Services charity, but officials won't produce a related report they say is protected under NC State personnel laws.

The newly-released papers include copies of receipts for gifts bought for the now-defunct Giving Tree program, summaries of problems found by a county auditor and a list of items in storage.

But officials have repeatedly refused to provide the full Giving Tree audit since the Observer first asked for it last July.

The county has released a three-page executive summary, but former Internal Audit Director Cornita Spears said the full document includes a longer, more sensitive report.

The Giving Tree came under scrutiny early last year after an employee raised concern about possible misspending. County leaders have said they believe they know how more than $160,000 was spent by the charity in 2008, but said the poor records means they cannot be completely sure all money was spent as intended.

Since last summer, the county has released documents, including a revision of Spears' initial report to account for money that had been returned by a charity worker.

A review of the new records found no substantively new information, and none of the files appeared to contain any information that should have been kept private under the law. Deputy County Attorney Tyrone Wade said officials considered the files released Monday to be privileged, and thus protected, because they were attached to the longer personnel document.

Wade said officials decided to release the attachments, with some information redacted, because most of the information in them was out already.

North Carolina's personnel law is restrictive, keeping secret all but the most basic information about public employees. It states a personnel file includes any information gathered by the county with respect to an employee.

Mike Tadych, an attorney with the N.C. Press Association said personnel records "do have a broad definition, but it's not as all-encompassing as they would lead you to believe." He pointed to a 2007 N.C. Court of Appeals ruling that allowed the release of a redacted form of a document written by a Columbus County employee.

In that case, the worker recommended a hire for county medical director. The court ruled that part of the document was private but another portion was a public record and could be released under the law.

The personnel law does have some exceptions, however, including allowing the release of personnel files if officials decide it is necessary to maintain public trust in an institution. Charlotte-Mecklenburg County commissioners previously have said they believe Charlotte-Mecklenburg County officials have been transparent in releasing the information they can under the law.




Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Officials Hid FBI Probe Of DSS


The FBI and a Federal Grand Jury has been investigating Charlotte-Mecklenburg County DSS since August and county officials have attempted to hide that probe from the public.

How else to explain playing 20 Questions with April Betha’s document request — not mention flat out refusing to answer our own direct questions on the matter back in December? The bombshell over the weekend:

A Federal Grand jury last fall requested more than three years of financial documents from a now-defunct charity program run by the Charlotte-Mecklenburg Department of Social Services, according to a newly released copy of the subpoena.

The August request came as authorities were conducting a criminal investigation into a “suspected felony,” the subpoena states. It asked for, among other things, copies of all receipts, vouchers and paperwork on purchases made through the Giving Tree charity since 2006 and any communication from the county’s finance department on donations received by the charity.

Once again County Manage Harry Jones has some serious explaining to do. Jones has claimed total transparency in this matter. But this revelation — not to mention the cold, smug way Deputy County Attorney Tyrone Wade defends his calculated dissembling — indicates it was official county policy to hide the existence of the FBI’s involvement for as long as possible.

That is not transparency, that is not accountability. But it is Charlotte-Mecklenburg County government.

Bonus Observation: If Jennifer Roberts cannot raise herself to condemn this obvious breach of open and responsive, government she slides from ineffectual to co-conspirator. Then I wonder if the Uptown paper has the guts to condemn her….



Jennifer Roberts, Part of the Problem


I think I’m done cutting Roberts any slack on this DSS mess. For her to obstruct and slam the attempts of other commissioners to find out what is going on with county’s massive, $200m. DSS operation is too much. And for Roberts to suggest that a closed session airing of DSS’s dirty laundry is not her preferred way to go is an insult to the intelligence of all Mecklenburg County taxpayers.

The only reason Commissioner Bill James and the other GOPers are suggesting the closed session route is in response the “disclosure” stonewall County Manager Harry Jones has erected around the investigation — a construction effort aided and abetted by Jennifer Roberts. Fine. Let’s hear DSS chief Mary Wilson answer questions in open session. Super. Next.

It will also be interesting to see if Commissioner George Dunlap’s confirmation that a federal grand jury probe is underway of DSS shakes anything new loose. Why it took a full month for the probe’s existence to be reported remains a mystery, but at least everyone in town has caught up to the story.

