The GRTC: Taking Flak In The Homestretch
Published by Sean Coon May 21st, 2006 in Community, The GTRC Tags: blogging, community, Ed Cone, Greensboro, Greensboro Massacre, GTRC, KKK, Nazi, strawman argument.
With less than a week to go before releasing their findings, The Greensboro Truth and Reconciliation Commission is catching some more heat for their methodology… I think.
Margaret Moffett Banks, News & Record
TRC mum on report
“Private meetings. Undisclosed sources. “No comments” to the media.
The group investigating the 1979 Klan-Nazi shootings has cloaked itself in secrecy. The Truth and Reconciliation Commission has said little about its two-year fact-gathering process, other than promising fairness, balance and completeness.
This week, members of the commission will lift the veil — and the public can decide whether those promises have come true.
The commission’s long-awaited report will be released during a somber, quasi-religious ceremony Thursday night at Bennett College. Jill Williams, the commission’s executive director, said CD-ROM versions of the report will be “distributed like Communion.”
[…]
I’d rather not respond with an accusation of good old fashioned sensationalism, but nowhere else in the article does Banks expand on her lead-in:
- “No comments to the media” — Is she referring to the TRC these last few weeks as they attempt to wrap-up two-years worth of work? Or is she charging that the TRC hasn’t spoken to the media over the past two years? If the latter, what exactly is the TRC supposed to talk to the media about? I’d like some examples of their stonewalling.
- “Undisclosed sources” — Has the TRC reported something profound, attributing their reporting to an undisclosed source? I hopped over to the TRC site today and found the entire public statement archives within one click. What’s the context of this complaint?
- “Private meetings” — I could be mistaken, but wasn’t the methodology of the TRC presented to the community from jumpstart? What “private meetings” is Banks referring to other than the TRC meetings to discuss their findings and work on their report?
Ed Cone thinks that the TRC had made a PR mistake by running things as Banks charges, suggesting blogging and media availability as smarter approaches, but from what I can tell, the TRC does have a blog (it’s been active for the past 15 months) with a tagline that reads, “A space for open community dialogue about the work of the Commission.”
A brief check of the comments over the past few months shows very random participation from the community. It’s possible that participation dropped off for particular reasons, but Ed’s suggestion seems to be covered.
This all leads into to my question for Greensboro residents:
Is the community truly attempting to use all available avenues for participating in this process or are we constructing a strawman argument to challenge the integrity of the TRC, a week prior to the release of their report?
blogging, community, Ed Cone, Greensboro, Greensboro Massacre, GTRC, KKK, Nazi strawman argument16 Responses to “The GRTC: Taking Flak In The Homestretch”
- 1 Pingback on May 21st, 2006 at 12:17 pm
Leave a Reply
Search
Subscribe to this feed
Latest
More Information
Categories
- 11/03/79 (17)
- Artistic Expression (2)
- Community (9)
- Damn Liberals (1)
- Media (1)
- Obvious Reasons (4)
- Screenings (7)
- The GTRC (4)
- Theater (10)
The TRC blog has been underused, as Jill Williams is the first to admit.
It’s been a useful mechanism for distributing published material, but offered little in the way of insight into the process or personal voice, from the staff or the commissioners.
The commissioners chose a more traditional closed-door, limited access policy. I think they could have opened things up a bit, which would have helped with PR, and continued the theme of this being a true community project.
As I wrote at my site, I don’t think this was a fatal error, just an error.
i figured your perspective was based on the way they blogged…
so did the commisioners choose this traditional closed-door policy a la carte? or were they compelled to employ the standard, historical policy model of TRC’s from around the globe?
i don’t know if i think more transparency would’ve done any of us any good… i mean, is a “jury” approach really that bad of a model to follow, especially when the debate and conversation is already vocal within the community itself? personally speaking, i’m more interested in seeing what this process uncovers, with detailed footnotes, than discussing each micro-component on the fly.
we’ve had 27 years to do that.
In general, I’m in favor of more open processes versus more closed processes. I think more openess would have helped this process.
The sterile blog is just one aspect of the relatively closed process by which the report has been assembled since the close of the public hearings.
