Long-delayed case goes to trial

James Johnson's trial begins today at the Wilson County Courthouse, nearly five years after Brittany Willis was brutally kidnapped, raped and murdered. Johnson, who spent three years in jail awaiting trial, is not charged with murder. That charge was dropped, and he is now charged with accessory after the fact.

This case would have been an emotional volcano even if it had gone to trial promptly. The inexcusably long delay in getting the case before a jury has made it even more volatile. Competing vigils have been held. The state NAACP and other groups have come to the defense of Johnson, and some local residents have formed a loose association touting J4B (Justice for Brittany) bumper stickers. Just what constitutes "justice" is unstated, but presumably the group wants more than the one confession and life imprisonment already obtained in the case. Any additional punishment (if that is how justice is defined) will be in the hands of a jury. If Johnson is acquitted, I fear the J4B group will not think justice has been done. If Johnson is convicted, I fear his supporters will think an injustice has been done.

On the eve of the trial, the Associated Press (as carried by the News & Observer) botched a precede on the case, stating "Meeks told authorities Johnson had participated in the crimes, leading them to charge Johnson with murder. He remained in jail for the next three years, during which time a jury convicted him and sentenced him to life in prison." The vague choice of pronouns (who is the he referred to in the last sentence?) is confusing, but the sentence itself is wrong, regardless of the pronoun's antecedent. Kenneth Meeks, whom Johnson fingered as the killer, initially told police that Johnson was an accomplice. After months in jail, Meeks changed his story, pleaded guilty and was sentenced to life in prison, the maximum sentence state law allowed because of his age at the time of the crime. Johnson has admitted helping Meeks clean evidence from Brittany's stolen vehicle.

In the past five years, I've talked to people who can't believe Johnson could have participated in this horrendous crime. I've also talked to people in law enforcement who are equally convinced that Johnson was present, at least, when Brittany was murdered. I've read a transcript of Meeks' confession, and it gives you nauseated chills. I don't know how this week's trial will come out or how convincing the evidence to be presented will be. I do know that after this is over, the people on both sides of this issue will have to live together and accept the outcome of a jury trial. That will require if not forgiveness, at least acceptance — acceptance of the fact that a young life has been senselessly destroyed and at least one young man will have to spend the rest of his life with the guilt of that reality.

State press awards make you wonder

The North Carolina Press Association's annual awards, announced Thursday night, provide an interesting contrast. Each year, the Charlotte Observer and the Raleigh News & Observer, the two largest papers in the state (now both owned by McClatchy, whose stock is trading at less than $1), battle for the most awards in their circulation class and for the General Excellence Award. Neither won the award this year. General Excellence went to the Greensboro News & Record. Greensboro? I'm not the only journalist, or former journalist, to be surprised by that award. One award winner told me that, if he were a Greensboro staffer, he would have grabbed the award and skedaddled back to Greensboro as fast as he could before anyone discovered that a mistake had been made. The Winston-Salem Journal took second place, and the Fayetteville Observer took third. In other words, neither Charlotte nor Raleigh placed. Fayetteville is a class newspaper that regularly betters Raleigh and Charlotte in looks, organization and day-to-day news, but on a smaller scale (it's near the bottom of the 35,000-plus circulation category). It also puts out a better paper than the first- or second-place winners.

While Greensboro N&R won its odd General Excellence award, a Wilson Daily Times staffer, Matt Shaw, won a third-place enterprise reporting award for a series of stories that transpired under Greensboro's nose. Shaw's award-winning coverage was about the legislative effort to shut White's Tire of Wilson out of the state's retread contract bidding. That effort was ultimately successful, rewarding tire dealers in the Greensboro area, but the N&R never covered the issue in any depth and never questioned area representatives' claim that they wanted to make the bid process fairer. If banning the Wilson company that had held the state contract for two decades and had won loyalty raves from customers across the state is fairer, then that's what they got. The metro papers that have Raleigh bureaus ignored this issue, and Shaw deserves his award for airing the facts. Too bad other papers didn't take notice.

State press awards, to be fair and honest, are often a hodgepodge. The year the Charlotte Observer finished second in the Pulitzer competition, its story on brown lung didn't win the state press contest. These contests are judged by fellow journalists from other states, but the quality of judging varies widely. The biggest, most prestigious contests, such as the Pulitzer, are judged by juries of selected judges, not by one individual, as in state contests. Some state contest judges are probably well-experienced and have high standards. Others are relative neophytes who don't always differentiate between great journalism and breathless prose. Each of the more than 30 years I participated in these contests, I have wondered why one story one and another didn't. I often felt that my paper's best efforts didn't win while its less outstanding entries did. Prejudice also can play a part. I always felt that the Daily Times' "Withering of the Golden Leaf" series about tobacco's decline, which won a national award, failed to win in the state because a judge didn't care about tobacco or want to read about it.

