One who intends to leave others better off for his having existed.


News and Record's Allen Johnson; "A city loan? For a newspaper? Say it isn’t so."

"...the Winston-Salem Chronicle, a black weekly, applied for and has received a $100,000, low-interest city loan with the unanimous blessings of the City Council.

And that, apparently, it has done so before, back in 1984.

The reference to a previous city loan of $50,000 in 1984 was especially a shocker to me because I was editor of the Chronicle at the time — and had absolutely no knowledge of such a transaction.

...In the newsroom we prided ourselves on independence and integrity and being beholden to no one.

...Such deals are clearly ethically inappropriate, both from a journalistic and public policy point of view.


Receiving taxpayer money from a city council you routinely cover raises all kinds of red flags and conflicts of interest. Will you remain objective? Will the council try to influence your coverage because suddenly it’s your creditor?


Even if there are no actual strings attached, this looks bad.

Such a loan would be questionable even for a non-newspaper, and its appropriateness is debated by the public and public officials all the time.

[the Winston-Salem Chronicle's publisher] cited the loan as being no different from a daily running legal and public notice advertising. But that's nowhere near the same.

Selling ads to a government does not financially obligate the paper to that government.

Moral relativism.
Newspapers who sell ads to the government
have been hostile to government staff, candidates and elected officials
 who want to end the payments.
The NC news industry spent big on keeping the public notices in the papers.

Surely such a relatively modest loan could and should have come from somewhere else?

Like a bank?"

Are the probabilities higher or lower
 for the Chronicle to endorse loans and incentives
now that the newspaper took a loan from the same government?
How is this not different than Windsor and Samet
who received $600,000 a piece for "shovel ready"
which created an unfair market practice against their competitors
relative to the employees funding the council advocates' campaign?
They both gave to Zack among others,
and Zack worked to give them $600,000 each.
Why hasn't the News and Record reported the connections?
What will the Chronicle not report?
Is it the same reason the N&R won't report the campaign cash
temporally tied to City of Greensboro incentives?
Why no news of Randall and Kathy's work and contributions for the GPAC
and their pitch for incentives from the city for a hotel
which would only be viable if the GPAC happens?
Not exactly a selfless act on the part of those who stand to profit,
but not covering a few who now want everyone else to pay off part of their donations
The Rhino won't touch it.
And then the city will be obligated to help Roy Carroll's hotel as well.

No comments: