« Back to News is a Conversation | Archives: November 2006
Frontline response
Posted by Steven A. Smith | 15 Nov 9:45 AM
Here is my response to last night's Frontline report delivered in two parts. I'm not sure there is much more to say, but I welcome comments and, as always, look forward to the dialogue this blog generates.
steve
I certainly don’t want to pick a fight with the Frontline folks. They took an incredibly complex investigation and tried to squeeze it down into a 60-minute narrative documentary based on a predetermined “Shakespearean” dramatic arc.
I think their mistakes of commission (fact errors) and mistakes of omission were not malicious, in general, but driven by the demands of their narrative and their medium.
But the overall effect, I think, was to seriously dilute the depth, breadth and detail of our reporting and to place far more importance than facts warranted on West’s gayness as the cause of his fall.
Frontline got its Shakespearean tragedy - no one can dispute that Jim West was a tortured man. But I don’t think they got to the truth of the story. And I don’t think they ever understood Spokane.
Here are a couple of the fact errors spotted in an initial, cursory viewing:
• Frontline said that Robert Galliher’s first mention of abuse by West was in a 2005 interview. Incorrect. As we reported, he wrote about the abuse in a 2004 jailhouse letter to a psychiatrist who provided a copy of the letter to the newspaper. It’s posted online.
• Frontline says Galliher could not explain why he failed to report West sooner. Wrong. As we reported Galliher said he feared for his safety, accused West of orchestrating a jailhouse beating and had tried to avoid pointing a finger at a powerful politician with close ties to police.
• The source who first told Morlin he met West online and had sex with him was barely 18 and just out of high school at the time they first began chatting online and had just turned 19 at the time of their “date.” Frontline said he was 20. That is not an inconsiderable mistake given the nature of our reporting.
• The Motorbrock deception lasted less than three months, not the six months described by Frontline.
• West, not Motobrock, turned the online chats to sex.
• West, not Motobrock, raised the prospect of a job/internship at City Hall.
• West, not Motobrock, asked for the personal meeting in April 2005.
The Frontline story suggested the newspaper dropped its investigation of West’s past history of abuse after initial reports. That is not true. Frontline omitted the following, details of which can still be found on our website:
We reported the story of a young man, identified by name and the son of the editor/publisher of a local alternative newspaper, who said West made improper advances when the young man was 16 years old.
We reported that West had pulled down the pants of young Cub and Boy Scouts at a scouting camp when West was a Scout leader, actions that disturbed parents who witnessed the incdient and who were quoted in the paper.
We reported the story of a David Hahn victim who was molested on a Scout camping trip while West was in a nearby tent. We reported that West dismissed and humiliated the boy when he reported the molestation the following day.
We reported that West and Hahn, the dead sheriff’s deputy and acknowledged abuser, took individual boys from Morning Star Boys Ranch on so-called day trips.
We reported not only on West’s appointment of a love-interest to the city Human Rights Commission, but also his subsequent stalking of Ryan Oelrich and even an offer to pay him $300 for a nude swim.
We reported that West offered a high-paying city hall job to a gay friend of Oelrich, a job the young man turned down because he was in no way qualified to hold it.
Furthermore, Frontline made no mention of the independent city investigation that concluded West had violated state law and city workplace policies. They failed to report that he used city computer equipment to download pornography, a firing offense in any company, and that he sought sexual partners via the Internet while traveling on city business. They mis-characterized the nature of the FBI investigation which confirmed West’s behavior as reported by The Spokesman-Review but determined there was insufficient evidence to prosecute him for violation of corruption statutes typically used to thwart financial graft.
Most curious is Frontline’s failure to note that the recall case went all the way to the state Supreme Court which, in an 8 to 1 ruling declared that West’s behavior “was an improper exercise of an official duty.”
Producers noted The Spokesman-Review had printed 189 stories on West in eight months (my count is closer to 200). But the vast majority of those stories came during West’s months-long and unsuccessful court fight to block the recall and then during the protracted recall campaign. Further, as West’s denials became more and more outrageous, the newspaper pursued costly litigation to win the release of documents and records that proved he was lying in a desperate effort to keep his job.
When West’s efforts to turn the political campaign for survival into an attack on the newspaper failed to sway voters, he turned his attentions to acting (and subsequent) Mayor Dennis Hession, accusing him of orchestrating a plot to oust him so that Hession could move up. Voters clearly understood the tactic and Frontline was aware, as well.
Producers continually used phrases along the lines of “Smith and Morlin decided...” They collapsed a complex and thoroughly professional editing structure to a simple docudrama story line. The investigation team included the managing editor, Gary Graham, the city editor, Carla Savalli who also was the project coordinator, reporters Morlin and Karen Dorn Steele and myself. Decisions were made around the conference table after considerable debate and internal discussion. While I am responsible for the final call when it came to our most controversial steps, those decisions were hardly made on the fly between Morlin and me as suggested in the show. As Frontline knew, we consulted a key industry ethics specialist before making our deception decision and I consulted with colleagues in the business. It would have made the story more complex to introduce additional “characters.” But to do so would have reflected the truth that this was not Smith/Morlin vs. West. (Similarly how could the show miss the role of community activist and single-mother Shannon Sullivan who single-handedly launched the recall effort and fought West all the way to the state supreme court.)
Further, the producers used a sound bite of Morlin suggesting it was wrong for him to deceive the mayor but OK to hire someone to do it on our behalf. This was one area where Morlin and I strongly disagreed (we still disagree). I fully understood that anyone hired by us was serving as our agent and therefore subject to our ethical standards. Delving into a complicated discussion of journalistic ethics would not have served the chosen narrative.
I thought the show captured a couple of legitimate sentiments; the sense of betrayal felt by Spokane’s gay community and the rage of ordinary Spokane citizens appalled by the mayor’s behavior, but not concerned about his sexuality.
That is where Frontline badly missed the point. The producers claimed they came to town to use West as a beginning point for a discussion of the cultural divide in America, of the difficulty of being gay in a small city. They were so focused on the gay issue they forgot that West’s behavior, considered in either a gay or straight context, was simply repellent to citizens who expected a higher standard from the city’s chief executive. As Frontline producers knew, we often talked about the West story as if he had been seeking sex with 18-year-old high school girls, asking ourselves if we would make different decisions or pursue the story in a different way. Frontline viewers should ask themselves the same question and decide if sexuality was the issue or repllent conduct.
One of our columnists, Jamie Neely, wrote of the “mom test.” The city’s mothers simply didn’t want their mayor stalking youngsters, barely of legal age, male or female. Think Mark Foley. Then remember mainstream newspapers could have put an end to his predatory behavior but failed to demonstrate much journalistic aggressiveness. The decision to not pursue such a story is fully as political and subject to second guessing as the decision to pursue aggressively. And what would have said about us if we had not reported what we knew and the details leaked out when West, years down the road, had announced his candidacy for governor, his political ambition?
In our newsroom we believe in this posted value: We tell people what wee know when we know it without fear or favor. Further, as have said in several talks on the subject, watchdog journalism that doesn’t piss some people off isn’t watchdogging anything.
I am not at all concerned about the show’s impact on the newspaper. We fought our battles last year and I think Spokane citizens and media observers already decided if they agree or disagree with our investigation. But the show really did a number on the community and that’s a real shame.
Our Transparent Newsroom Initiative has opened our newsroom to unprecedented outside scrutiny, sometimes involving the most routine decisions. I have been asked by my staff if this program and other recent challenges to our work causes me to reconsider the initiative.
Not in the least. I continue to believe strongly that the newspaper’s credibility can only benefit from such openness, certainly in the long run. The dialogue we pursue on this blog and elsewhere helps readers understand complex and challening newsroom decisions in a way that a 60-minute, New York-produced documentary cannot.
To those interested in learning more about the West story, I suggest digging into our posted archive which contains all of the West material – chat logs, interview tapes and transcripts, documents and other raw materials – that have been and remain posted for anyone to review.
There are 105 comments on this post. (XML Subscribe to comments on this post)
You are obviously a morally shallow person. You go around in your bubble of smug self-righteousness, feeling proud of yourself for having destroyed someone's life based on unsubstantiated allegations and outrageously manufactured scandals. Poor tortured unfortunate Jim West never hurt anyone in his life except himself -- the same cannot be said for you. If you had some degree of conscience, this would torture you for the rest of your life.
The actions of your reporter Morlin and yourself were dispicable. I hope the family of Mayor West
gets millions from you in their lawsuit. Your sting strategy and legal advise (if you even bothered to get any) were poorly thought out and showed your lack of intelligence.
You're getting what you deserve. I hope you are both fired. I loved the NYTimes article which expressed my feeling wholeheartedly!
After watching last night's Frontline special on Jim West, I was so moved and inspired for the first time to express my view on the lessons it illustrated to me. The story was so full of irony and injustice that I just can't stop thinking about it.
I think what you did to his life with your paper is abhorrent. He was an imperfect man who battled demons within himself. His personal life he kept private and within the boundaries of the law. With all his flaws, he was a decent man who in my eyes was full of integrity.
You expressed how arrogant you thought it was that he didn't resign and let the people of Spokane move on. I believe there is nothing arrogant about standing up to a bully. No amount of investigating has ever brought about enough evidence to charge Mayor West with either sexual abuse or your whiny accusation that he abused his office by offering unpaid internships. If you lived in the real world, you would know that the majority of those positions depend on 'who you know'. I don't believe that being on gay.com precludes him from being a good and decent person. In spite of that, you used your newspaper to become the judge, jury and executioner in order to prove to yourself that you were right. The only peace I gain from this story is knowing that Mayor West knew all along that it was all about you. He said it was about your pride and that he knew it wouldn't stop until you ran him out of office or killed him off. Well, congratulations on both.
After he was recalled, you stated your fantasy headline to read ' WE WERE RIGHT'. But it became so blaringly obvious that actually Mr. Smith, he was right. You have to see that the real abuse of power is on you. A newspaper holds a tremendous amount of responsibility and in this case acted without a conscience. May no man suffer your pride again.
R.I.P. Mayor West
Question for the critics who've posted here - how many of you live in Spokane, and how much of our news coverage have you actually read?
Reaction this morning has been interesting.
I now have received about 10 e-mails, all critical, all from outside the region, mostly the east Coast. No calls or e-mails from anyone local yet, not to say we won't be receiving some. But I still believe folks here already made up their minds, about us, about West. Comments from outside our region, from people who have not read our stories, examined our archives, looked at the evidence, while welcome, have much less impact than comments from our local readers who, with us, lived through the 2005 scandal.
steve
Steve,
One other thought on the piece (and this was mentioned by someone else at Huckleberries Online), and maybe this relates somewhat to the transparent newsroom as well, but the part of the show where the newsroom staff is joking about possible headlines after the recall vote did not come off too positively. I'm certainly not going to hold your feet to the fire about it, as I have been in newsrooms and understand a bit about how humor helps alleviate stress, but I'm not sure it helped from a PR standpoint.
Note to "Jim McCarthy" and others - comments posted that are not accompanied by a verifiable email address will be deleted. Email addresses will not be displayed or used for any other purpose.
The reason we do this is because we've had problems with anonymous trolls posting under multiple identities in the past.
Um...not saying I am in agreement at all, but knowing the rules of this forum as I do, I have to ask--why was Jim McCarthy's post killed? Having just re-read it, there wasn't any out and out name calling.
Nevermind. (Thanks, Ken)
That's unfortunate Ken. Mr. McCarthy's post was the most delicious and intellectually stimulating
of the bunch. Most "brutal" against your case too coincidently. Hope he resends it if he actually didn't have a verifiable e-mail responce.
Hi Just another East Coaster who was shocked angered and astounded by your stance re: the Jim West story as shown on Front Line Explain please, how does your hiring a person to pose as someone else differed in any respect from the acts of the Hewlett Packard executives who have been indicted for the very same thing? If justice is to prevail the editorial staff involved in this unscrupulous and illegal act should be jailed What this story needs is a playwrite of Arthur Miller's caliber Oh, the play has already been written It's called the Crucible How ethically numb you all are by failing to see how callous and mean-spirited and immoral your actions were Is gaining fame in your small part of the world so essential that you stoop to organizing a lynch mob to string-up a beaten and vulnerable man? Shame Shame Shame You deserve what ever is coming your way
My email address is valid. Send me a note & I will reply with an email and my phone number if you would care to call to verify. Here, again, is my post:
Since Steve Smith apparently believes that any comment from outside Spokane deserves nothing more than a cover-your-ears, la-la-la defense, let's review some of his own comments:
"Producers explained that their original intent...was derailed by honchos who wanted to focus only on...scandal and recall."