I end my years of entering state press contests with 21 N.C. Press awards during my years at The Wilson Daily Times. I won at least one state press award each year from 1991 to 2008 with the exceptions of 2003 and 2005. I also won 11 state awards while with the Hamlet News and list a total of 38 writing awards on my resume.

In the end, the awards don't really matter. They didn't insure against my being laid off, and no one (even I) remember what the winning entries were. The folks at the Greensboro N&R should remember that their award is ephemeral and won't earn them any tangible benefits.

Gregg's enigmatic withdrawal embarrasses Obama

News that Sen. Judd Gregg of New Hampshire has withdrawn his name from nomination to be secretary of Commerce is a blow to President Obama's administration, no matter how the White House spins it. Obama might not be at fault in this snafu, but it transpires as an embarrassment for the White House. Gregg has become the third Cabinet nominee and the second Commerce nominee to withdraw. Gov. Bill Richardson withdrew because of a corruption investigation in New Mexico, and Tom Daschle withdrew as Health and Human Services nominee because of a tempest over his $5 million in lobbying income (though he was not, technically, a lobbyist) and an embarrassing late payment of taxes on unclaimed income.

Richardson and Daschle were the perpetrators in these embarrassments, and it appears that Gregg suffered an unfortunate reversal of decisiveness. He said he would, and then he said he wouldn't. He blamed irreconcilable differences with the administration but wouldn't get specific. His dithering makes him look wishy-washy and, therefore, not a very good Cabinet pick after all.

The problem is that Gregg was going to be Obama's offering on the altar of bipartisanship. He would leave Defense Secretary Robert Gates as the only Republicans in the Cabinet. Having a bipartisan Cabinet is certainly not a requirement, but Obama has made a mantra of bipartisanship and a new approach to politics. Now, with very little Republican support for his stimulus package and the loss of a GOP Cabinet nominee, things are looking like the same old partisan politics.

Not that it's all Obama's fault. Some Republican members of Congress have praised him for his willingness to listen to them, to consult with them and to invite them to the White House. Part of the problem may be that Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid and Speaker of the House Nancy Pelosi did not run for re-election on a bipartisanship platform and haven't been as interested in Republican views. It also appears that Republican leaders in the Senate and House are trying to hold together their reduced numbers to keep from being steamrolled by the wider Democratic majority.

Gregg's withdrawal is more of a symbolic loss for Obama than anything else. The president should have expected some bumps in the road along the way, even if his most avid supporters did not.

City's deed transfer jeopardizes theater

Finally. Wilson City Council's plan to dump the Wilson Theatre (now the Edna Boykin Cultural Center) on the Arts Council of Wilson is at last getting some scrutiny. An article in today's Wilson Daily Times announces that Edna Boykin is upset about the city's plans to give away the landmark theater to the Arts Council. "The Arts Council positively cannot afford to take over the theater," Boykin told the newspaper, adding that if forced to accept the theater, the Arts Council would simply have to shut the doors.

Others, including the Wilson Playhouse, a highly respected amateur theater group, worries that if the Arts Council has to take over insurance, maintenance and other costs now covered by the city, it would be forced to raise the rent so high that arts groups, which operate on a shoestring budget, would have to find a cheaper venue.

City Council is toying with the future of the circa-1919 theater, which was magnificently restored in the 1990s and has become one of Wilson's top attractions. It was the Boykin Center that made it possible for Wilson to lure Theater of the American South here.

It should come as no surprise that Arts Council officials have been largely silent about all of this. City Council has the arts group over a barrel. The Arts Council receives $100,000 in city funding annually, and the wrong comment could jeopardize that essential funding. So of course they aren't going to criticize the gift.

Boykin isn't so reticent. The retired elementary school principal and former City Council member remains a determined adversary and has many admirers in Wilson. Thousands of Wilsonians began their education under her guidance. A longtime advocate of the arts and a generous donor to artistic and educational causes, Boykin will not sit silently while the Arts Council is saddled with huge new liabilities. She is a force to be reckoned with.

Last month's hasty decision needs to be reconsidered. If the city is determined to rid itself of the theater, which it purchased in the early 1980s to save Wilson from the embarrassment of having an X-rated theater so close to City Hall (the WDT article incorrectly says the city bought the theater in the 1990s), it must provide the Arts Council an additional infusion of cash to cover its added expenses. The arts community is grateful that the city spent $91,000 fixing rotted roof trusses traced to a leaky roof (that had probably been leaking for 25-plus years), but the Arts Council is not prepared to insure and maintain this building indefinitely.

