So Roch Smith asks me for some stats regarding the GPD and race. Sure, I know it's a loaded question — the only reason he would ask me for statistical information about the GPD (instead of asking the source itself) would be if he thought either A) I didn't have those numbers, or B) I did have the numbers, but was not interpreting them correctly, in which case he was preparing to unload a big dose of smoking-gun truth on my ass after last week's editorial.
I'd call it "gotcha" journalism, but that would be an insult to Geraldo Rivera.
Roch's posts, among other things, accuse me of constructing an alternate reality, besmirching the good name of an elected official and misinterpreting poll results, insinuating that I have some sort of stake in the deal.
They also show a fundamental misunderstanding of the concept of the unsigned editorial, which is designed to express the consensual opinion of the entire editorial board and not just the writer of that particular editorial.
And of course Spags jumped into the fray, because for Spags, I suspect, being disagreeable is a form of entertainment. I say this because Spags chose not to address the thrust of the editorial, which was that it is embarrassing for a sitting city council member to say, basically, that nothing good can come of a Department of Justice investigation in our city.
We can see why Spags ignored our core position, as a DOJ investigation might disturb his carefully constructed worldview in which every Northern transplant in the city — besides himself, of course — is complicit in a conspiracy to falsely accuse the locals of racism.
Admittedly, we're still trying to figure out Spagnola's true angle.
Roch agrees with our main point: that we should welcome a DOJ investigation so maybe we can finally fill in some of the gaping holes in the case.
He spent more space disagreeing with an ancillary point we made about Barber's transparency. Admittedly, we meant these words to describe the actions of the entire council during Barber's time serving. This could have been worded more carefully.
Still, it's hard to believe that Roch is defending a council member who floated the notion that the DOJ investigation might be the result of our mayor and police chief's visit to Harvard, suggesting that we shouldn't talk to outsiders about Greensboro's problems, like we're some kind of fight club.
Roch admits Barber is a client of his. We wonder if Roch designed Barber's website, which advertises his facility in dealing with zoning variances and government affairs.
We think it is inappropriate for a lawyer to advertise his services in dealing with local government when he is an elected member of that government. Just as we think it is arguable that Barber, as a sitting council member, could be practicing obstruction in asking 39 police officers to drop their lawsuit against the city in order to call of a DOJ investigation.
But then Roch pulls a stunt that, were Spag to try over at Ed Cone's blog, might make his head explode. On the subject of the racial demographics of the GPD, Roch moves the goalposts.
According to our numbers, which come straight from the city and Census estimates, sworn officers in the GPD are 20 percent African American and 2.5 percent Latino, while Greensboro itself is 39 percent African American and 6.5 percent Latino.
Roch makes the argument that GPD demographics fall in line with the percent of the population that has high school diplomas, which are required to join the force.
Which is all well and good. And if something as simple as that will satisfy the Department of Justice, which is investigating hiring practices and recruitment in the police and fire departments, then we can all have cake and ice cream.
But this is not our investigation. It is not the city's investigation or the loudmouth bloggers investigation or the cops' investigation. It is the purview of the DOJ; we caught their eye because 39 black police officers made a complaint. And like the DOJ, we think that everyone who is trying to impede this investigation has something to hide or is carrying water for those who do.
7 comments:
I would suggest that you compare the racial make up of the Guilford County EMT's except for that fact I think your head would explode before you could get to your keyboard.
The reason? Very few minority applicants. Did you compare the number of applicants to GPD or did you consider that irrelevant?
What, specifically, do you disagree with Roch on in his analysis?
Since my request for the stats was made of Yes! editor Brian Clarey, I assume that is who published this post although, like the editorial that prompted my inquiry, it too is unsigned.
The reason I asked you for those stats were not for any of the reasons you imagined (you could have just asked me why I was asking).
I asked because in your previous editorial you made the unsubstantiated statement that blacks are "underrepresented in the department." You did not site a source, you did not give the specific numbers, you just dangled this assertion out there.
To think that, in light of the lack of specifics, my request for clarification amounts to "gotcha" journalism is overly sensitive.
Who constitutes the "entire editorial board" at Yes!?
"We think it is inappropriate for a lawyer to advertise his services in dealing with local government when he is an elected member of that government."
Other than making an irrelevant insinuation, does your implication rest on any facts? Is there any conflict you can substantiate?
As to the rest of your screed, I don't get your point. Is it that you think I am in favor of keeping information unknown? Is it that you still think that there is no other explanation for blacks being underrepresented in the GPD than racism and you are really, really sore that I offered an alternative explanation? I can't read past your rage.
Tony, you asked: "What, specifically, do you disagree with Roch on in his analysis?"
Brian doesn't disagree. His summation of my analysis is that it is "all well and good." Brian is not arguing against the facts. So why all this if there is no disagreement on the facts? That's for Brian to say, my guess is that he is pissed that he wasn't allowed to implicate racism as the reason for the facts without question.
Wonder why you post a post if you're not going to comment on the comments?
Post a Comment