(Huh..?)
"This has me wondering if they sacrificed complexity for drama."
(coffee-spit...)
"They refused to show us the video in advance."
(Scoff, guffaw)
"They took a complex investigation and tried to squeeze it down...based on a predetermined...dramatic arc."
(Knee-slapping)
Mr. Kettle, please come to a white courtesy phone -- we have a Mr. Pot on the line for you.
Wow. Just wow. The immense hypocrisy of your take on the Frontline story and the total absence of self-awareness is staggering to read. Have you ever shown the subject of a story the copy in advance? Have you ever molded a story so that it would be more dramatic? As "head honcho" have you ever taken a reporter's copy and re-directed the focus?
I agree with you on one point -- it's good that the Spokesman-Review is opening a window to its news-gathering and editorial processes. What it reveals, however, is how craven, morally arbitrary, capricious and destructive the sausage-making factory of journalism actually is. You can put lipstick on that pig all you want but you're still wallowing in muck.
Wait, you're right about one other thing -- the "mom test" and the views of the general public are important. That's the reason that public opinion of journalists is lower than politicians, trial lawyers, and tax collectors. You, Mr. Smith are a walking, talking, one-man-band for all the ways the public holds the press in such contempt. But, hey, at least you got the child molesters beat on the approval scale, right? Next time you have a journalism roundtable on why the public mistrusts and resents the media, you might want to bring a few mirrors for the group.
So nice to hear that you consulted your lawyers and an outside ethics guru -- before going right ahead and reporting and 'investigating' exactly as you had intended all along. What restraint! Tell us, Mr. Smith, what conduct did you consider and then opt *not* to do? Anything at all?
And if you or Mr. Morlin think that paying an operative to deceive a news source is unethical (I still can't tell which one of you objects) then why not take responsibility for that conviction and resign? I doubt that will happen of course but may I tell you how ordinary people outside the newsroom describe that attitude? Acting with impunity.
Let me suggest a new "posted value" for the Spokesman-Revew : Good for me but not for thee.
My apologies to Jim - I did send an email that was bounced back the first time. The second one went through fine.
As for G. Rogers and the other east coasters, I'll ask again: How much of our news coverage have you actually read?
All of the stories and supporting materials are archived here. Steve Smith has identified several errors of fact and key ommissions in the Frontline report, and everything is available for you to read on our site.
If you're forming your opinion solely on a 60-minute TV documentary, that's entirely your right, but don't expect any of us to exhume this debate unless you've done your homework. This ground has already been covered numerous times in this community, and frankly, I don't expect anyone here has the patience to re-explain it.
So, I challenge you: Take a look at the journalism that's being criticized before casting judgment.
Just for your info, Mr. Paulman, I followed the case very closely when it first out. I read all the transcripts of the "Motobrock" chat the night they appeared and frankly the Frontline documentary doesn't do justice to the cruel way you treated that man. I couldn't believe that another human being could treat someone so cruelly, there was an unbelievable moral obtuseness. What could drive someone to manipulate and lie to someone who was so confused and unfortunate? From reading the transcripts it's clear that Motobrock initated the sexual vibe, that West said or did nothing sexual until Motobrock turned 18, and that Motobrock kept pushing the acquaintance.
You were obviously convinced in your heart, with no strong evidence, that Jim West was a pedophile and therefore didn't deserve to be treated like a human being. What if you were wrong? Is chatting online a crime?
And don't give me the B.S about the internships. At no time did West make a quid pro quo offer, it was just an internship. How else are City Hall internships distributed except through nepotism of one kind or another?
The real scandal is why the people of Spokane didn't protest the behavior of the newspaper. I would suggest 3 reasons:
1) the gay community was (understandably) angered by West's anti-gay stances, conservative politics and hypocrisy, thus felt no need to speak up for him
2) the homophobic and sex-panicked populace reacting to the mayor's identity
3) the newspaper (unfairly and disgustingly) linked his homosexuality to an unproven allegation of pedophilia, and no one can defend an accused pedophile once a witch-hunt atmosphere has begun.
The truth is, the Frontline documentary was pretty even-handed. Your problem is that the story was heard outside the hysterical atmosphere of Spokane and people saw your behavior for what it truly was.
I'm dumbfounded by the responses here.
Are people really upset over investigative journalism, and did you think Nixon got a raw deal over that whole Watergate scandal?
I want my local paper to be aggressive in its watchdog role. I also want it to dot all its "i"s and cross all its "t"s (which has been an issue elsewhere), and in the West case, it has done that.
Here's what I want to know:
If the 53-year-old Mayor is trolling online for 18-year-old dates, is it the public's right to know?
If he is doing it during worktime, from his Mayor's office, essentially spending taxpayers' money, is it the public's right to know?
If he is offering potential dates internships (and these are people he only knows via online "chats") and committee appointments, does the public have a right to know? (By the way, Carrie D., it may be "who you know" but shouldn't be "who you do"--this isn't a casting couch for Chrissakes.)
If he is downloading pornography on his office computer, does the public have a right to know?
I don't care one iota that he was gay or that these things related to gay relationships; I DO care that in many ways West was a hypocrite, but that's a separate issue.
Seriously, would the public care if we replaced "Mayor West" with "President Bush"? Would it be news then? Of course it would be. You can argue whether the public should care, or at what point a public official's private life becomes the public's concern, but it WOULD be news. Just as President Clinton's proclivities with cigars became public news--it was with an intern, and a pattern was established. Impeachable? No. But newsworthy? Certainly.
Quit making Steve Smith and the rest of the newstaff judge and jury. Not so. Those of us who voted for the recall (over 65%) were jury. And he wasn't ousted over his homosexuality. He was ousted over his errors in judgement and the disgrace he brought to the office.
I continue to be saddened by what has happened to my local newspaper. The S-R has gone from an adequate regional newspaper to a tabloid in a few short years. You chose to elevate a personal tragedy to a case of abuse of power. And in the process, you destroyed a life. The lesson of the Frontline story is that you failed to make your case. While you succeeded in OUTING Jim West, Frontline OUTED you nationally for arrogance and unethical behavior. Stacy, how much longer do the citizens of Spokane have to endure these witch hunts and continued yellow journalism? Please, send Mr Smith packing and return the S-R to reporting, not making the news.
