I have significantly more substantiation for my report than you had when you allowed your biggest-paying client to accuse First Christian Church in Kernersville of child pornography without challenging him on it, or when you personally claimed on live television that the same church was "full of perverts".
sincerely,
Chris Knight
7 comments:
Charles was convicted of slander, wasn't he?
What? Why would anyone accuse a church of child porno, and who?
What did Charles do now?
First question: Yes he was. He's also been found guilty of theft and has served time in prison (along with being banned for life from all Wal-Mart stores). Two things have marked his "career" in television: his proclivity toward theft of various sorts, and his gutter mentality. The only thing that Roark is gifted at creativity toward is creating strife and controversy.
Second, third and fourth questions are all answered by Johnny Robertson (or as one person suggested this week, that we start calling him "He Who Stalks Behind The Pews").
To this day, Roark and Robertson have not answered for their horrific slander against First Christian Church. There have been no apologies. Many have noted however that since some people have begun chronicling Robertson's antics, that he has backed off. Guess it's possible that blogs like this one are having some effect after all.
Fifth question: Apparently Roark devoted all of his show on Thursday toward what I reported two weeks ago, about a company that was considering employing about 60 people here in Reidsville but decided we weren't good enough after watching Roark spend his Local Buzz show getting people to talk about their sex lives.
I don't publish anything like that unless I have solid basis for it. This cannot be said of Charles Roark. And some wrote me today saying that Roark was leading a virtual "lynch mob" against a shooting suspect in Martinsville. Whatever happened to "innocent until proven guilty"? Except this is Charles Roark we're talking about: the same man who was a good toady to Johnny Robertson and insisted on his own that First Christian Church was "full of perverts".
The thing of it is, there are some good people at WGSR. They and this community deserve better than to be represented by a man who seemingly has no vision or grasp of reality beyond the least common denominator.
I'm no fan of Hillbilly TV finding it very unprofessional and pandering to simpletons. However in journalistic matters, how are you any different? It's not good enough to state you have "solid basis". What is your source? That's Journalism 101. For all I know, this is something you heard at the local game store. How about publishing this comment instead of the usual practice of disallowing anything contrary to your view. And how about that proof while you're at it. If there is a real basis of fact, it would be of great interest to the local businesses that are advertising on the station.
Which begs the question always in my mind, at least whenever Charles is brought up in another controversy : Why do seemingly good people work for, or associate themselves with, Charles....even if it is a paycheck? Makes one wonder. I start thinking hypocrisy, or what's hidden there maybe....any "masks" on? Charles airing Johnny Robertson, in itself, would make me run away. Of course for over 40 years I have wondered about the peculiarities that can be this town and community. Over the years I have had comments made to me, off and on, from outsiders, "Oh, you're from that town with the weird people....gotta watch out for you". lol Yeah, we be kinda' special I guess. That can be good special or that can be bad special, it seems.
"What is your source? That's Journalism 101."
When a source's career could potentially be jeopardized by divulging such information and asks not to be identified, it becomes the duty of the journalist to honor that request and let the reader judge based on previous regard and reputation that the journalist has built up.
That's not a perfect system. But it's the only one we've got under such circumstance. And there is considerable precedent for it. "Deep Throat" comes to mind at once.
"How about publishing this comment instead of the usual practice of disallowing anything contrary to your view."
That's never been my policy. Dissent and other points of view have always been allowed as comments on this blog. What is not allowed are comments that I deem per my discretion are unduly rude or vulgar.
Post a Comment