Reader: Don't pick candidates for us!

Q: Why do the media believe it is their right to pre-select a field of acceptable candidates for their readership?"
The reason I ask this is that . . . you have published two articles about the decisions of two "candidates" to NOT run. The article about (Mike) Huckabee mentions no fewer than eight other candidates (or non-candidates): Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Daniels, Pawlenty, Palin, Santorum, Trump. The (Donald) Trump piece mentions Romney, Gingrich, Bachmann, Daniels, Pawlenty,and Huckabee. Missing from the articles are the man who some believe "won" the first debate (Herman Cain), the man who many others believe won that debate(Ron Paul) . . , and a man who has twice the executive experience of Mitt Romney (Gary Johnson, twice elected governor of New Mexico). (A recent) editorial once again omitted Gary Johnson and Ron Paul (it did name-check Herman Cain). This follows a tragic precedent set by the Observer and its affiliated wire services in 2008 to exclude certain candidates from mention in its election coverage. Why are you staggering down the same pathetic path this year?

Hilton Caldwell, Monroe

A: Hilton, I agree that there has been little consistency to this point in our reporting on the potential field of GOP candidates. That's partly because of the uncertainty about who is in and who is out. The Gallup polling organization, in an effort to make sense of this fluid field, has been tracking 15 names. Potential candidates now officially announce or excuse themselves almost daily. But that will change as the field firms up. For now, candidates who have announced and are drawing a following certainly should be acknowledged in coverage. So, I think you make a very good point about Ron Paul and Gary Johnson, both of whom have announced they are running. You may have seen that we carried an article about Herman Cain announcing in Atlanta over the weekend. Others who have announced include Newt Gingrich and Tim Pawlenty. I’ve shared your concerns internally with our staff and we will work to provide more complete references to the field of potential candidates. This is an issue that matters a great deal to us. We think voters should decide which candidates are to be taken seriously, not the press, not political parties, not special interests. As the campaign progresses, we will also watch carefully to see which candidates are resonating with voters and which are being generally discounted. It would be unwise to focus on a candidate simply because he or she has gotten on the ballot. If the public has clearly heard a candidate and largely rejected that person, voters are better off if the media uses more of its resources, instead, to cover viable candidates. Thanks for the question.

Alliance to bring you more local news

More news is good news. And that is what we have for you now, through a new feature on CharlotteObserver.com.

It’s called the Charlotte News Alliance (CNA). This is a network of 16 local websites, and growing, that have partnered with The Charlotte Observer to offer you the region’s most comprehensive look at local news.

You can find summaries and links to the best of these stories in the lower half of the home page on CharlotteObserver.com. A number of these stories will also appear on the printed pages of the Observer. In turn, some Observer stories will appear on the partner sites.

Some CNA sites are operated by journalists, some by civic-minded citizens. But all are opening doors to a tier of news coverage that is uniquely “hyper-local.”

By that, we mean news that can be as local as your own neighborhood or your own particular topic of interest.

For example, BallantyneScoop.com is a hyper-local site based in south Charlotte’s Ballantyne community, while QcityMetro.com is a news and information site focused on African-American life across Charlotte.

Through this alliance, we believe we are building on the strengths of all of the partners. How?

CharlotteObserver.com is the most visited local news site in both Carolinas, attracting 2.4 million viewers a month from around the world. But our region is vast and still growing, making it very challenging to deliver everyone the most intensely local news possible.

This, however, is the primary mission of hyper-local sites. They can deliver readers a more narrowly targeted area or topic. Their challenge often is building enough audience to generate revenue needed to operate their sites. Their affiliation with CharlotteObserver.com adds to that audience.

Working together makes us all stronger. It also provides you richer choices of content in one convenient place.

We began assembling this alliance more than a year ago, initially as the Charlotte News Network . Our preliminary work was aided by a grant from J-Lab: The Institute of Interactive Journalism at American University in Washington, D.C.

Among our partners are several startups, including HoodieCharlotte.com, which covers uptown Charlotte and four surrounding neighborhoods. We also have the websites of established media, including La Noticia and Mi Gente, both Spanish-language newspapers.