The city's own report concluded that West broke the law - something that was conspicuously absent from the documentary.
Yes, Bill, because the S-R was known for reporting before Steve Smith arrived.
Just don't make me park in that garage.
I also wanted to comment on Greg's observation about the "joking about the headlines."
I was there when that footage was shot (I actually appear in the frame at one point). We were trying to brainstorm a lead headline. Most of us had been at work for upwards of 12 hours. As part of any creative process, people will invariably toss around ideas that are gravely inappropriate. The footage was cut to make it look like we were smugly celebrating the vote. Maybe we were, but it's not the tone that I recall from most of the rest of the evening.
Should we have said those things on camera? Probably not. But what you saw, as you see with our meeting webcasts, is an honest representation of what happens in newsrooms. Anyone who's worked in the business will understand - we can't go about our days all grave and serious all the time, and I challenge you to find me a workplace where people don't engage in behavior that, filmed and taken out of context and shown to a casual observer, might be viewed as inappropriate.
One other interesting cut in footage on the show was the table of Spokane's "high rollers" throwing around $1,000 checks to fund the recall effort. I believe there was over $2000 represented in that footage. Casual observers might mistakenly conclude that the recall effort was well-financed by Spokane's elite in an effort to oust the now unacceptable Mayor. Couldn't be further from the truth. If anything, the recall effort was notable for its LACK of funding. The thing was done on a shoestring budget, making the overwhelming vote in favor of the recall even more remarkable. But it was nice to see footage where Steve Corker's face wasn't completely red.
While I definitely think what Jim West did was wrong and his removal as mayor was justified, i was quite bothered by certain aspects of the case.
There seemed to me to be a genuine or wilful ignorance as how to chat rooms work. The local area of a site probably only contains dozens of people chatting; given that most prob. want hook-ups without much conversation, anyone posing as a genuinely decent person was bound to come into contact with him at some point - it hardly seems like an "aha" moment. You chose to focus on the 17/18 age - I don't know for sure, but i bet he also talked to guys in their 20s, 30s, 40s, etc. That's just the way a chat room works. Do you think the outcome would have been entirely different if the consultant posed as a 20 or 30 something?
Also, the "abuse of power" angle was bothersome - seems pretty heavy handed. Was he wrong? Sure, but it hardly compares to interfering with a tendering process or giving business to friends. Having worked as a journalist, internships are granted where people have connections all the time - i'm sure it's happened at your paper. Having family members who've worked for decades in a city hall not much smaller than Spokane, i was surprised to learn that often time people actually call up the Mayor's office for employment references? It was wrong for him to offer them, but it seems pretty clear there was knowledge there was no story without how private and public intersected, so absolutely anything was going to pass the litmus test.
Also, your comments in the post about using his computer to d/l porn and using the internet to find sex partners while on business. You're absolutely right, but these are things you can use to justify the decision after the fact - they certainly wouldn't be the basis for a newspaper investigation. It's also a slippery slope - would you publish if you found out a married councillor got a young hooker while on a junket?
What this thread is about is the Frontline documentary and how it portrayed your paper and the Mayor's actions during, before, and after the socalled "sting" . From what I saw; the scandal came from the newsroom of the Spokesman Review...not the Mayor's Office.
You've now posted links to articles and
letters that don't prove that Mayor West was "trolling for underage boys, engaged in pedophillia, or even chatted on Gay.com using the City Hall internet computers"!
All you had was a closeted gay conservative Republican who was against gay marriage,
extra gay rights, and was a member of Gay.com.
Gay.com is a hugely popular website and when chatting in their chatrooms there is no "pornographic pictures" there. Why did you
have the 'consultant" say he was a 17 year old?
How did he get into gay.com's Chat rooms? You have to click to agree to sign on that you are 18.
As for being on the "east coast". We already evolved from our witch trials over 300 years ago... I won't bother to explain it to you, do your homework on it.
Wow! You sure got through all those stories fast.
Hey Ken,
I know that the newsroom's offices must be in turmoil and people are uptight by the reponces of people from all over the country and 95% of newspaper reviewers. You've had this blow up in your faces. That os whjat I was hoping after seeing what you did last night. You're scraping the bottom of the barrel when you believe felons in prison who said nothing about Mr. West for 25 years and then start accusing him. When their settlement money for the last case runs out and the opportunity to get another appears in the news. Yup, that accusations also helps your newspaper's little "sting" It just shows how insulated you have been from criticism and I will also tell you one other thing...you should worry about your jobs there at S-R. I'm sending alot of copy to the owner.
Just thought I would mention that the video from this morning's news meeting can be seen here.
Also, the West coverage can be seen here.
The S-R seems overly defensive here for a paper that maintains full confidence in its performance. Having read the coverage and transcripts it seems all Frontline did was poke at the sore spots of the paper's performance. The biggest is the flimsy and dubious evidence used to portray West as a pedophile.
Then, you gave the impression that exposing him as gay gave added credence to the allegations. I thought that went out with the anti-gay legislation of the '80s, ironically enough.
It didn't help your cause that, oddly, the "consultant" comes across as the groomer, and that wasn't as clear from the 60-minute report as it is from the transcripts.
This whole East Coast thing is petty. That was a national broadcast, you know. That national spotlight didn't seem to bother Mr. Smith when he was basking in the glow of the initial coverage.
As far as the headline discussion, that was a "gotcha."
It comes down to two major issues for the S-R and those are tactics and substance. You fell short on both.
I grew up in Spokane and am a longtime Spokesman-Review reader. I live in Seattle now, but have followed the paper's Jim West reporting closely.
While I question the ethics of using deception to obtain the story, it appears the newspaper worked hard to be fair. It's a tough issue, and the degree of openness the S-R has displayed about the reporting of the story should be applauded.
For me, what it comes down to is mayoral misconduct, not his sexual orientation. The newspaper has a responsibility to tell the community about how the mayor is using his office. The evidence of misconduct is compelling.
I would have felt quite sympathetic to Mayor West, had the circumstances been different and this was just about his sexuality.
If the S-R outed an ethical, law-abiding man, the newspaper would be out of bounds. In Mayor West's case, the paper’s reporting was necessary and it had a duty to share its information with the community.
Holy fireballs! Around this place it's either feast or famine!
