< Previous page

The problem Wakeford raises is about the reporting, but the underlying issue is important. Why does the public need access to all the governor's e-mail? Because e-mail to a great extent has replaced memos, letters and file correspondence as the record of decision-making in government.

Reporter Dan Kane points out that for his stories about corruption surrounding former House Speaker Jim Black, who is now in prison, much of the essential information came from e-mail records. "None of this would have been known if we hadn't asked for those e-mails" from Black's office, he said.

Debbie Crane, a former state government public information officer, told us last week that state officials are even going to their private e-mail accounts to escape public scrutiny. The newspaper is acting in the public's interest in insisting that the work of government remain in the public eye.

Your opinion

Last week, I invited you to weigh in on issues of online credibility in journalism. Should newspaper Web sites allow reporters to voice their opinions in online forums (as some readers suggest)? Should they allow anonymous comments to online stories and blogs? Should they provide links from online stories to related advertising?

Here are some of your comments:

"No to each of the questions. I do not think N&O reporters should air their views on the news, on the Internet. I do not think we should continue to allow anonymous posting, and I think stories linked to advertising is a bad policy to develop. The newspaper is something that people depend upon and expect to have some reasonable level of objectivity." -- ELIZABETH LYON, Chapel Hill

"By all means, let an online commenter be anonymous to the readership, so long as The N&O has enough information to identify each commenter and take corrective action when needed (on multiple accounts, for example)." -- KEITH ROBERTSON, Raleigh

"The public does not enjoy the same protection that news people do, i.e., we might inadvertently say something momentarily stupid that we do not have a lawyer ready to defend us against. This would inhibit some really good discourse, since a lot of people, say for instance, public people such as teachers, those close to government officials, etc., wouldn't comment if they had to use their own names." -- KRIS CHRISTENSEN, Raleigh

< Previous page