Conflict of interest?

From News Editor Jordan Green:

In the four hours that my most recent staff column, "Ask and you shall receive," has been posted to the web, it appears that I've stirred minimal controversy. I'm always anticipating a firestorm of condemnation, but often as not that expectation turns out to be a product of wild fantasy. With the exception of the Troublemaker — a limitless well of ire — and some mild opprobrium by Guarino, I've been mostly disappointed.
Here's something. In my column about Food Not Bombs I mentioned the group's designation by one FBI agent as a domestic terrorism group. I mentioned Greensboro Food Not Bombs' lack of cooperation with a UNCG cop. And I mentioned the icky controversy surrounding Dumpster-diving. What I didn't discuss — at least not at length — is my role in fundraising for the group. What readers would probably be interested to know is that I received a message from a state official expressing interest in making a donation. I'm not inclined to disclose this person's identity, and I'll take the heat for that.

It was my idea to organize the banquet. Part of what I brought to the table was my extensive list of contacts. I gather e-mail addresses as a reporter, and I gather e-mail addresses as a human being with social instincts. I do it compulsively. I sensed that there were progressive people in Greensboro with money who would want to support Food Not Bombs' work. I didn't solicit anyone personally, but I sent out a mass Evite advertising our banquet at the Hive last Saturday. I think that Food Not Bombs' work is worthy of community support.

In most cases I am pretty shamelessly transparent about every aspect of my life. So I'll acknowledge that I was both excited and a little unnerved when I received the message from the unnamed official asking how to get a check to Food Not Bombs. I never made any promise to keep the name a secret, but I ask myself would any of the donations have been made if the donors had been told their names would be published in YES! Weekly?

So here's another invitation: If the official wants to go public with their donation, this blog is a good place to do it. Otherwise the mystery will have to remain. In any case, I can promise that this person, to the extent that s/he shows up in my stories, will not receive more favorable coverage because of the donation.

7 percent hand wringing

Alright. I'm joining the online conversation (a little late, as usual) about the abysmal turnout in Greensboro's primary election.

We devoted a lot of resources to covering the candidates. But the turnout indicates that no one was reading and/or caring. What can we do to make municipal elections more relevant? Some options:
1. Less coverage. People don't seem to think municipal elections are relevant to their life. So maybe we should stick to covering the things they care about.
2. The Daily Show. Should we lighten up our coverage to appeal to more people, even if it means less issue coverage? In this scenario, if we pull it off, more people would have the basic information, but it might turn off the folks seeking serious, substantive coverage.
3. Status quo. We keep filing dense, serious stories, hoping that the information we provide sways those readers who do go to the polls.
What should our role be? How do we fit in to the media environment in the Piedmont Triad?