If you know of a local website that would be a good fit for this alliance, email a link and description to the Observer’s innovations editor, Jen Rothacker. You can see examples from all the partners, as well as other details, at the Charlotte News Alliance page.

Reach Rick Thames at rthames@charlotteobserver.com, twitter.com/rthames and www.facebook.com/rthames.obs. Phone: 704-358-5001.

The Charlotte News Alliance


Ballantyne Scoop: Community website based in Ballantyne.

Carolina Public Press: Asheville-area news site dedicated to in-depth news in Western North Carolina.

The Catawba River District: News about nature, learning, recreation and community development along the Catawba River.

Charlotte Viewpoint: A web-based magazine of essays, reviews, fiction, poetry, photography and video produced by citizens.

CLT Blog: A community website with users submitting Charlotte news, video, photos, links and blogs.

The Gatton Report: Investigative reports from the Mooresville/South Iredell area.

Hoodie Charlotte: Covers five center city neighborhoods – Dilworth, Myers Park, Plaza Midwood, Elizabeth and Center City – with news, features and photos.

Inside Stanly: News and features from Stanly County.

The Johnsonian: Winthrop University’s student newspaper.

La Noticia: Website for the city’s largest Latino newspaper.

Mi Gente: Online report from this weekly Latino newspaper.

Monroe Scoop: Community website based in Monroe and Union County.

Niner Online: UNC Charlotte’s student newspaper.

Qcitymetro: News, commentary and events about Charlotte’s African-American community.

Tega Cay Talk: News, events, people, places, and “The Good Life,” in and around Tega Cay.

Villa Heights: Community website serving Villa Heights and surrounding neighborhoods.

A bank unlike any Charlotte has seen

Is there room in Banktown for a lender willing to finance the dreams of entrepreneurs living below the poverty line?

A civic-minded group of local business executives remains $1 million short of its goal to establish a Charlotte version of the world-renowned Grameen Bank of Bangladesh.

The sooner they get that money, the sooner they can bring to Charlotte the micro-credit concept that won Grameen founder Muhammad Yunus worldwide admiration and the 2006 Nobel Peace Prize:

You can make a small business loan to people who are poor and expect it to be paid back, with interest.

The public had the opportunity to see this idea explained in a documentary, “To Catch a Dollar,” which was shown Thursday in uptown Charlotte’s Epicentre Theater. The film features Yunus and personal finance expert and TV personality Suze Orman.

Yunus, a professor, established the Grameen Bank in Bangladesh in 1983. He got the idea after loaning small amounts of money to poor basket-weavers in the mid-1970s. Replicas of the bank now operate in more than 100 countries.

In 2008, supporters brought this idea to the United States, opening Grameen America in Queens, NY. That organization now operates branches in Brooklyn, Upper Manhattan and Omaha, Neb. It is preparing to open two more in Indianapolis and San Francisco.

Charlotte’s organizers have $1.5 million of the $2.5 million they need to open Grameen Charlotte, which will operate as a nonprofit. They expect to assist 3,500 borrowers in the first four years.

Borrowers targeted are below the household poverty line of $22,050 a year. In 2009, that amounted to 14,500 households in Charlotte. Applicants undergo a financial training program before being approved for a loan of up to $1,500. Loans are repaid over six to 12 months.Grameen America reports a repayment rate of 99 percent.

“The nice thing is, this is ready to go,” said John Lassiter, a former city council member, mayoral candidate and businessman who co-chairs the Charlotte effort and helped lead an informational session at Whitehead Manor this week. “Once we have the cash in hand, they have a branch manager who is ready” to come to Charlotte.

Their biggest gift to date has been $500,000 from Wells Fargo, followed by the Z. Smith Reynolds Foundation ($450,000), the City of Charlotte ($230,000), the Leon Levine Foundation ($100,000) and the Ginter Foundation ($100,000). Gifts from individuals total $71,500.

People can also choose to invest in Grameen, in $1,000 increments. Those investments are repaid in five years at an annual interest rate of 1%.