First, the unverifiable e-mail address probably was caused by a number of extraneous events that have been taking place for several days. Don't sweat the little stuff.
Second, Jim West was removed from office NOT because he was gay, but because he broke the city ordinances regarding personal use of city resources. The State Supreme Court upheld that ruling, and that's good enough for me.
Third, don't complain about our messenger, Editor Steve Smith. Were it not for him and his belief in the open news room, none of us would be able to discuss this in this forum.
It struck me, watching last night -- and let me point out that I am an "East Coaster" who is also an experienced journalist and read many of the Spokesman Review stories online as they were being published as the news broke -- that the underlying problem with the way the newspaper went after Mr. West was that it was not journalistically proper. They dangled a tailor-made young gay man in front of Mr. West, who led him on with affirmative responses to Mr. West's overtures.
This strikes me as awfully similar to the tactics used by divorce attorneys who hire sexy young women to flirt with unhappy middleaged husbands, eventually to entrap them with pictures and "prove" allegations of infidelity.
Mr. West was obviously a conflicted man about his sexual identity who turned to the Internet to explore his desires in cyberspace; was it such a surprise that given the opportunity with a willing young man (who was of legal age before he made a "move") that he went farther than he might have in a more organic setting?
The paper "tempted" Mr. West, he succumbed to the temptation, but that doesn't mean it would've happened anyway. Was it appropriate behavior for a public official? Certainly not. Would it have happened if the paper hadn't dangled this young man in front of him as bait? That's debateable.
I suspect there are many people -- elected or otherwise -- who would respond to temptation against their better judgment when it is presented to them in an open way, whether it is a lure of sex, or money, or drugs, or material possessions. That's a lapse in judgment, to be sure, but not necessarily a damnable offense.
It should not be the role of a newspaper to tempt anyone into doing something wrong so it can be covered. That is a role for law enforcement, in a limited scope. It should be noted that what Mr. West did was not illegal, even if it is morally reprehensible, and in any court of law would likely be considered entrapment and not admissable.
He offered this man an internship ... how often do you think that internships in any business or government are not the result of connections, friendships or other means beyond sheer qualifications? If you think otherwise, you are dreaming. I'm not defending Mr. West's actions, but to think it was unique behavior by a sexually deviant predator is quite a stretch.
Watching Frontline did not make me particularly proud to be a journalist, and I doubt it did much to enhance the standing of journalists in many people's eyes.
The scene debating headlines, which happens to be very familiar to me, was very regrettable ... "West goes down" with a smirk ... just classless. It was pretty clear that Mr. Smith and his staff were proud of the work the paper had done in bringing this man's career to an end, and it showed. It seemed more vendetta than pursuit of journalistic excellence.
Unfortunately, I suspect that if Mr. West's appetites ran toward young women, the community's distaste would've been more tempered. One need look no further than President Clinton and Monica Lewinsky ... and Clinton was married. To a future Senator and potential presidential candidate, no less.
The other shadowy allegations of abuses and questionable behavior are just that ... shadowy. In this country, we are innocent until proven guilty, even in the media.
Was Mr. West a good mayor? I have no idea. Would he have been his own downfall had the paper not intervened and tempted him? We'll never know. But who among is perfect and not prone to temptation?
A rival newspaper chain has the slogan "Give light and the people will find their way." I think in this instance, the Spokesman Review gave Mr. West a push and then covered him as he fell. That's not how it oughta be in my book.
Vic,
Point of fact: the paper didn't find Gay.com and hire the consultant out of the blue. They received a tip from a young gay man that Jim West had approached him sexually online. I'm sure someone on the newspaper's staff can fill in the details more thoroughly than myself, but this wasn't the entrapment you are arguing.
Also, Mayor West approached barely legal gay men offline as well, as the interview and article regarding the young man who was the son of a local alternative weekly publisher will attest as well.
The "Frontline" show was a total disgrace. They let West skate on everything and have NO understanding of what it means to be gay in tis culture. "Frontline" clings to the closet because it keeps gays "in their place."
Thanks for clearing up their lies and omissions.
Also, while Spokane is as homophobic as anywhere else, it isn't naturally MORE homophobic. The City Council appointed an openly gay Spokane man to fill a council seat that was open in the not too distant past. That councilman then VERY narrowly lost the election once the open term was up. So, I'm not sure the "I suspect that if Mr. West's appetites ran toward young women, the community's distaste would've been more tempered" comment holds water.
That may well be true, Greg, and I am aware of that ... but the "right" way to pursue that would be to attempt to get this tipster to go on the record about it. I'm not doubting that the mayor had contact with other gay men, young or otherwise, but using a "fake" gay man to get the confirmation and then ambushing the mayor in a newsroom conference room with tape recorders running, well ... that's crossing the ethical line, in my book.
Remember, there is nothing illegal about a middleaged gay man approaching young gay men ... "barely legal" is legal. But the tenor of those recordings, as aired by Frontline, were confrontational ... "come clean with us" is the phrase that comes to mind ... those are fear tactics you would typically come across in a criminal interrogation by law enforcement once you've been read your Miranda warnings, not a blind invitation to meet with two newspaper reporters who are ready to drop a bombshell and report on the reaction.
And, re: the community distaste comment, I'm not condeming Spokane as a community, I suspect the same would be true just about anywhere in the US. Middleaged men with trophy girlfriends is fairly commonplace, but middleaged men with younger boyfriends is regarded as abhorrent, particularly among conservative people, religious people, etc. You can't tell me that the added revelation the West was gay didn't add a huge sensational note to the story and coverage, intentionally or otherwise.
What kind of "tip" awas that Greg? Was it one of those "anonymous" tips that is mentioned in the "Timeline" article by the paper?
You don't "approach" gay men online. You "Private Message " them. They can be blocked or ignored. The paper accused West of "trolling for underage boys". Do your homework on chat sites so you don't sound like a fool. What the heck is a "barely legal gay man"? An "adult"?
And you can't tell me that after the initial shock of West's homosexuality, that a 53-year-old Mayor trolling online for high school and recently graduated girls wouldn't also provoke outcry. Parents would just be looking to protect their daughters rather than their sons.
I don't know, G. Rogers (that's why I asked staffers to intervene with more details).
And thanks for the lesson on chat rooms--quite necessary for that 18-35 demographic that I am a member of.
