Cone's column in this past Sunday's paper N&R sank to new levels of journalistic muck-racking when liberal/"progressive" Ed continued his not-subtle-at-all character assassination of fellow conservative blogger, Dr. Joe Guarino, AND put words in Nathan Tabor's mouth. Two birds. One stone. The proverbial blood of people-Ed-would-have-you-believe-are-INTOLERABLE-racists on the streets of Greensboro with the stroke of a pen.
Tabor had the audacity to contact the N&R and object to how Ed/the N&R presented their facts (how DARE he demand truth and reconcilliation!?!). Cone (of course) followed-up with a snarky post . . . attempting to justify his tactics with punctuation, labelling Tabor, "the eternal victim".
Hummmmmmm . . . now where have I heard THAT before?
Sayeth Ed Cone:
"The lack of quotation marks makes it clear that it's not a direct quote, and the parentheses indicate the specific insertion of the columnist's voice."
Newspapers, I'm told, maintain an 6-8th grade reading level. And I'm fairly certain that the average 6-8th grader/N&R reader would not pick up on the subtleties of "the columnists voice".
Moreover, I'm quite certain that, as a journalist, Edward Cone inserted his inflammatory accent knowing that most readers wouldn't make the distinction.
Now we're going to jump back a week to another set of journalists.
These journalists happen to be lawyers. And, as we've established, I have no use for most of them.
But I've in fairly good company. As noted in a previous post . . . on Asheboro's leaders cherry-picking scripture to justify healthcare reform) . . . even St. Luke (a Greek-speaking Syrian physician) had no use for lawyers (Luke 20:46-47):
"Beware of the teachers of the law . . . They devour your widows' houses . . . Such men will be punished severely."
Reiterating, even when Jesus Christ walked this earth over 2000 years ago, doctors hated lawyers.
That brings me to N.C. Lawyers Weekly.
A few weeks back, I blogged about my disgust with the North Carolina State Bar (after Nifong, the citizens of North Carolina really need to form a club or support group for people screwed by the lawyers that our state's chief legal eagles refuse to police) . . . and a recent North Carolina Court-of-Appeals ruling upholding a BOGUS disciplinary action against former judicial candidate, Rachel Hunter.
As you might recall, with all of the evil esquires walking about our state undisciplined for their crimes, Rachel was sanctioned by the North Carolina Bar for the horrible, awful sin of . . . hold on to your hats . . . using her longtime nickname/moniker, "Madame Justice" online during her campaign . . . as a (recognized/accepted) method of achieving name recognition.
Rachel not being born with a name like . . . say . . . Cone.
Rachel lost the election. So, even if you could make the case for misleading voters (again, incredibly stupid voters who probably would not pass the eighth grade) there's just NOTHING to go on in terms of "fraud". But losing the election was not enough for her enemies . . . among whom you can count Ed Cone (in Ed's world, you see, calling people with brain tumors "batshit crazy" makes you cool. It raises the dialogue and is something for the kids to be proud of).
The Bar's sanction of Rachel was based on anonymous complaints and the premise that North Carolina voters (that means you and me) are incredibly stupid and gullible . . . and that the moniker would mislead them into thinking she was already a Justice.
I pulled no punches in the post, and took no prisoners and make no apologies. It's crystal clear to me that Rachel has been singled-out for state-sanctioned, cowardly, blatantly un-Constitutional retaliation for having the audacity to challenge the good-ole-boys who run the North Carolina legal system. For Rachel Hunter threatened their status-quo.
The gutless, cowardly, unpublished opinion (meaning: it applies ONLY to Rachel!?!?!?) has gotten noticed . . . Lawyers Weekly featured the Appellate Court's pummeling of Rachel front-page/above the fold in both its online and print editions last week. In my humble opinion, the story was a shameless hatchet-job.
But the story did not stay front-page/above-the-fold (at least online) for very long. And there is a reason for that.
Lawyers Weekly, you see, is down-playing a mistake.
This is from the first paragraph of the story, written by Paul Tharp:
Hunter did not return calls for comment, but a post on her website - purportedly by Hunter - described the decision as, "the latest cowardly, two-faced, politically-motivated, flat-out WRONG decision handed down yesterday by the North Carolina Court of Appeals in the case of the N.C. State Bar vs. Rachel Hunter.
I feel reasonably comfortable quoting from the copyrighted, locked, password-protected article because the quote was NOT from Rachel Hunter but from me - and the aforementioned Housecalls post . . . which was featured on Rachel's website with my permission AND properly credited to me.