For more about the Grameen Charlotte campaign, contact co-chair Sara Garces at sgarces@redf.com or campaign committee member Joe Mynatt at joe.mynatt@wachovia.com.

Reach Rick Thames at rthames@charlotteobserver.com or 704-358-5001.

Congress, spend a weekend in D.C.

Maybe we shouldn't be so quick to congratulate members of Congress who return to their home districts each week.

Sure, it sounds virtuous. "I don't stay in Washington any more than I have to," the line often goes. "I'd rather be home, keeping in touch with the people I represent."

But a couple of veteran observers say this commuter mentality contributes mightily to the animosity and gridlock that keeps Congress from working together for the good of the nation.

Bob Beckel and Cal Thomas co-write a column called "Common Ground" for USA Today. Beckel is a political liberal, Thomas a conservative. The pair were in Charlotte last week to speak to the Hood Hargett Breakfast Club.

They are funny as a pair, the political odd couple. Their put-downs fly as freely as you'd expect on any political talk show (here's a taste from another appearance). But they are deadly serious about their friendship beyond politics, and they make a point of showing that to their audience.

One problem with Washington, they say, is that nobody goes out of their way anymore to build bipartisan friendships. Our elected representatives fly in on Tuesday, vote on bills they often haven't read, then fly out again on Thursday.

There was a time when politicians lived in Washington. They mingled socially, met each other's spouses, talked about their children. They got to know one another as human beings and, in the process, found that common ground. This sometimes led to a common courage to find solutions to the nation's problems, despite their differences.

This notion at first struck me as quaint, if not naive. Could the problems of Congress really be helped with a few more backyard barbecues?

But we all know the penchant people have for demonizing other people who are not like them, people that they don't actually know. In grade school, it leads to bullying. In grownups, it surfaces as ugly episodes of racial and class prejudice.

So, why should we expect anything but a pathetic outcome when politicians wall themselves off from their political opponents? The opponent equals the enemy, someone to be despised and ridiculed. Is it any wonder that each party would rather run the country aground than be caught crafting a compromise?

Of course, they act this way in part because they think this is what voters expect. And that was a parting point from Beckel and Thomas. Change won't come first in Washington. It has to start in places like Charlotte.

Seek out someone you disagree with politically and start a conversation, they said. Keep talking until you understand why that person holds those convictions. Find out what you have in common and find ways to build on that.

It's fashionable these days for members of Congress to hold "town meetings" in their districts. Often, these end up as partisan affairs, bordering on pep rallies. I'm imagining a town meeting of a different kind.

Our representatives are invited to appear together, Democrats and Republicans, alike. The audience consists of pairs of people already having conversations about their political differences -- already seeking common ground.

Would the expectations of that audience be different? Would those voters say, "Sure, go ahead, work with your political adversaries for the sake of the nation?"

Of course, one conversation, or even one town meeting, won't provide enough cover for a politician to safely cross the line and talk. But we have to start somewhere.

Your members of Congress need a new role model if they are to break out of this cycle of destructive politics. And that role model is you.

Reach Rick Thames at rthames@charlotteobserver.com or 704-358-5001.

Let's all learn from "Death at the Track"

Care to guess who documents deaths in auto racing across America?

Not the Occupational Safety and Health Administration. Not the National Transportation Safety Board. Not even the International Council for Motorsport Safety.

Only the staff of the Charlotte Observer works each year to establish how many people die at auto racing events – both drivers and fans.

The Observer has been doing this for 10 years. And here is why it matters.

A decade ago, this in-depth reporting opened the eyes of the racing world to a wider concern for safety even as it mourned the death of NASCAR legend Dale Earnhardt.

Earnhardt, it turned out, was one of at least 260 people who had died in U.S. auto racing between 1990 and 2001. That included 29 spectators, among them, five children.

The statistics shocked racing insiders.

"That is not acceptable," said H.A. "Humpy" Wheeler, then president of Lowe’s Motor Speedway. "This is something the industry has to deal with. We have a moral obligation."

Said Indy racing champion Mario Andretti: "Now maybe we should spend even more time and energy in making cars safer."