However, it would be wrong to assume that the probe will result in any indictments, both as a matter of fairness and institutional inertia. Prosecutors are political animals and will require some slam-dunk, smoking gun type evidence of wrongdoing for them to move on a DSS devoid, until very recently, of adult supervision of its funds.

On the third hand, not all gross mismanagement rises to the level of criminality. This is why the county commission must itself reestablish public trust in one of its largest ongoing budget expenses. Jennifer Roberts needs to help that process or get out of the way.





Federal Grand Jury Investigating Charlotte-Mecklenburg County DSS


A Federal Grand Jury is investigating the Charlotte-Mecklenburg County Department of Social Services, which has faced scrutiny over accounting practices and spending since early this year, two county commissioners said Monday.

Commissioner George Dunlap said the grand jury has been looking into whether crimes were committed by employees.

Commissioner Bill James said board members were told last month that a federal grand jury is investigating. He refused further comment on the topic, saying commissioners were instructed by a county attorney not to discuss specifics.

The county ordered an audit of the Giving Tree after a DSS employee raised questions about spending at the Christmas charity for needy children. The county discovered checks written out to a county employee who volunteered with the program, as well as money issued to the sister of another employee.

County spokesman Danny Diehl said officials cannot confirm whether a federal grand jury is involved, but said the county "is cooperating with law enforcement to complete the investigation."

The county has asked Charlotte-Mecklenburg police to investigate. A police spokesperson on Monday said their work is ongoing.
Other commissioners reached Monday would not comment on work by authorities. "I want the investigation to have the best possible outcome, said board Chair Jennifer Roberts. "So I am unable to discuss it in the interest of not impeding the work of law enforcement."

In the meantime, James and fellow Republican commissioners Karen Bentley and Neil Cooksey want the county board to meet next week to learn more about ongoing probes.

"There are facts we don't have," James said. "I am just concerned there is stuff even senior management doesn't know."

Diehl said the county will respond to any questions the board has about the DSS audits. "The board has received reports and been briefed on all aspects of the DSS audits that are available to the county manager and staff."

The developments follow Observer stories on Sunday detailing a 74-page memo from a former county employee who headed the Giving Tree. Cindy Brady, who retired from the county in August, wrote she was never given a chance to talk at length about how the charity worked, despite requests to do so.

Brady said the county advanced her as much as $198,000 since 2005 with the approval of her supervisors. Brady said she spent the money on gifts for needy children, but says she did not collect all of her receipts, and some were handwritten or lost.
County leaders say they can account for how about $162,000 was spent by the Giving Tree last year.

But audit reports acknowledge numerous problems with receipts and other documents to track expenses and cited inadequate oversight and controls of the program by management.

The county has announced a number of changes in response to the charity audit and reviews of other DSS spending, including putting department finances under control of the county finance office and re-training DSS employees in financial practices and procedures.

The agency employs about 1,200, with a current annual budget of $176 million.

Brady's memo, dated July 29 and sent to a human resources manager, criticized county investigators for not interviewing her during the audit investigation. The county's former Internal Audit Director Cornita Spears said she first read the memo last month, and it led her to revise her earlier report to include about $33,000 Brady said she returned to the county earlier this year.

County Manager Harry Jones suspended Spears last month over the error.


Why James wants meeting

James cited the Observer story in explaining his reasons for calling the new discussions on DSS. He said he wants to give disgruntled employees a venue to air grievances. For months, James said, commissioners have been deluged with anonymous complaint letters from people who only identify themselves as current and former agency workers.

Some apparently won't divulge their names because they fear retaliation from superiors, James said.

The proposal requests that the board discuss the DSS issues on Dec. 17, with portions of the meeting to be held behind closed doors. It asks that DSS Director Mary Wilson appear to the meeting, and that other department employees be made available.

It also requests that former Giving Tree employees be invited to talk, including former county general manager Janice Allen Jackson, who briefly led DSS on an interim basis until Wilson was hired last year.

Neither Jackson nor Brady could be reached for comment Monday.

The proposal also wants Jones to provide in open session a detailed list of gifts bought with Giving Tree money and information on all items from the charity now in county inventory.

