Reader Rex Wheatley was disturbed by the photo on the front of today's Life Etc., showing actor George Jack seated atop a burial vault at Oakwood Cemetery. Jack will be performing in a show at the cemetery soon.

Wheatley says he was taught by his mother that it's disrespectful to sit or stand on a grave memorial. "I think it sends a message to people that it’s OK for someone to sit on a tombstone," he said of the photo. "You don’t walk on someone's grave site, you don’t mess with someone's tombstone. I'd hate to think that I'm buried on that site and someone is using my tomb to sit on."

Sends chills up your spine.

A state employee raises a good question: Why does The N&O publish on its website the name, salary and other information about every state employee?

The N&O publishes under its Factfinder databases a salary report drawn from the State Personnel Office. Here's the link.

"I know that news agencies have an obligation to report what they deem newsworthy," said the employee, who asked to be anonymous. "I also know that information concerning the State of North Carolina is public information. I agree that the public should have the right to certain information. But just because the news agency and the public have the right to obtain the information, it doesn’t mean that it has to arbitrarily display it without consideration for those who may be hurt or violated for no fault of their own."

He reported that the daughter of a fellow employee had checked the site and asked her Dad why he made less money than other people in his office.

Here is the response that I e-mailed to him:

"Thanks for your comment. It is stated very thoughtfully. The one point you don't address is that state employees are paid with taxpayer dollars. They are employees of the taxpayers. That's the key difference between publishing public sector salaries and private sector salaries.

"Should the public be entitled to know how much the governor makes? How about the DOT secretary? How about your division head? And I don't know your job, but are you paid too much -- or too little -- for the service we get from you? Those are the rough brushstrokes of why public employees' salaries are considered to be of interest to the public, as opposed to private sector salaries.

"I know it doesn't seem fair to the line-level state employee, but I guess I'd say it's what you sign on for when you take a public sector job. Any citizen is entitled to know your salary, and The N&O is just making it easier for them to know by providing the database on its website."

What do you think?

Several readers were unhappy with this story last week about lawyers for two murder suspects trying to avoid capital punishment by virtue of their claimed mental retardation.

The headline said, "Claim: Murder suspects retarded," and a secondary headline said: "If the defendants are found to be retarded, they would avoid the death penalty."

The "retarded" label is a slur, these readers said, on the mentally impaired. "As the parent of a daughter with mental impairment, I am surprised, frustrated and offended by the repeated use of the word 'retarded' in Ms. Ovaska's article of today,” wrote Laurie Rosenfeld.

The reporter, Sarah Ovaska, explained: "I chose to include the phrase ‘mental retardation' in my story because that's how it is being referred to in the legal documents, as well as state law. Every expert I spoke with for this story used the phrase freely and referred me to several sources that define mental retardation as a condition, including the DSM-IV which is cited heavily by psychologists and psychiatrists.”

N&O Copy Desk Chief Leland Senn said he might have changed that secondary headline to say 'mental retardation.' But he said, "I understand the term bruises sensitivities. That doesn't change the reality of what lawyers for these defendants are seeking."

I agree. Sensitive as I am to parents' concerns, there's no getting around the legal jargon that is at the crux of the lawyers' arguments.

Following is the Public Editor column for Sunday, May 18, 2008:

What should newspapers call people from other countries who entered the United States in violation of federal immigration and nationality law?

Illegal immigrant? Illegal alien? Undocumented worker? Unauthorized immigrant?

Those are some of the different labels and euphemisms that media organizations have come up with to describe the 12 million or so foreign nationals who are living in this country without immigration authorization.

All the labels are unsatisfactory in some respect, and they cause fits for news organizations trying to report on one of the biggest issues of our time -- what to do with the people who don't have authority to live here. (Quick question: Percentagewise, what nationality is the fastest-growing "illegal" population in this country? Answer at end of column.)

The labeling issue is not new, but it flares up regularly as immigration issues move to the front page. That's happened recently with the spate of stories about whether students without documentation should be admitted to North Carolina's community colleges and universities. Here are two recent headlines that brought reader protests:

=> Read more!