This property transfer could also be seen as a threat that the city might give the Arts Council the former BB&T office that is now the Wilson Arts Center.

Some may argue that the city should not own properties not used for city operations, but watch out for the logical conclusion to that argument. The city owns Fleming Stadium, home of the Wilson Tobs and the N.C. Baseball Museum. Why not give the stadium and museum to the Tobs baseball club and see how well the team can insure and maintain that property?

The Boykin Center, the Arts Center and Fleming Stadium are all important assets that draw visitors to Wilson and enhance the quality of life for Wilson residents. The cheapest, most efficient way of keeping the properties operating and contributing to Wilson's culture and environment is through city ownership. Municipal ownership of museums, theaters, stadiums, amphitheaters and other attractions is not unusual. The city's annual costs, with the exception of occasional major repairs and renovations, are relatively cheap for what these properties contribute.

Besides the money, you miss the friendships

Enforced idleness has a downside (make that another downside) besides lack of income. Folks who are laid off miss the workplace and their co-workers almost as much as they miss a paycheck.

After four months without a job, I'm beginning to understand why so many retirees regret their decision to retire or sink into depression and despair. I also understand better why stay-at-home moms, especially those who had been in the workplace before, hunger for adult conversation and contact. I'm identifying with those feelings. After spending most of my days quietly alone, conversing only with the dog, I find myself welcoming opportunities to interact with other people.

Although my Myers-Briggs personality type is introverted and I like working independently, the thing I miss the most about not having a job is the camaraderie of the workplace. We spend our working lives spending eight hours a day or more (sometimes much more) in the company of co-workers. We see more of them than we do of our spouses or children or neighbors. Only a determined recluse can avoid getting to know intimate details of their lives and sharing his own intimate thoughts, fears and worries. Your friends at work may not be your closest friends, but they are the friends you see most frequently and for the longest periods. High school and college buddies, whose friendships we celebrate at decennial reunions, cannot compare to work colleagues for long-term relationships.

A good working environment with caring, sympathetic colleagues is a barrier against mental illness, better than any occupational therapist or counselor. In stressful, difficult workplaces, co-workers often lean on each other and gain strength through shared worries and encouragement. Misery does love company, and there are few places more miserable than a stressful, frustrating workplace.

Whether your workplace is a joyful, progressive retreat or a despised, frustrating grind, you share it with others, spending the bulk of your waking hours with co-workers who understand better than anyone the joys and despairs you feel.

"Work to live; don't live to work," the sage advice goes, but you cannot avoid living in and through your work because it consumes so much of your time. And when it's over, you will miss the contact, the conversations, the mutual caring and sharing.

Stimulus package holds no guarantees

The stimulus package that seems to be picking up some steam on Capitol Hill is a major gamble at best. Its nearly trillion-dollar federal spending package is intended to boost the foundering economy, but there is no certainty that the pump-priming, Keynesian model will work under these unique circumstances. Its only real certainty is that future generations will be paying off this debt of borrowed money.

But Congress and the president are loath to do nothing. No one wants to be accused of sitting idly by while the economy collapses. So the two different spending bills passed by the House and about to be passed by the Senate do something, but there are doubts whether they will do enough or do the right things. Republicans and conservative Democrats trimmed the Senate's spending in an effort to reduce the gargantuan borrowing, but critics say the items trimmed are among the most stimulative in the original bill — aid to states for infrastructure projects and additional aid for the unemployed.

I find it baffling that tax cuts remain in this bill. After eight years of GOP tax cutting, which contributed to record budget deficits, we're still pushing for more tax cuts? For an element of the Republican Party, tax cuts are the panacea for all problems, economic and political. While I am sympathetic to the notion of reducing government's share of the economy and agree that a severe recession is no time to be raising taxes, additional tax cuts seem at this time illogical and ineffective. Last year's tax rebates did almost nothing to stimulate the economy. More tax cuts are likely to be hoarded by wary consumers worried about their jobs as unemployment rises unabated.

After months of effort to fix the economy, the basic problem — unpaid mortgages on houses with declining values — remains. Last year's original rescue plan was supposed to buy up those "toxic assets" and allow banks to begin lending again. But former Treasury Secretary Henry Paulson decided to invest the money directly into the banks themselves, not into their bad debts. But just like the consumers who hoarded their tax rebates, banks hoarded the federal cash and tried to ride out the downturn. New Treasury Secretary Timothy Geitner is promising a new attack on those "toxic assets."