But the blog does serve as a handy symbol. It’s a simple, free way to share information, and it was not deployed in that fashion.
And again, I’m hardly the only one to lament the underuse of the blog — the executive director of the project has said she wishes she could have done more with it, too.
The commissioners have not made that kind of openess a priority. It is not my understanding that a firm methodology was forced upon them from above.
They made a decision about process and communication. I wish they had made a different decision. Jill has voiced similar frustrations.
I believe that more openess might have resulted in more coummunity conversation.
Now the announcement is at hand, and it’s being publicized. Pointing to the lack of information available is not a strawman, or a setup for dissing the report, it’s a statement of fact about a project that is simultaneously asking for attention and being coy with details.
I appreciate your interest in defending the TRC from unfounded criticism, but as someone who has done so publicly for years, I don’t think that has to mean rushing to argue with any critique whatsover.
ed, i’m not rushing to anything, i’m simply deconstructing this lead in:
“Private meetings. Undisclosed sources. “No comments”
you went one way with it, i went another.
for methat lead-in meant absolutely nothing. if a staff writer is going to lead with those very pointed words, then i’d like the rest of the story to become an in-depth report of those issues. all i could glean from the rest of the article, along the lines of the title, was that the commission has issued a moratorium on speaking with the press for the rest of the week — a commission in the final weeks of their two-year long process, trying desperately to finish their work (check out the exchange between jill and cara michele in the TRC blog).
the TRC process might not be as open as some would like, but it does provide both a public and private forum for testifying. according to the article, people concerned with the approach of the commission have expressed concern that important information would not be taken into consideration. my response is that if anyone felt that way, they had every opportunity to testify either publicly or privately…
your words: “The document, and the commission, are just tools to get us talking among ourselves.”
I’m with Sean on this one. Ed picks up on Moffit’s vagueries and runs with it:
“Pointing to the lack of information available is not a strawman…”
But other than a less than perfect blog, these claims of a closed process are woefully short on specifics.
Absolutely, I stand by those words.
That’s why I find reflexive arguments against valid criticisms of the process so pointless.
To what reflexive argument are you referring? To what valid criticism are you referring? Do you find Moffit’s crticisms valid despite her lack of specifics? Are you “filling in the blanks” of her generalities with anything other than the blog criticism you’ve offered
when the GTRC began, criticism regarding the degree to which its methodology and communication platform was “open” would be valid.
5 days before they release their report (or in the very least, the executive summary) is a bullshit time to generate a lead story in the local paper (on a sunday no less) with the title “TRC mum on report” followed up by vague accusations of “closed” policies.
you call my perspective “reflexive”; i call that story “typical.”
the average reader, not tracking this story or participating in the conversation, picks up the paper today and thinks, “huh, this TRC thing is bullshit” just before the report makes the light of day.
this type of local press is exactly how the original injustice of this case came to pass. feel free to disagree with that “reflexive” assessment.
I feel like we’re reading different articles, and observing different processes. I’ve watched this thing closely since before it’s formal launch, and I’ve had and voiced transparency concerns for a while.
The commissioners have been behind a veil all along, as the N&R article states clearly. They haven’t opened meetings, or released drafts or updates, or invited the public or bloggers or the press in to talk things over.
This isn’t about the last week of the process, it’s about the process.
Here’s what I put at my blog in early November, 2005, after the community forum (Roch, don’t remeber if you were there? Sean?) “I also noted that the TRC group itself could be more transparent. I’ve been disappointed that the official blog is mostly schedules and links to testimony — useful stuff, but not much in the way of insight into the process and dynamics of the Commission itself…If we want accountability, and transparency, shouldn’t we ask the same of the Commission?”
Sean’s post says the TRC blog has things covered. Then when that argument is decisively ruined, all of a sudden it’s “just the blog.”
You keep blasting the N&R article for lack of specifics. What are you talking about? It’s like proving a negative: show us all the times the TRC hasn’t spoken.
Here’s what the article says:
“The commission…interviewed dozens more during private meetings.
“Throughout the two-year process, the members of the commission have prided themselves in not sharing their deliberations with outsiders.