Several readers are distressed by The N&O's request in court seeking the release of Eve Carson's autopsy report.

At the request of Orange-Chatham District Attorney Jim Woodall, a judge last week sealed the report, which is normally public record. The judge said the report could jeopardize the ongoing investigation into the murder of the UNC student body president. The N&O filed suit Monday asking that the report be unsealed. See story here.

Readers couldn't understand why the media would make a big deal of publicizing what could be grisly details of her death.

"What in heaven's name would be the purpose in revealing how many times she was shot or what part of her head was blown off except that The N&O would sell a few more papers with the information?" asked Carol Day, of Durham. "Has your paper's morals now sunk below that of supermarket tabloids in wanting sensational rather than newsworthy stories? Not to mention the emotional trauma the Carson family would suffer by the public release of their daughter's tragic death."

Steve Riley, The N&O's senior editor for investigations, said the paper thinks the state should be required to justify keeping secret information that is public record: "We have asked the judge to hear us on the question; there were no media around when the DA asked to have it sealed. There may be a fine reason to keep it sealed, but we haven't heard it and would like to know more."

Does the N&O want to publish grisly details to sell more newspapers? The paper doesn't know what's in the report, and it may yield information about the crime and the investigation - such as whether this was a gang killing - that the public should know.

The paper did report the results of the autopsy for Duke student Abhijit Muhato, which revealed that he'd been shot point-blank in the head. One of the men arrested in the Carson case is also charged in Muhato's killing.

Following is the Public Editor column for Sunday, May 11, 2008:

The North Carolina primary was a big test for the Democratic presidential candidates -- as well as for all the state and local candidates down the ballot.

It also was an important test of The News & Observer's efforts to secure a broader audience for its election news by extending the coverage from the printed newspaper to online. The paper did more than it ever has to add value online to what readers could get from their ink-and-paper newspaper. If you didn't read the online edition on Election Day, as well as in the weeks leading up to the election, you missed a lot of information about the most important North Carolina primary election in decades.

What ran online that wasn't in the paper?

=> Read more!

Reader Richard Kevin was surprised by this front-page headline today, “Easley supports college for aliens,” on a story about the legal tussle over admitting children of immigrant families to state community college and university campuses. (The headline on the online story is different from that in print.)

Kevin said The N&O in the past has shown sensitivity to issues of the Latino immigrant community.

“Because of this history, I was all the more shocked and appalled to see ‘illegal’ aliens in your headline," he wrote. "Three instances of ‘illegal’ in the box to the right of the story and numerous uses of the term in the body of the story reinforce a distorted and pernicious frame of thinking about the ambitious and talented youth who overcome the many barriers to academic success which face poor Hispanic children. These children are no more illegal than are the children of speeders and drunken drivers who are in the car when their parents are arrested.”

When I read the headline, I thought the governor was supporting admission of little green people to the state’s campuses.

The N&O’s official style is “illegal immigrant,” which is too wordy for a headline. I share Kevin’s queasiness about describing children of immigrants as “illegal,” even if technically they are. It fosters an already excessively xenophobic mentality among too many of our readers.

Here's a column I wrote a few years ago about this labelling issue.

Some readers were disappointed that The N&O did not provide actual numbers, along with percentages, in reporting the results of Tuesday's elections in the print edition of the newspaper.

For example, the paper reported that Bev Perdue beat Richard Moore 56%-40% for the Democratic nomination for governor. But the story did not say that Perdue received 845,698 votes to Moore's 601,071. Moore's total was more than the combined total (505,634) of the five Republican candidates for governor.

"Actual numbers matter," e-mails Michael Crowell. "They matter in particular in elections. It is newsworthy whether Obama got his 56% victory with 200,000 votes or 800,000 votes. It is newsworthy how many more people voted in the Democratic primary than the Republican one. It is worth knowing whether 100,000 fewer votes were cast in the gubernatorial primary than for president. It tells a lot to know whether the two percent margin of victory in the county commissioner race represents 2,500 votes or 25 votes (and thus might be subject to a protest). The numbers are known, they have to be, otherwise there would be no way to figure the percentages. So someone at the newspaper has to decided to omit that information. Why?"