But I challenge you to sit in a room of 18 year olds (I don't want to know whether that is of interest to you or not.), and you tell me what percentage of them are really "adults." I don't care what the "state" considers them as--you'll find at least as many "kids" as you will "adults."
Certainly. 53-year-old men shouldn't be chatting with 18-year-old girls.
But then again, newspapers shouldn't be hiring middleaged men to pose as 17-year-old boys online, either. And that was what was troubling about the story, to me, as a journalist with 20 years of experience. And, as I recall, at the beginning of the story, the fact that Spokesman Review did just that was another big reason why it garnered national attention.
Look, Mr. West was misusing his office, that much seems clear. He was voted out, and the court upheld it.
What troubles me is the lengths the paper went to to try and reveal it. I just don't think that's appropriate for my profession, regardless of what he was doing. If he was that much of a dangerous predator, law enforcement should handle it.
What if he were not the mayor? What if the paper went after just a regular citizen who was in the closet and approaching "barely legal" people? Would that be abhorrent? Did the fact that it was the mayor make it okay for the paper to go outside the ethics of journalism to get him?
Even the reporter himself said ethically, he could not pose as a gay man to lure Mr. West ... but he had no problem hiring someone to do it. I fail to see the difference there.
Eighteen and above is the legal age of an adult.
If you don't like it change the law. That
Morlin writer said in the documentary that if all the contacts were with 18 year olds and above, "that there wouldn't have been a story".
As far as your little experiment, I could probably find the exact same percentage of "kid's" to "adults" if I sat in a room full of journalists.
Vic,
Isn't that what Nightline (or 20/20) does?
You mean Datelnine NBC.
And they don't go after a particular person.
And they don't initiate. An they don't apply for
an account as an 18 year old. And then "change their age in their bio to 17) after clicking on an agreement of terms that they are 18.
It's Dateline, actually, they run that sting on child predators on the Internet a few times a year. Makes for dramatic television. I don't agree with that, either, from a journalistic standpoint, although they have the police involved. It's pure sensationalism.
All I can say is I've worked for small newspapers, mid-sized newspapers and huge metro papers that would dwarf the Spokesman Review, and I can't imagine any of them crossing that line. I wouldn't cross it myself ... the fact that Steve did is certainly cause for debate, I'm sure he is morally sure he made the right decision.
However, it's quittin' time here on the East Coast, so I'm signing off ...
I agree with EVERYTHING that is done on the Dateline NBC "To Catch A Predator".
There's no comparison to what the S-R did to Mayor West. What S-R did was dispicable.
Also that the gay community out there said it was OK to bash a gay man (for being gay) because he had certain conservative values is also breathtaking.
There are lots of us out here. Some in the closet and some out like me.
Frontline producer Rachel Dretzin
appeared Wednesday on the Washington Post's discussion blog to talk about this story: http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/content/discussion/2006/11/10/DI2006111001046.html
She did not respond to my particular complaints, but I pointed out to her I found many holes in her story.
1. Frontline didn't say West died shortly after the recall. I live in Washington, D.C., and was trying to figure out the aftermath of this scandal, so found it annoying Frontline didn't mention this basic fact. It made me look further to find out what else they didn't cover.
2. Frontline didn't give due treatment to West's leadership role in GOP gay-bashing politics in Olympia. It looks to me as if he made his political career on this issue, but West said in the show that anti-gay legislation he sponsored never went anywhere. Yet there was a proposal to offer sex offenders castration in return for lenient sentences that I see did pass the Senate with West's help. This clearly explains why the gay community didn't embrace West as a poster child for closeted politicians. I think Frontline went into this story expecting to write about the tragedy of a politician whose private life was exposed. But once into the story, it became a sordid affair like that other gay basher, Rep. Mark Foley, who also has not been embraced by the general gay community after his exposure _ for the same reasons as West.
3. I think any fair reflection on this whole affair concludes the newspaper did its job. The stories aren't written the way I would write them, but they pointed out the hypocrisies, the problems involving misuse of the mayor's office, and West's peculiar defiant stand. If you think about it a little, you realize you would have been disappointed if the Spokesman-Review found out all of this information, then sat on the story for fear of controversy, and didn't tell the voters. Politicians are responsible to voters, and part of the job is exposure of their hypocrisies.
4. This is unprovable by me, but I have a suspicion that the Spokesman-Review knows of other gay community members in the area, but have not had occasion to write about this because their private lives have not trespassed on publicly-funded activities.
4. People fretting about newspapers exposing the private affairs of individuals aren't familiar with libel laws. Which brings up another hole Frontline didn't fill, but should have. I would have liked to know more about the behind-the-scenes decision to publish, and the views of a libel lawyer on what politicians can and cannot do. Was the story reviewed by a lawyer before it was published? I bet it was. Someone was needed to point out what was at stake for this newspaper if the courts found they were flat wrong on this story.
5. Something seems to have happened to West -- from happily married, (according to his wife) to disgruntled. Frontline didn't go much into his private life and religious background that might have explained this, and the wife didn't say on the show.
6. What's the proper role for a newspaper? Is it to be the watchdog of the community, or a lapdog for the political leaders? I favor watchdog. As I said I may have written or edited the stories differently, but from what I see, the newspaper filled its proper watchdog role in the community here, and should be backed up for doing this, not heaped with criticism.
No wonder why your questions weren't chosen to appear in the WP online session this morning.
Anyone who feels that "sex offender castration"
legislation is an anti-gay stance has a screw loose!
Many in the liberal activist gay community have a twisted notion that "all gays should think the way
I do". There are many out gay conservative (Democrats, Independents, and Republicans) in the country.
And "out" gay conservatives LOVE the closet.
I don't care to defend Jim West. Nor did the program make him out to be a hero.
Accusations of pedophilia are easy to get outraged about. But if the newspaper had enough proof to run a story about Jim West, why did they bother to do the online scam?
The dangerous thing that the S-R did was to conflate alleged pedophilia and homosexuality. Because West chatted up an 18 year old, that does not equate pedophilia. Our culture makes a fetish of teen sexuality, the Dallas Cowboy cheerleaders are 18 years old, it is considered normal to pant over them, and if West was a single man who had a 18 year old girlfriend, people might not approve, but no one would consider it a crime.
I agree that his behavior was at the least inappropriate and I understand why the voters of Spokane recalled him. But the issue here is entrapment and what the boundaries of private and public.