“We’ve held our counsel for two years,” Barbara Walker, a member of the commission, said earlier this week. “I’d like to continue to do that until the report is released.”
“The commission has agreed that we will not issue the report or grant interviews before its final report ceremony,” Bob Peters, a commission member and a retired corporate lawyer, said last week in an e-mail to the News & Record.
“…Zucker isn’t allowed to discuss what he learned during the meetings.”
The TRC has chosen a relatively closed process, by its own admission and clear observation. What exactly is this argument about?
okay, i’ll address my take on the article and the process seperately:
the article
it’s timing, it’s title, it’s lead-in, it’s tone (the “handed out like communion” quote was a creepy, out of context misquote according to jill) — all serve to focus the reader on the events of this week; all of it negative.
the remainder of the article drops in explicit “mum” examples, but they’re vague in terms of their relationship to the lead-in, as they’re nothing outside of the TRC’s SOP. so in essence, the lead-in holds the strongest weight in the article and it reads as sensationalism to me.
the process
as banks reported, the TRC came about through the actions of the former CWP members / victims, so it seems that the methodology of the TRC has been under the microscope since jumpstart, especially without formal backing by city council to take the report into consideration.
discourse regarding methods is healthy, if not necessary, but moreso earlier on in the process than later… and we’ve definitely reached the later stage.
so while in a perfect world, the right mixture of live blogging and other forums of openness would’ve been great additions to the credibility and trustworthyness of the TRC, for one reason or another it didn’t happen. i’m assuming positive intent (i.e. their decision to not open up more was about preserving their methodology to ensure a solid, non-biased job rather than, say, keeping secrets in order to twist their findings) and i’m looking forward to discecting the report, remaining open to the possibility of feeling otherwise down the road.
why? because it’s a useless conversation to be having the week of the report going public. that is, unless all someone plans on doing is whining and not reading the report in its entirety.
article & process
to me, banks’ writing speaks from a position of heavy pessimism regarding the approach and methods of the TRC. maybe that stems from feeling discouraged as a reporter (not having access to people or answers to specific questions), maybe it stems from riding the collective vibe from within the community itself, i don’t know and won’t assume to know.
the question i posed at the end of this post was an attempt to square my perspective of the article within the context of the community’s position on the TRC’s methods. so far, i’ve received ed’s:
the first part of that response didn’t take my (hopefully) clarified position of the article into account. maybe it still doesn’t matter to ed’s perspective… but as for the charge of the TRC being coy? really? this is an organization, not a single person, that operates under a chosen methodology. organizations that employ methodologies — such as newspapers — do so in an attempt to generate consistent results that can be measured and held accountable.
how has the TRC been shrinking from contact or familiarity? are they marked by cute, coquettish, or artful playfulness? have they shown reluctance to make a definite commitment. these are the definitions of coy.
i’m open to hearing all perspectives on the matter…
OK, you’re pretty much down to questioning the timing and tone of the article, and pretending that you don’t understand a vernacular usage of the word “coy,” so I guess we’re done with this one.
good job ed, you solved another caper.
BTW, I don’t disagree with you that the timing and tone of the article could have been very different.
In case you missed it, I’ve been pretty hard on the N&R at times myself for its TRC coverage.
They did end up putting a serious reporter on this story (Banks), and I think the coverage has improved.
But I also think that the TRC made a lot of mistakes on the PR front, including but not limited to the closed process.
it’s interesting how i responded to the tone and timing of the article, even though i’m also aware of the TRC’s shortcomings and you did the exact opposite.
i’m not drawing any conclusions from that observation (that wasn’t the point of the post — it was truly about the article), but i do think your perspective and standing in the community might have led me to asking the question i eventually asked.
and i still don’t find it invalid.
i mean, has anyone who’s upset with the communication / PR tactics of the TRC consistently used the comments of their blog to try to extend the conversation? i know that without interaction from my readers, i never would have evolved my voice and blogging approach.
cara michele and jill’s recent dialog is an example of what i’m talking about.
it seems to me that type of interaction is the best way to get people / organizations to become more open.
but maybe that’s just me.
I raised the issue of transparency early and often, in public and off line.