Actually, the numbers are reported in the paper's website coverage, but not in the print edition. Capitol Editor Bill Krueger explains why:

"We have to make choices on election night about how to use our limited time and space to present a report that is as clear, accurate and complete as possible. One of the choices we made was not to use absolute numbers - it's one less thing we have to change between editions, freeing up reporters and editors to spend more time on the stories.

"But I don't see how it's misleading. Our goal was to let readers know who won the various primary contests, how convincing their win was, how they did it, and what the political landscape looks like for the fall. I don't think the absence of absolute numbers hurt that effort."

I understand the paper's concern about maximizing the efforts of its limited staff. But one of the advantages of newspapers is that they can provide a printed record that readers can examine and parse at their leisure - as compared to television and radio, which have the advantage of speed. Internet alters the equation, in that it allows both immediacy and detail, and The N&O takes advantage of that on the website. But the paper is giving up value to newspaper-only readers by leaving out the numbers behind the story.

Readers in Franklin County were feeling a little left out this week as The N&O told the story of the North Carolina primary elections.

I heard from several readers upset that the races there weren't covered in the Primary Guide, a freestanding section on all the Triangle races published Saturday. Another was disappointed that there was no coverage of the elections Tuesday.

"Believe it or not, we held elections yesterday in Franklin County, but there was not one word in the N&O about Franklin County," said Gary Baker. "We exist and we still take The News & Observer down in Franklin County."

They did have news to be interested in. Franklin County voters on Tuesday approved a $53 million bond refendum for a new high school. Voters favored Barack Obama over Hillary Clinton - despite a visit to Louisburg Monday by Bill Clinton - and they cast votes for two county commissioners seats.

How do I know that? From the Web site of The Franklin Times, the county's Louisburg-based newspaper.

Thad Ogburn, metro editor, said The N&O regularly covers big stories there, such as a controversy over moving the county hospital and a front-page story on Franklin's economic worries.

"Franklin County also is featured in our North Raleigh News coverage from time to time," Ogburn said. "But we don't have a dedicated Franklin County reporter at this time. I think that's something we'll continue to look at as Franklin keeps growing and we try to determine where best to put limited resources."

Following is the Public Editor column from Sunday, May 4, 2008:

Barack Obama is ahead of Hillary Clinton in North Carolina by 12 points. No, it's 5 points. Wait, now the lead is 14 points.

That's all in the same week, as reported in an N&O story Thursday that referred to various polls that are being conducted on the Democratic presidential primary. The 12-point lead was reported by Raleigh-based Public Policy Polling.

Only a week earlier, PPP had said Obama was ahead by 25 points. Had the race tightened that much -- the poll was taken in the midst of the latest Jeremiah Wright controversy -- or is something wrong with the numbers? Meanwhile, SurveyUSA was showing Obama's lead at only 5 points and the Rasmussen Reports poll had him up 14 points.

The polls are an interesting, and fun, tip sheet for the political horse races, but not necessarily a take-it-to-the-bank guide. Last month, PPP showed Democratic gubernatorial candidates Beverly Perdue and Richard Moore virtually tied one week, then Perdue ahead by 10 points two weeks later (the polling method changed.) Another poll at about the same time by the Civitas Institute had Perdue and Moore tied.

The day before the April 22 Pennsylvania primary, Public Policy Polling showed Obama ahead of Clinton 49-46. Clinton ended up winning by nearly 10 percentage points.

With such wandering numbers, what's a voter to believe? And why should a newspaper publish them?

=> Read more!

As we head into game day for the North Carolina primary, The N&O is receiving lots of criticism for its coverage of the Clinton-Obama race.

The bad news is the criticism. The good news is that it comes from both sides.

Mary Delaney, Cary: "It is biased! A perfect example is the Obama - Clinton skirmish. The N&O is so pro-Clinton - Hillary this and Hillary that - positive and gaining-ground stuff. Reading journals and the internet, one learns that what you print is not the case."