It also asks for copies of all internal memos produced by internal audit and county management involving the Giving Tree.

The county publicly released a three-page report in June and a follow-up report last month. The Observer has requested a longer report by Spears multiple times since July, but the county has said personnel laws bar them from releasing the document.

In order to hold the Dec. 17 meeting, at least five commissioners would have to agree. At least two of the six Democrats would have to sign on.

Roberts, Dunlap and Vilma Leake said they want to hear more about what the commissioners are trying to accomplish in holding the meeting before they can decide whether to support it. However, Roberts questioned whether meeting in closed session was the best approach, and said she is "distressed" that the board Republicans did not talk to her before putting the item on next week's agenda.

Dumont Clarke said he's inclined "to be as transparent and public as possible about this issue and do as little as possible behind closed doors."

Commissioners Harold Cogdell and Dan Murrey did not respond to requests for comments.

Cooksey said his constituents are demanding the board take a "more active role in getting to the bottom of this."

Cooksey disagreed with commissioners who have said they county is spending too much time on the issue and should not look into anonymous complaints.

"When you have issues swirling around, you can't ignore it," Cooksey said. "We have an obligation to see if these allegations have any truth to them or not."


View Larger Map

Sources: McClatchy Newspapers, Meck Deck, John Locke Foundation, Carolina Journal, Charmeck.org, Meckgov, Youtube, Google Maps

Huffington Post & Politico Earned Huge Profits In 2009

Do you think Journalism will be able to re-invent itself for the new media landscape?

Are media models like Politico and the Huffington Post overhyped?











Huffington Post and Politico Set To Make Huge 2009 Profits





As we entered 2010, most news organizations were still battling declining revenues. However, a few online Journalists are holding out against the downturn.

According to recent figures, Politico and the Huffington Post both ended 2009 in the black.

Experts estimate that The Huffington Post earned revenues of $12m to $16m, and the Washington-based Politico might have exceeded $20m for the full calendar year 2009 according to figures of Paid Content.

On top of the good news, Huffington Post invested in jobs in 2009, increasing its staff from 49 to 89 full-time employees, with 11 of them devoted to producing original content according to the Los Angeles Times.

Industry sources estimate that the four-year-old Huffington Post has mushroomed into a media asset worth $100m to $200m. According to comScore, the Huffington Post pulled in about 9 million unique users in November and has grown 27% year-over-year – for comparison, NYTimes.com had 16.6 million unique visitors in the same month.

News website Politico was launched two years ago in combination with a free print edition of approximately 32,000 copies which run three days a week when Congress is in session.

The small, but mostly high-profile Editorial Staff now includes 77 employees. The site is estimated to reach about 7 million unique users a month, but Publisher Joseph Allbritton Communications says the majority of the revenues come from the print edition.

But how relevant are these numbers, really? Let's have a look.

Enter Rupert Murdoch. In fiscal 2009, News Corp's global newspaper operation is estimated to have generated $400m in operating income on $5.6bn in advertising and subscription revenues in fiscal 2009, which according to a Bernstein Research will continue to decline to nearly $300m in operating income on $5.5bn in revenues in fiscal 2010.

This is $100m less than 2009, but $300m operating income is still a lot of money. So, why is everybody making such a fuss about two small companies?

Politico and the Huffington Post may not be big in staff and revenue, but they are symbols of a changing media landscape that other companies might learn from – Yahoo, for example.

Yes, Yahoo is in the news business, as Yahoo News attracted 138 million global unique visitors in November 2009. That is not only far more unique users than the 16 million of NYTimes.com, but also more than CNN or Google News. In the US, Yahoo is the biggest news player.

According to a recent posting on Yahoo's jobs board, the company news plans to build a network of freelance writers and bloggers filing opinion and analysis articles that will be complemented with breaking news from AP and Reuters. Hence, the company is looking for an editor-in-chief to oversee a new opinion and politics section that will be revamped to satisfy readers' appetite for opinion pieces and political news.

So what does this tell us for 2010? For one thing, quality journalism clearly does play an important role in the new media landscape, and can pay for itself.

