The N&O at 120

Published August 13, 2014

by Gary Pearce, Talking About Politics, August 12, 2014.

My first thought when I read that The News & Observer is 120 years old was, “Holy cow, that’s old.” My second thought was, “Hold the coffee, I’ve been reading the paper for HALF ITS LIFE!”

 

My dad moved to Raleigh to work in the N&O composing room when I was a year old. It’s a morning paper, so he worked nights, often getting home near or after midnight. I liked waiting up for him, or waking up when he got home. The newspaper that he brought home literally hot off the presses, with ink that came off in your hands, was probably one of the first things I read as a boy. It was neat to read the news hours before everybody else did.

 

Fifty years ago next summer, I went to work in the N&O newsroom as a teenaged copyboy. I spent 10 years working there, until I joined Jim Hunt’s first campaign for Governor. I learned to write fast and short; to edit copy, lay out pages and write headlines; to cover politicians and bureaucrats. I learned to, as my mentor Bob Brooks told me, “ask ‘em the hard questions.”

 

(I remember when the news about the Jeffrey MacDonald family murders broke. When told that MacDonald claimed it was a gang of hippies, Brooks said gruffly, “He did it. It’s always the husband.”)

 

In that decade I was lucky to work with two generations of remarkable writers, reporters, editors and publishers, some living today, some gone: Pat Stith, Roy Parker Jr., Claude Sitton, Ferrel Guillory, Florence King, David Zucchino, Leslie Wayne, Jack Aulis, Rick Nichols, Peggy Payne, Al May, Woodrow Price, Grady Jefferys, Karen Tam, John Coit, Charlie and Russell Clay, Rob Christensen, Frank Daniels Jr., Sam Ragan, on and on.

 

The talent pool today is just as deep, even if the ranks have thinned. Today, as always, I can read the N&O and know that smart people who aren’t easily fooled are driving to get to the truth of things.

 

It helps, surely, that I like the paper’s editorial stands. If the editorials reeked of Fox News, my blood pressure would probably be as high every morning as the Republicans and conservatives who get apoplectic about it.

 

It has been a good and faithful friend for all these long years. I wish it many more. I’d hate the thought of a morning – or a world – without The News & Observer.

http://www.talkingaboutpolitics.com

Read More NC SPIN >>

August 13, 2014 at 9:59 am
Norm Kelly says:

'If the editorials reeked of Fox News, my blood pressure would probably be as high every morning as' any conservative who wastes time reading N&D editorials. Fortunately, the biggest difference between N&D editorials and the information found on Fox News is the honesty in one and the lib talking points regurgitation in the other. I no longer pay for tv, so I can't watch Fox News. Most of the time I preferred Fox Business, when I could get it. When conservatives read N&D editorials, it's not often that we find truth or explanations for particular situations. Usually we find the Demoncrat talking points simply reiterated, with no thought or questioning behind it. We rarely find valid reasons why the N&D editorial staff endorses a demon candidate. When the N&D can't simply endorse or restate the lib talking points, they are mysteriously silent. Fox News on the other hand does an excellent job of documenting their support for conservative ideas and their distrust of the socialist party control of Washington. Fox News also does a fair amount of complaining about Republicans across the nation. But, unlike the N&D editorial staff, they explain with facts & figures, the reasons why they disagree with the Republican leadership. Of course, they also use facts & figures to explain their lack of support for the socialists across the country.

Perhaps the reason anyone who writes for or supports the N&D doesn't like Fox but does like the N&D is because, by default, libs don't like facts & figures. For some reason libs seem genetically opposed to facts & figures. People like Bill & Hillary take advantage of the fact that the average lib voter (legal &otherwise) and ALL socialist pols live & breath on feelings. Facts & figures seem to confuse libs because it gets in the way of their feelings. So, when feelings are threatened, libs ignore facts & figures so they can rely solely on their feelings.

The main reason I don't read N&D editorials is because I try to channel Spock as often as possible. Feelings simply get in the way of what's right/proper/legal. Logic, facts, figures, are best to direct government action. Feelings allow people, like the occupier, to violate the law, ignore the law, and claim justification for acting without reason. Logic, facts, figures tell us that using the IRS to target your political enemies isn't just wrong, it's illegal and should be prosecuted. Richard Nixon resigned for failing to follow the law and then participating in a coverup. What the occupier and his team did with the IRS targeting overshadows Nixon by so much that it's almost impossible to see a valid comparison. Yet, libs all over the country are stumbling over themselves to support and excuse the occupier. Because they know the law was broken or because the FEEL good about reducing conservative influence in the political world? How does the N&D editorial staff document targeting by the IRS? Can we count on the editorial board to tell the whole truth, put the blame where it belongs? Or do they simply repeat the lib talking points? Do they explain the cover up that's in progress by the libs to claim that emails are gone and can't be submitted as evidence? Do they document how the IRS leadership has NOT kept Congress informed on the facts of the case until Congress catches them in a lie? Let's get some honesty from the N&D, then we'll talk about a comparison between them and Fox News. Until honesty is available from the N&D no comparison to Fox News is valid.