One tax cut in the Senate package has been called the $15,000 house flipper bonus. In an effort to stimulate the real estate market, it would provide a $15,000 tax break to anyone who buys a house. You don't have to be a CPA to figure out that you can buy any old house, sell it the next week for $5,000 less than you paid and still come out $10,000 ahead. Let's hope this example of wrong-headed legislating doesn't make it into the final bill.

Congress is eager to get something done, and most Americans are all for taking action to fix the economy. Unanswered questions remain: Will this package be enough? Will the economy take the medicine that is being offered? Will this unimaginable amount of money be spent wisely? Will the economic stimulus do enough good to offset the inevitable pain of having to repay this money in higher taxes or higher inflation in years to come?

Nobody really knows the answers to these questions now.

Future of newspapers gets new insight

The profession where I spent almost my entire working life has gone through some tough times lately. My layoff four month ago from the company where I had worked for 29 years is just one bit of evidence of the upheaval in the newspaper industry, which has laid off thousands of journalists and other employees and suffered the loss of millions of dollars in advertising revenue. But the gloom and doom of the newspaper industry might finally be abating. The Newspaper Project, which was formed last month, is publicizing the many positives of the newspaper industry, including its essential and unsurpassed role as a provider of useful, indispensable information. The organization formed by former newspaper executives took out an ad recently that spotlights newspapers' value and dominance in the information business.

The organization's argument is that, sure, the newspaper industry is going through a widespread upheaval right now, challenged by new media competitors, a lack of public connectiveness and a declining reading habit, but there is no better source of reliable, accurate and complete information. Online sources, which draw heavily (nearly exclusively) from newspapers' original reporting, can't beat newspapers. Broadcast, which has an advantage in immediacy, can't surpass newspapers' ability to investigate, explain and ferret out the facts. And bloggers (including this one) can't spend the time and money needed to do competent, complete, accurate reporting. Most blogs consist primarily of personal opinions and are no better at providing essential information than "The Daily Show" or "The Colbert Report."

In a recent speech, USA Today editor Ken Paulson called newspapers "the iPod of the 1690s," but he pointed out that the 300-year-old technology still has lots of advantages for 21st century readers: Newspapers have editors who demand attribution from reliable sources; newspapers are fact-checked; newspapers are delivered to your doorstep every day for a price that is less than you'd tip the pizza guy; there are no pop-up ads and no viruses to worry about. What a great product!

When filling in at a Barton College journalism class last week, I engaged in a discussion with students about the future off the profession they were studying. The parents of only a third of these students subscribed to a daily newspaper. The students got much of their news online or from television. I pointed out one often-overlooked advantage of newspapers: serendipity, the pleasure of finding something good that you weren't looking for. Newspapers, which collect news from a variety of places and sources, provide that serendipity, by which readers discover things they had not been interested in before. Online searches find only the specific items being sought; there is no serendipity.

Newspapers' plight (and potential opportunity) also got some attention recently from National Public Radio in a two-part series looking into what might happen if a city's newspaper folded. The second part looked at a potential alternative to the advertising business model newspapers have relied on for centuries. The Atlantic also featured the newspaper industry in an article that suggested that major newspapers, such as the New York Times, might be forced to quit publishing because of declining revenues and high debt, and the end might come within a few short months.

The author of the Atlantic article, Michael Hirschorn, also offers an indictment of the newspaper industry for enabling its own decline by losing its focus on the essential news and information that made newspapers indispensable in the first place. "Under the guise of 'service,'" Hirschorn writes, "The Times has been on a steady march toward temporarily profitable lifestyle fluff. Escapes! Styles! T magazines(s)! For a time, this fluff helped underwrite the foreign bureaus, enterprise reporting and endless five-part Pulitzer Prize aspirants. But it has gradually hollowed out journalism's brand, by making the newspaper feel disposable. The fluff is more fun to read than the loss-leading reports about starvation in Sudan, but it isn't the sort of thing you miss when it's gone."

I have long believed that newspapers were making a mistake in copying the entertainment-oriented broadcast news strategy that aimed for "softer," "happier" news. If newspapers are to survive as print products, they will have to aim for the better-educated, more curious readers, not the lowest-common-denominator of channel-flipping couch potatoes.

The Newspaper Project raises another issue: Perhaps newspapers should be charging for online content, which is now offered for free. Aggregators such as Yahoo! and Google are selling ads beside links to newspaper articles, and newspapers are deriving no revenue from those ads. It has even been suggested that newspapers get an anti-trust exemption that would allow them to collude to set prices for online content. I don't know whether that is the solution or is even politically viable, but I'm glad to see some serious thinking and creative ideas about the future of print news. I know I never want to see the day when I can't sit down with the morning paper and dive into its wonderful variety of content.