I so agree with most of the posts here. I too am a former journalist and editor. Check out this story the Spokesman just ran in September...it really put things in perspective. this was the same team that outed West
http://spokesmanreview.com/blogs/hbo/archive.asp?postID=10591#comments
Let's give West credit for being a tough, savvy politician - not just "poor tortured unfortunate" Jim West.
Here are a few more comments on Frontline's website that did not make the final cut:
Many politicians get ahead by using honey, and Jim West always used vinegar. He was very dogged in pursuit of his goals and didn't seem to mind offending if he thought that was necessary or ruffling feathers. He wasn't much of a hand-holder.
David Ammons
Political writer, Associated Press. He covered West in the state Legislature.
West called him and left a message ... that said something like, "McCabe, you better hope you get me, because if not, you're a dead man." ... And so McCabe called the police. ... The police investigated, and essentially after the thing got kicked around through jurisdictions a little bit, West had a plea agreement and was on probation.
David Postman
Political writer, The Seattle Times.
Now that you know that there's two parts to Jim West, how much of his public part is 100 percent calculated? He came back and ran for mayor [the first time], and he still had the vestiges of being this jerk of a politician, and the next time he came back to run for mayor [he was] Mr. Nice Guy, Mr. Charm. He knew how to do the charm. ... He was fighting cancer, didn't want anybody to forget about that. ... And at the time I was like, "Well, he really has genuinely changed." But then of course after all this you're kind of like, "Wait a minute. What a chameleon this guy is. What's real?" I don't know what's real about him.
Ted McGregor
Editor and publisher, The Pacific Northwest Inlander, Spokane's alternative weekly newspaper. It
"He wasn't much of a hand-holder."
I wouldn't go there if I were you!
As I said on this blog long ago...
IMNSHO, West is guilty of being an anti-gay bigot, right wing wacko, long time power abuser, sick in the head closeted homosexual, first class hypocrite, destructively selfish and stubborn as a mule "God card" playing meglomaniac who likes having sex with barely legal boys.
Run that up the flagpole and see who salutes it.
Posted by green libertarian | 6 Jul 8:34 PM
I saw the PBS special and was just stunned at the hypocrisy of your newsroom. The reporter on the story told Frontline that newsroom ethics policy prohibited him from impersonating someone else in pursuit of a story. So how did the staff deal with that? They got around it, found a loophole by hiring an outside consultant who was not bound by that policy.
So then hiring outsiders is OK to get around ethical constaints?
Tell that to Patricia Dunn, the former chairwoman of HP, who hired an outside contractor to spy on board members. No one, least of all the media, has cut her any slack.
The Frontline program was well-done, but did not pursue this severe ethical lapse at all.
... the independent city investigation that concluded West had violated state law and city workplace policies. They failed to report that he used city computer equipment to download pornography, a firing offense in any company, and that he sought sexual partners via the Internet while traveling on city business.
This is the reason why I voted to recall him - improper workplace behavior and misuse of public property.
Hey Morlin, how do you feel about being thrown under the bus by the boss. Smith said:
" Further, the producers used a sound bite of Morlin suggesting it was wrong for him to deceive the mayor but OK to hire someone to do it on our behalf. This was one area where Morlin and I strongly disagreed (we still disagree).'
Having worked as a reporter and newspaper for more than 25 years, I watch the show with special interest. I know how these shows work and I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But my worst suspicions were confirmed when the three of you started joking about the headline. "West Goes Down." FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DIDN'T YOU SEE THE CAMERA." Most major papers would fire all of you just for that.
I'm still livid and forgot to proof. Let me fix, please:
Hey Morlin, how do you feel about being thrown under the bus by the boss. Smith said:
" Further, the producers used a sound bite of Morlin suggesting it was wrong for him to deceive the mayor but OK to hire someone to do it on our behalf. This was one area where Morlin and I strongly disagreed (we still disagree).'
Having worked as a reporter and newspaper editor for more than 25 years, I watched the show with special interest. I know how these shows work and I was trying to give you the benefit of the doubt. But my worst suspicions were confirmed when the three of you started joking about the headline. "West Goes Down." FOR THE LOVE OF GOD, DIDN'T YOU SEE THE CAMERA?" Most major papers would fire all of you just for that.
The SR alleges that West had been a pedophile since his early days as a police officer yet cannot bring any but a single accusation forward to associate West with this heinous crime. Wests accuser originally accused only police officer Hahn. Well officer West was no less of a threat then than officer Hahn so why wouldn't this person have made the accusation then? Now, 25 years later this sole West accuser is on a money expedition. The SR looked very hard to find other West pedophilia (which is actual sexual contact) victims among the thousands of kids who West worker with and found none. Further none have come forward once the West story became public. Mr. Smith how could you accuse Mr. West of this crime on such flimsy, unproven and questionable evidence?
I'm curious what the paper's editors thought when they listened to West being confronted for the first time at the S-R office.
No wonder you're reconsidering your transparent newsroom policy. Holy cow! Is this how most reporters talk to people when they have damaging information? I think this may be why so many viewers are calling you "self-righteous, arrogant, etc." The attitude in that reporter's voice was way, way, over the top. It was like the Spanish Inquisition: "Confess! Confess!"
Until that point in the Frontline piece, I didn't really have strong feelings one way or another. After listening to that, however, I think you guys have truly earned the lowly reputation that the rest of the country seems to have bestowed on your paper.
I think the problem here is that Frontline attempted to tell the West story through the frame of sexuality. That may have been a big deal for the late-night talk shows, but in reality, it was a peripheral issue to the larger story of credible accusations of sexual abuse, grooming of teenagers for sex, and offering of city positions as part of that grooming process. But Frontline, in their opening sequence, made it look like we were going after West because he was gay. I was expecting Nigel Jaquiss, and I got Jay Leno.
It's next to impossible to tell the story through this frame without painting a sympathetic portrait of West. Either they didn't know, or didn't show, that West was a brilliant and shrewd politician, and everything he said or did, no matter how calculated, was portrayed as sincere.