In other words, the so-called Lawyers Weekly journalist who lifted the quote, obviously did NOT delve into the story beyond a sound bit (in other words, they totally FAIL to recognize the ominous implications for free speech) . . . did not read the entire post . . . and did not bother to take the extra twenty seconds it would have taken to point, click and get the who of the matter right.
Reminds me of another journalist once affiliated with the N&R . . . who put words in a man's mouth and destroyed his life.
As soon as I heard about the story, I did my Nathan Tabor impersonation and placed a phone call to Lawyer's weekly - using my "columnist's voice" to complain about the newletter's sloppy work . . . and then followed up the conversation with an e-mail (which I am now putting on-the-record):
Ms. Mathis/Mr. Froom,
I wanted to follow-up my phone conversation of this morning with an e-mail.
As the author of online commentary incorrectly attributed by your reporter to Rachel Hunter (in your front-page LW/NC article on the appellate Court's ruling favoring the State Bar's actions against her), I must insist that the article be immediately corrected online - and the remarks your reported incorrectly attributed to Rachel credited to me/my blog (website address included) - NOT just deleted.
I also expect the correction in the print edition to be printed prominently (not on some back page), and to offer the web address of my blog.
Since you quoted someone who was not a lawyer, it would also be appropriate to "unlock" this story for the largely-kept-in-the-dark masses to link and read.
I can assure you that the opinion was entirely mine, and that I don't parrot anybody.
For the record, in my opinion, your article was horribly one-sided and only contributes to the opinion of myself/others (on the outside of the legal profession looking in) that the North Carolina Bar is beyond corrupt and carrying out some kind of sick/warped vendetta against Ms. Hunter. You yourself admitted that the reporter did not even bother to READ the entire Housecalls dissenting commentary posted on Hunter's website - which was properly credited to me and used with my permission.
That's just LAZY and totally unprofessional - by journalists covering lawyers - people who, one would think, would take extra special care to get it right.
While I do not agree with all of Rachel Hunter's political/personal opinions, the last time I looked, the United States still had a Constitution - and Free Speech is covered in Amendment Number One. I often go by the nickname of "Dr. J", but people don't assume I'm a basketball player. Rachel has taken enough slings and arrows for daring to stand up to the useless/worthless North Carolina State Bar. It's time the judicial system understood she's not going to stand alone.
I did not pull any punches in my commentary, and my remarks in support of her, if attributed incorrectly to her, could have very negative consequences.
Ergo, your publication's actions were negligent and careless in the extreme. It was very sloppy work.
Sincerely,
Mary H. Johnson, M.D. FAAP
http://www.drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/
This was Mr. Froom's response:
Dr. Johnson:
Again, thank you for bringing this matter to my attention.
We have already corrected the online version of the article, citing you as the author of the remarks that were ultimately re-posted on Rachel Hunter’s website. In addition, a correction will appear in the next print edition of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly. We usually print corrections within the first five pages of the paper. The correction will also go out at the top of tomorrow morning’s daily e-mail alert.
Please don’t hesitate to contact me or Tonya if you have further questions.
Best regards,
Gregory A. Froom, Esq.
Note how, in his response, Froom signs his name Esquire (translation, "That's Doctor of Law to you, sweetheart"). I think I'm supposed to be scared.
A Correction was issued via e-mail alert to Lawyers Weekly subscribers the next day:
- CORRECTION -
An article on page 1 of the June 14, 2010, issue of North Carolina Lawyers Weekly entitled “Court upholds reprimand of ‘Madame Justice’” incorrectly attributed to Rachel Lea Hunter the text of a post on Hunter’s website. The comments cited in the article were actually re-posted on www.rachelforjustice.com after first appearing on Dr. Mary Johnson’s blog, http://drjshousecalls.blogspot.com/. Johnson - not Hunter - wrote the comments.
As I perused yet another post today (at Joe's) that details how Doctors of Law are screwing-over the world, I'm beginning to wonder if lawyers are all members of this organization.
A friend told me that I should be honored that a non-physician's opinion (talking back to the NC Appellate Court) was featured so prominently in a newsletter read by lawyers all over the state. His tongue was very firmly in his cheek.
You don't have to put words in my mouth there: Not so much.
I'd be far happier if the multiple lawyers who screwed me over in my case got a small portion of the discipline meted out to Rachel Hunter for her comparatively INSIGNIFICANT offense (if you can even call it that).
