Angry Mayor's Prize: An 18-Inch Apology   

Early this year, long after Greensboro, North Carolina, Mayor Vic Nussbaum Jr. bought land from the city to expand his meat supply business and the 1991 deal sailed through the zoning and permit process, the News & Record decided to take a second look.

Its conclusion, presented in a front page story on January 31, was that Nussbaum had received preferential treatment. The paper reported that the city manager had sent a pointed memo noting that "the mayor is interested in moving on this as soon as possible." The process took about 12 weeks. Later, three businessmen seeking similar deals found their requests bogged down for nearly 12 months.

Referring at one point to "the mess at city hall," the paper followed up its January report with 11 more stories, a column decrying the "mayor's cakewalk" and an indignant editorial demanding that Nussbaum apologize.

Nussbaum didn't apologize, but the News & Record did. Five months later, it gave the mayor a highly unusual 18-inch retraction on the front page of its metro section.

The retraction explained that the paper had "conveyed a false and misleading impression" by suggesting Nussbaum had sought special treatment. Although much of the retraction was used to explain the details of Nussbaum's deal, the paper apologized for using language such as "illegal," "scandal" and "political clout" and reporting that Nussbaum pressured building inspectors to approve his plans, a charge the mayor denies.

Ned Cline, then managing editor and now associate editor of the editorial page, says that while the paper's reporting was solid, it was overstated. "Some things were done that should not have been done to speed his project up, but he [Nussbaum] didn't cause that to happen," Cline says. "There was so much confusion about it, we felt we should go ahead and lay the whole thing out in an abundance of fairness."

But not everyone thought such a prominent and lengthy retraction was justified, especially the reporters who covered the story. "A newspaper has the right to raise questions," argues Ron Miller, who wrote the column blasting Nussbaum. "This retraction seems to say we don't." Adds Tom Barstow, the paper's City Hall reporter, "I felt that we had gone way too far. Even if you were to concede that the use of the words 'illegal' and 'scandal' were errors – and I don't know that I agree – you could have done a clarification in a couple of graphs on page A2."

The retraction came after five months of legal maneuvering during which Nussbaum declined offers of op-ed space, an article explaining his side of the story, or a less detailed retraction. After Nussbaum said he was going to court, Publisher Van King visited his home to discuss an apology. But he and Cline say the mayor would have gotten a retraction even without the threat of a suit. "This was a journalistic decision," says Cline, "not a legal decision."

Chuck Stone, a University of North Carolina journalism professor and former Philadelphia Daily News columnist, believes the News & Record got caught up in its zeal for an exposé. "It could have been a good story, they just got carried away," he says. "The conflict of interest implications seduced them."

King and Cline say the incident has done some good. The city council adopted a new ethics policy, King notes, and Cline says readers have expressed appreciation for the paper's honesty.

Even Nussbaum, who says he realizes such prominent and detailed retractions are extremely rare, wonders what the fuss is about. "I always thought an apology was a sign of character," he says, "not weakness."