“Who’s playing the race card?”

Yes! Weekly’s Jordan Green continues the alt-weekly’s full frontal assault on “…Jerry Bledsoe, The Rhinoceros Times and a Greek chorus of local bloggers (who) have openly pursued a goal of overturning the official narrative surrounding the Wray affair“. 

Noting that, “…events continue to unfold in contradiction to their thesis“, Green points out something that has been obvious to me for a long time.  Namely: “…Race underscores the entire controversy and at least correlates with the loyalties and sympathies of most of the partisans in this bitter struggle…” surrounding David Wray’s departure as Greensboro’s police chief.

As for me, I haven’t read one of Jerry B.’s installments in several months.  I just became bored with it sometime after the 342nd installment and decided to wait until the (hopefully condensed) book is released to see how it all ends.  Hopefully sometime in the next decade.

Perhaps, by then, the many court cases spawned by the Wray affair will have wound their way to some sort of factual conclusion, which will serve as my personal measuring stick to all of the ‘he said, she said’ that has been served up as the ‘real story’ by everyone involved on both sides of the mess.

This entry was posted in Greensboro Politics. Bookmark the permalink. Both comments and trackbacks are currently closed.

9 Comments

  1. Posted July 23, 2008 at 3:13 pm | Permalink

    Good practice on not keeping up on the Saga. It reads like a TV soap opera, a good portion of each article is bringing people up to speed or simply repeating segments from previous articles. Jerry must be getting paid by the word.

  2. Ben Holder
    Posted July 23, 2008 at 3:20 pm | Permalink

    Jordan is a tool for Rossabi. He knows very little about the real story behind the Wray affair. Hogg, you know even less. I suggest you just stay out of it. It is probably too much for you to keep up with. The African American community is not bored with Jerry B’s series. But, you and Jordan wouldn’t know much about that now would you?

  3. Ben Holder
    Posted July 23, 2008 at 3:22 pm | Permalink

    Just read Green’s article. Same stupid shit. No wonder you like it.

  4. Posted July 23, 2008 at 7:42 pm | Permalink

    David, hope you are well and glad you enjoyed the facts compiled by Jordan. Unlike the guys with all the rumors they wanna print, I take publishing a newspaper and all the papers in my company very seriously. We hold a sacred trust to our readers to report the truth and only print what is backed up by hard and fast facts….What the Hammers are doing is sad and sick and like the old saying goes.. what goes around comes around…and some stuff is coming there way for sure.

  5. Posted July 24, 2008 at 8:29 am | Permalink

    Thanks for joining the discussion, Charles. I have yet to read Jordan’s article, so no comment on it, but regarding your comments here I’m wondering, considering the vast amount of information that remains secret through the city’s refusal to release public documents related to this issue, how can you have any confidence that what is reported in your paper is anywhere close to a complete representation of “the truth?”

    The city has refused to release, for example, in response to a public records request:

    - City council communications regarding the administration of the police department under the command of Chief David Wray with parties including other city council members, third party investigators, the city manager or other city council members. (With the exception of two letters from city council persons responding to comments from citizens).

    - The results of the polygraph test regarding the “leak” of the RMA report administered to city council members.

    - Correspondence between city legal and David Wray.

    The city keeps these documents secret and two lone citizens, unaccompanied by the local press, are the only ones pursuing this information. Yet, you sound confident as if your reporters have a good handle on the truth. Why should I not be skeptical, especially when, while ignoring these primary documents, you fill in the blanks with information from a hired attorney for some of the parties involved?

  6. Posted July 25, 2008 at 12:17 pm | Permalink

    Simply, because we make it our intention to only publish things that we know to be true, because we have facts to back them up.
    Obviously, when you print something that is false or with reckless disregard for the truth, you get sued.

  7. Posted July 26, 2008 at 9:50 am | Permalink

    Printing “An attorney for so-and-so says…” may well be true (that he said it), but that doesn’t mean you’ve revealed any truth about what actually happened. It’s really no different than Bledsoe being truthful in reporting that “Wray believed…”

    Yes! has adopted the same style and methods of The Rhino on this issue, just with an opposing perspective. You’d really stand above the crowd, including the N&R, if you’d dig deeper into the empirical but secret information.

    A suit is not a verdict, by the way, and there will be some major egg on the face if the Rhino prevails in court. (I might add, it is less than impressive that a publisher is so eager to pronounce a verdict in advance of a ruling.)

  8. dhoggard
    Posted July 26, 2008 at 10:34 am | Permalink

    What Roch said.

  9. Ben Holder
    Posted July 26, 2008 at 10:45 am | Permalink

    “we make it our intention to only publish things that we know to be true, because we have facts to back them up.”

    That is a really big load of horse shit. Yes Weekly is short on facts and they rarely attempt to back anything up. Mr. Womack, you got served!