Also in 2010, more and more editorial jobs will be created outside traditional mainstream media, and this might even absorb some of the job cuts elsewhere if journalists are open to the challenge.




View Larger Map


Sources: Guardian.co.uk, Politico, Huffington Post, PaidContent, Digital Journal, Newscorp, MSNBC, Think Progress, Youtube, Google Maps

5 Reasons Why Pres. Obama Should Appear On Fox News Again... Freedom Of The Press

(How the Washington Press Pool Busted the White House Boycott of Fox!)




(Then U.S. Senator Barack Obama Goes on Fox News Sunday. Circa 2008)




(Fox News Sunday Panel Discusses the Fox Boycott! Circa 2008)





5 Reasons Why President Obama Should Go on Fox


The latest brouhaha between the White House and Fox News is bad politics and worse policy. President Obama has done interviews with Bill O’Reilly and with Chris Wallace, and in both instances the president said he was treated fairly and with respect.

It was a mistake for White House communications director Anita Dunn to continue the war of words last week by saying that “What I think is fair to say about Fox—and certainly it's the way we view it—is that it really is more a wing of the Republican Party.” Respectfully, Ms. Dunn, the White House strategy on this one just looks plain petty and beneath the dignity of the presidency. This is also the opinion of longtime presidential adviser David Gergen, who has questioned the propriety of the White House. “It's a very risky strategy,” Gergen said recently on CNN. “It's not one I would advocate.”

I am a frequent commentator on Fox News and on Sean Hannity, but let me be clear: As a Republican African-American woman, I do not always agree with Fox’s coverage or the incendiary comments of Fox hosts like Glenn Beck. That does not, however, stop me from going on the news channel and stating my opinions—which are many times at odds with the more conservative point of view expressed there. My good friend/liberal black Professor Dr. Marc Lamont Hill is a Fox contributor, and he goes toe-to-toe with Bill O’Reilly regularly—the two of them make for great theater and “balance”—that’s what I like about O’Reilly.

That’s why I find it troubling that last week, Fox News was informed by the White House that President Obama would grant no interviews to the channel until at least 2010. The edict was relayed to Fox by a White House official after Dunn discussed the channel at a meeting with White House press secretary Robert Gibbs and other Obama advisers. I also think it was out of line for Dunn to say, “Let's not pretend they're (Fox) a news network the way CNN is.” Huh?

Not wise.

Here are my top five reasons for why the president should go on Fox News—and soon:

1.) Fox’s audience is very broad and diverse politically—contrary to popular opinion. It is watched by a mostly white Middle America, an independent/centrist leaning public that is very likely to vote in the off-year elections (2009) and in 2010. By not going on Fox, the president is seen as alienating the conservative Democratic and independent/moderate Republican voters who helped to elect him. This is a mistake as it feeds into the worst kind of stereotypes about the president as some crazed left-wing puppet who associates himself with people like Jeremiah Wright and Bill Ayers.

2.) By having a public battle with FOX, which is viewed as a mostly white, conservative news organization that helped spark the tea parties and anti-health care rallies/town halls, the president runs the risk of being seen as disinterested and/or dismissive of conservative southern whites.

3.) The president is missing an opportunity to build support with the so-called right in regard to his military position in Afghanistan. FOX viewers support strong national defense and defeating the terrorists in the Middle East. They support the president staying in Afghanistan and sending more troops if needed. Obama should play to this base with the things they agree on.

4.) On health care, again, the president has missed an opportunity to speak to “Middle America” which is more likely to watch FOX than the average CNN and MSNBC viewer who is more likely to be well-educated with higher earnings.

5.) Lastly, and most importantly, the president is the president of all the people regardless of their political views. FOX is a part of the free press that we all revere and support in America. So what if they are more conservative, more “right-leaning”—the president should address those citizens even if the filter through which FOX portrays him may not always be favorable.

As President Obama said during his Feb. 3, 2009 interview with FOX News anchor Chris Wallace, “I think it's fair to say that I don’t always get my most favorable coverage on FOX, but I think that's part of how democracy is supposed to work. You know, we’re not supposed to all be in lock step here.”



View Larger Map

Sources: MSN, The Root, Fox News, Youtube, Google Maps