Because we still count the deaths, we are also able to report some good news today in a Page 1 story.

Since Earnhardt’s death, no drivers or spectators have died in NASCAR’s three National series – Sprint, Nationwide and Camping World truck. That compares to 10 deaths in the decade prior to Earnhardt’s death.

Clearly, NASCAR has become more proactive about safety. The statistics show it.

Those numbers also illustrate the value of journalists who are committed to looking out for their communities.

One of them has been our sports editor, Gary Schwab.

For years, Schwab was haunted by a tragedy at a 1995 race in Charlotte that was designed to give relatively new drivers experience on a big track. A driver died, the track was cleaned up and the race was restarted in 33 minutes.

"That moment stayed with me," Schwab recalled. "It just didn’t seem to be the right response to a tragedy of that magnitude."

Schwab eventually teamed up with another Observer journalist, Liz Chandler. The two of them began searching for random reports of other deaths. Gradually, they documented 20, then 40, then 60.

By the time Earnhardt died, our journalists knew there was an important story to tell. The Observer committed a team of more than 30 people. They documented the 260 deaths over 11 years. More important, they discovered how many of those deaths might have been prevented.

You have to pause to imagine what this team faced. There was no clearinghouse for statistics like this. No report you could request. To complicate things, media often gave little notice to on-track deaths. Wasn’t that to be expected in the world of racing?

Our library manager, Marion Paynter, used resourceful search terms to track down reports of deaths in various databases. Combinations like "racing," "freak accident" and "he died doing what he loved."

Our computer-assisted reporting expert, Ted Mellnik, created our own database to organize what we found. Reporters collected as many of 18 pieces of information about each fatality.

A lot has happened since we published that initial report, called "Death at the Track." As you’ll read today, head-and-neck restraints are now required at racing’s top levels. NASCAR tracks are outfitted with energy-absorbing walls. And drivers race in newer, safer cars.

Meanwhile, we keep counting. Thanks to technology and experience, our searches are now more sophisticated. And each time we find another death, it is entered into our database.

"The death count is probably still low," Schwab said. "Deaths at small tracks often don’t get much attention. But in doing searches over the past 10 years, we haven’t found any list on U.S. deaths that is as complete as this one."

In fact, a major safety equipment manufacturer recently asked permission to use the database for its research. We’ll go one better. In hopes that it will add to everyone’s understanding of this issue, we’ve posted the updated database at Charlotteobserver.com and its sister site, Thatsracin.com. It is searchable for data on 474 deaths in racing since 1990.

On Friday, we will report on a new concern emerging from those numbers. Deaths continue at an alarming rate at small tracks across the country even as safety has improved at the top levels of racing.

"That number is striking," said Peter St. Onge, one of the journalists on the story. "The number of deaths has actually increased."

People interviewed say they hope the safety improvements at NASCAR will eventually trickle down to these smaller tracks.

We hope they are right. And we’ll keep watching.

Reach Rick Thames at rthames@charlotteobserver.com or 704-358-5001

We heard your concerns on e-mail lists

The Observer has decided that it will not use e-mail address lists obtained from local municipalities to invite citizens’ input on news coverage.

We are shelving this idea after hearing concerns from some on the lists that the e-mails would not be welcome. Please reconsider, you said.

And so we did. The last thing we want to do is to discourage anyone who actively seeks information from his or her government. That kind of interest is good for our community, and should only be encouraged.

We apologize to all who were offended. While we did not view these invitations as a “commercial use” of the e-mail lists, we respect the concerns of those who did.

For those new to this issue, here is some background: On Saturday, I wrote that we have made public records requests for lists of e-mail addresses compiled by Mecklenburg County municipalities. The owners of those addresses submitted them so they could receive alerts, updates and newsletters.

We made our requests after the city announced early this month that it would seek to restrict access to the lists. The city’s lobbyist said there was concern that e-mail spammers might seek to use them. The lists would still be public record, but governments would not have to provide electronic or paper copies.

As I said Saturday, we feel a responsibility to see this “public record” before legislators move to restrict access to it. Very often, you only understand the value of a record being public once you’ve seen it. And this is something we have never examined before.

