news and observer

In their analysis of Speaker Tillis' comments about his favorite subject (himself), the N&O gets to the heart of the matter.

"There's probably been not a single redistricting session that even approached the length of time that we've been in session when you add all these days together."

Not true, actually.

But when confronted with the lie, Tillis' spokesperson, Jordan Shaw, hemmed and hawed, focusing on the weasel word "probably."

Shaw highlighted the word "probably" that Tillis used, suggesting he wasn't exactly sure.

This is par for the course with Republicans in general, and an especially strong suit for Speaker Thom Tillis. He makes stuff up so he'll look good, then gets Shaw to try to clean things up when he's called on his bullshit. So let's cut to the chase. Thom Tillis is definitely a liar, and Jordan Shaw is probably a whacked-out crackhead pedophile. I'm just not "exactly sure" about that second point.

It's been a little over a month since our policy of banning links to the N&O went into effect. Although there have been a few complaints from regulars, it has mostly been a non-event. Our own readership has been steady-to-improving, which is unusual for the summer, and we've uncovered a number of new sources of good information. For my part, every story I wanted to cover has been available elsewhere.

We'll review our policy periodically to make sure we're not cutting off someone's nose to spite our face, and we'll gladly lift the ban entirely when the newspaper dumps Rick Martinez from its roster of regular columnists.

If you've had any doubts about the toxic reach of Art Pope's well-funded opinion manufacturing machines, here's a small sampling of what the picture looks like at the News and Observer.

While I share Bob Geary's surprise at and support of the recent PR from NC Democratic headquarters in response to Rep. Renee Ellmer's health care vote and statements, how about a response to the N&O's top political reporter calling the GOP's incoming members "diverse?" Where was the prompt response to such a ludicrous story?

When it comes to discipline for the Dems, Fetzer and his GOP will never be satisfied. But that doesn't mean they don't have a point as to how the elections board handled the matter of Perdue's campaign flights. This was dirty laundry run through the gentle cycle for delicate unmentionables.

The board, after much investigatory huffing and puffing, decided Tuesday that the failure of Perdue's 2008 campaign to properly report donated private airplane flights warranted a $30,000 fine.

Read more: http://www.newsobserver.com/2010/08/26/647869/and-sin-no-more.html#ixzz0...

May I suggest that after 3 to 4 posts on the same subject that the same etiquette that applies to emails applies to posts? in other words, start a new thread so people can stay on topic and not get lost in the thread.

Now for Michael Biesecker: I once thought he was a good addition to the now staid N & O reporting crew. He is like a bulldog with a bone on any subject he goes after. But like many bulldogs, he ain't so smart either.

I have read most of the news stories on the SBoE, and I encouraged Biesecker to look into the SBoE. I think there are indeed problems there. However, I think as usual, Michael prefers the sensational over digging out the difficult reasons for those problems. Hence, his most recent stories about Bartlett's "political cronies."

Today, one of the posts on the "Under the Dome" blog, run by the News and Observer, came out with this headline: "Nate Silver prediction: Marshall wins primary, gets trounced by Burr." In the body of the article, it also says that "Silver also predicts Republican U.S. Sen. Richard Burr will win big in November with 77 percent of the vote."

Unfortunately for the N&O, thats not at all what Nate Silver said. In his post "Senate Rankings Update, 3/10," Nate Silver projected that there is a 75% chance that Elaine Marshall is the Democratic nominee and that there is a 77% chance that Richard Burr will win the election. But it says that Burr will win by an average of 6.3%; this, of course, would leave Burr nowhere near 77% of the total vote.

You might have missed it -- the media largely has -- but in the final hours of testimony yesterday at the N.C. State Board of Elections' hearings into former Gov. Michael Easley (D), Democratic attorneys unleashed an unexpected bombshell: Testimony from a former IRS criminal investigator that at least three Republican candidates for governor failed to disclose dozens -- perhaps hundreds -- of campaign flights in 2004 and 2008, the very charge that helped launch the investigation into Easley.

This weekend will be the last time in my life that I read the Raleigh News and Observer dead tree edition. It's been a long and bumpy ride, but I've finally reached the end of the road.

As some of you may know, I love journalism. Not only that, I'm married to a woman who teaches in the UNC School of Journalism, where I myself graduated with an M.A. But there comes a point where you have to vote with your pocketbook, and I've reached mine. I am canceling my N&O subscription ... for the last time.