Jennifer Blair, Wallace: "In my perception, your coverage today was very biased in favor of Senator Obama. It would seem that he is the only one running, since there were many more pictures and articles regarding him. A prestigious paper such as yours downplayed a very important and relevant article about the governor's endorsement of Senator Clinton while placing two separate articles about Senator Obama's pickup basketball game."

Never mind that one of the Obama stories suggested that UNC broke NCAA rules by letting Obama work out with the team.

Journalism rule #1: If you're making both sides mad, you must be doing something right. Keep reading.

Will The N&O endorse a presidential candidate in the May 6 primary?

I've had that question several times this week, actually more from people inside the paper than out. The answer is: Likely not.

Steve Ford, editorial page editor, says the paper has not endorsed in primary elections in the past. The reason, he says, is that the paper could end up arguing against itself.

If The N&O endorsed Hillary Clinton or Barack Obama in the Democratic primary, then it could find itself in the general election choosing between the Democrat it had already endorsed and, presumably, John McCain. If The N&O endorsed McCain, it could be arguing against the Democrat it endorsed in the primary.

(OK, you don't need to tell me how many times The N&O has endorsed a Republican for president; we're talking hypothetical here.)

The same situation would apply for all other races on the ballot - governor, U.S. Senate, General Assembly, and on down to county commissioners.

Ford said the paper would endorse in the Durham school board election, because that is non-partisan and is not a primary. In other words, those elected will take office.

One reader wonders about the limited coverage The N&O gave to Vice President Dick Cheney's visit to Raleigh Monday.

The Under the Dome column today reported Cheney's visit in three paragraphs that didn't say much. Why so skimpy?

"His plane landed, he went directly to a private fundraiser at a house they would not disclose, drove back to the airport and flew out of town. They wouldn't tell us who hosted the fundraiser, how much was raised, etc. We asked for an interview and were declined," said Capitol Editor Bill Krueger.

"Doesn't take more than three paragraphs to describe that."

Hmm. I know the political staff is busy. But I sure would have been interested to know where the fundraiser was, who was there, and what the vice president told a Raleigh audience the week before the Democratic primary in North Carolina.

A number of readers were not happy with The N&O's coverage Sunday of the "Salute to our Troops" parade in Downtown Raleigh on Saturday.

The N&O ran the story, with pictures, on the City/State front, but not the main front page.

"Thousands of people turned out in appreciation of the sacrifices made by military personnel and their families," wrote Julie Doyle, of Wake Forest. "I told my five-year-old daughter, who thought the parade was awesome, that it would be front-page news. She woke up early this morning and rushed out to get the paper, only to be disappointed by the meager coverage. Your newspaper buried this story!"

Ned Barnett, weekend editor, said editors considered the story for the front but opted instead for a staff story on Iraq veterans struggling to make the transition from military to campus. That was a more compelling article with more news value than the parade, he said.

Other readers were upset that the story gave attention to the protestors who used the parade to demonstrate against the Iraq War. The story pointed out that the protestors' numbers were tiny compared to the large crowd watching the parade.

"Even though it states that 'the protesters were a tiny minority, unseen by much of the crowd,' you then proceed to devote about 40 percent of the written space to them," wrote Fred Ullman, of Raleigh. "That distorts the picture for me entirely."

I thought the coverage was fine. The story with two pictures dominated the local page, and there was a third large picture inside the paper. On the main front page was a small picture pointing readers to the coverage inside.

I agree with Barnett that the vets-on-campus story had more news value than the parade, which had been widely previewed in advance.

The parade was controversial - letters to the editor last week volleyed back and forth over the morality of militaristic displays on city streets. Covering the protest was responsible.

My one gripe is that the story didn't say how many people attended. The N.C. Bankers Association, sponsoring the parade, said 50,000 attended, but the reporter, David Ranii, said that number appeared to be inflated, and he couldn't verify it with Capitol or Raleigh police. He did report that the parade route was packed.