This was, and still is, our primary reason for asking for the e-mail lists.

But I also noted that we presumed the people on the lists to be especially civic-minded. And we had considered inviting them to become part of a growing pool of citizens who advise us on our news coverage. This idea especially offended some e-mail subscribers.

“I signed up for information about road closings from the city,” one subscriber wrote. “This is emergency information. To even receive one unsolicited e-mail from The Observer, even just asking for input, is unacceptable.”

We hear you. Most people who signed up for government e-mails did not know that their addresses would become part of the public record. Information alerting them of this either didn’t exist or was hard to find on the municipal sites. In fact, one town’s site erroneously told people who signed up that their addresses could be kept confidential.

We have many other ways to invite people to advise us on our journalism. If you are interested, please e-mail reader engagement editor Cindy Montgomery at cmontgomery@charlotteobserver.com.

I also want to reiterate that the Observer will not convert these lists for commercial purposes or share them with others. They will be used solely for journalism, namely to determine their relevance as a public record.

Thanks to all who weighed in with your thoughts on this. We heard you, and we promise to keep listening.

Reach Rick Thames at rthames@charlotteobserver.com or 704-358-5001.

E-mail lists used only for journalism

Did you know that when you sign up for e-mail alerts from your local government, your e-mail address becomes a public record?

To be honest, we had not thought about that, either. In fact, this only occurred to our newsroom when the City of Charlotte announced earlier this month that it would ask the N.C. legislature to restrict access to such e-mail lists in its upcoming session.

The city’s lobbyist, Dana Fenton, said the city would propose that the list remain public record, but a record that could only be inspected on site. The city could turn down requests for electronic or paper copies.

This, said Fenton, would make it more difficult for an e-mail spammer to use the addresses.

We’re all for less spam. But we felt a responsibility to at least see this "public record" before legislators moved to restrict access to it. Why?

In many cases, you can only understand the value of a record being public once you’ve seen it. And this was something we had never examined before.

It also occurred to us that many people who signed up were clearly engaged with their communities, given that they were interested in receiving government e-mails. We immediately thought of two ways they could help us in our coverage of their public officials:

They could tell us from experience if this government e-mail service was useful. Did it provide the information that they need?

If they were interested, they could also become part of a growing number of citizens who are lending their perspectives and expertise to help us produce better journalism.

To date, nearly 1,500 people have accepted our invitation to be part of the Carolinas Public Insight Journalism Network. They have assisted us on a variety of stories, including the quality of local cell phone service, the state of the economy, the upcoming revaluation of Mecklenburg County property and last November’s election. (For more on this program, go to www.charlotteobserver.com/publicinsight.)

If people were not interested in advising us, we simply wouldn’t contact them again. And in no instance would their e-mail addresses be published in our newspaper or on our website, used commercially or passed on to anyone else. This was solely about journalism.

In hindsight, we should have been clearer as we made our requests, and we apologize for raising concerns.

While the state’s open records law does not require citizens to explain why they want a public record, several governments that we contacted feared that we wanted the lists for commercial purposes. This led some governments to warn people that their e-mail addresses were being given to the Observer.

To further confuse matters, our requests were submitted by Steve Gunn, who formerly worked exclusively in our newsroom, but in January moved to the Observer’s Interactive Division.
In his new role, Steve works with the newsroom as well as with other divisions in the company.

The city’s notice about our equest went to about 20,000 e-mail addresses Thursday. By Friday, about 100 people had contacted us, asking for more explanation. About half of them asked that we not contact them.

"I still find this an unethical use of the law," wrote one e-mailer who didn’t want to be contacted.

However, many appeared satisfied once they understood our intentions.

"Based on what you shared there is no need to put my name on the ‘remove’ list," said another. "I’ll review what you send and take it from there."

If you have concerns, Steve would like to hear from you. You can reach him at sgunn@charlotteobserver.com or 704-358-5077.

If you want to join our Public Insight Journalism network, please e-mail Cindy Montgomery at cmontgomery@charlotteobserver.com.