West's talking points were repeated as fact throughout the program. The "189 stories about Jim West" was his line, but in reality, most of those stories were not about Jim West but the ensuing legal actions and recall effort. The "FBI cleared me of wrongdoing" was another. In fact, the FBI cleared West only of a specific federal corruption charge, and their report was clear that other violations may have occurred (this point is made clear on Frontline's Web site, but not in the program). That finding is echoed by the city's own report that found West violated city and state laws. Did Frontline ask Steve Tucker why he hadn't pursued charges?
I have another question for the people who want us to hang our heads in shame for this story (I assume you've had plenty of time by now to read all of the stories you're criticizing). If you had a son or daughter who was a senior in high school, and you discovered that the 54-year-old mayor of your city was trying to have sex with them, would you be OK with that? Would you want your local newspaper to help the mayor keep that behavior a secret?
If they did tell the story, and it was found that there were credible accusations of sexual abuse in that persons past, would you want that information suppressed until it was proven beyond the shadow of a doubt?
How about it?
KP.. Your fictional scenario presumes that the SR had solid evidence that West was a pedophile and dutifully reported it. The SR did not have that. In fact the SR found more reasons not to report it than to report it. Hundreds of men who say "no West did nothing to me as a child or ever" versus one man whos does so decades after the supposed fact and only after learning that the SR was reaching for that accusation and that money was to be made. The SR couldn't just have West be gay he had to also be a pedophile so that tissuey nexus was 100% bought and you're still trying to sell it...pitiful.
Go the the Frontline website and read thier line item interview with Dannyboy. Dannyboy was the SRs original West informant and the glaring discrepancy between his account, the stories written and even Mr. Smiths reply above are astounding.
Dannyboy was the link to gay.com, not the earlier accusations of abuse.
You didn't answer the question, though. A 54-year-old city official is pursuing your teenage son or daughter for sex. Do you or do you not want us to publish a story?
Actually Ken my question was posed 1st and it's not been addressed either. As to your question, anyone pursuing anyone else strictly for sex, regardless of age or occupation is repugnant to me. Are you suggesting that the SR is in the business of being the "investigative sex newspaper" for Spokane and is willing to use the unsubstantiated, uncorroborated accusation of one individual to assassinate in print another?
Paulman said: "West's talking points were repeated as fact throughout the program. The "189 stories about Jim West" was his line, but in reality, most of those stories were not about Jim West but the ensuing legal actions and recall effort."
Wait a minute, didn't Smith correct the Frontline reporter and say "it was closer to 200?" He was obviously very proud.
And I agree the tape of the first confrontation with West was despicable. How did you manage to get so many homophobes in one newsroom?
Well, Dave, to answer your question - neither Smith nor the newspaper accused West of sexual abuse. We reported credible accusations made by others.
Now, how about answering my question?
And we need to get "former editor" together with the people accusing us of advancing the "gay agenda" so they can all go bowling or something. One more time - sexuality wasn't the primary issue here. If West had been pursuing young girls, we would still run the story, and Morlin would still have been pressing him to "come clean."
It's interesting how sexuality clouds people's judgment of whether it's OK to pursue a relationship with a teenager when you're in a position of prominence and authority. Is that sort of thing OK if you're gay? Isn't dismissing that activity as no one's business somehow implying that gay people are incapable of upholding the same moral standards as straight people? Who's the homophobe, again?
Hey Ken, I'm not the one who suggested "West Goes Down" as the headline - in front of a crew doing a national TV documentary. I don't want to imagine what would have been suggested if he was black. In this politically correct world, people have been fired for far less. Do you have any gay reporters or editors. What did they think of your jokes?
Former Editor,
If you can tell me what "West Goes Down" means, other than he lost the recall election, I'm all ears.
Please tell me who has been fired for less. And tell me what exactly they said.
This is rehashing old ground, but I was there when the now-infamous headline discussion was shot. We were brainstorming a headline after a long day, and it's by no means the first time anyone's used dark humor or levity to get through that process. Maybe we should have instead offered up a toast to the city of Spokane, but hey, we're not as camera-savvy as some people.
The double-entendre was quite intentional in "West goes down," but what I don't understand is how this can be interpreted as homophobic. "Going down" is an action that is not exclusive to male homosexual sex. That's as far into that particular lesson as I'm going to get.
And for the record, there were about a dozen or so editors, copy editors, reporters, web people, etc., that were present at that moment and engaging in the headline process. Some of them are gay. And that's as far as I'm going to go down that particular road.
There's no way you can make a compelling argument that our news coverage was homophobic without holding gay people to a lower moral or ethical standard. And that, friends, is homophobia by definition.
Come on, Greg, now you're getting ridiculous. Would you have understood if Paulman suggested, "West Blows Election?" And I spent nearly 25 years in big city newsrooms. I know the banter. I participated. But you don't embarrass your newspaper on national TV. It wasn't "Comedy Central," for God's sake. It was "Frontline."
OK, admittedly, I KNOW what "going down" means, but like Ken said, I had never attributed the second meaning to homosexual sex. But I would like to know how it's a fireable offense.
"West Blows Election"--also not fireable.
And actually, if Paulman would have suggested it, I would have laughed.
I think Ken and I have established where the boundary is (as far as I am concerned), and that wouldn't cross it.
By the way, I'm not saying the newsroom staff came across as looking good in that portion of the Frontline piece. Hell, they'd admit that.
But if you're going to give Frontline access, you give Frontline access. Obviously, Frontline chose to include that cut in order to make the S-R look as bad as possible, knowing the vast majority of its viewers wouldn't get the pithy nuances of the newsroom. Mission accomplished.
But as you admit, that stuff goes on all the time within the culture of the newsroom, so it's the public airing of it that makes it fireable? Puhleaze...
Because it as stupid, Greg, like the unbelievable badgering of West during the interview and hiring the Internet consultant to get around the ethics guidelines. Read the comments on this site. You're right up there with Jason Blair and Janet Cooke. The only difference is that the NY Times and Washington Post admitted it.
But you don't embarrass your newspaper on national TV.
That's the thing - we didn't do any posturing for the cameras, which were in the newsroom for many, many hours. What you saw was an honest representation of what it's like in the newsroom. We let our guard down because we had a difficult job to do, and I think it would be irresponsible for us to let the camera crews interfere with the creative process.
Frontline chose to burn us with that particular bit of footage, and that's their right. Maybe that's what we get for opening up the newsroom. But, to borrow from Frank Sennett a bit, I'd be curious to know if Frontline would be willing to offer up similar access to their editing bays.
I'm not sure who the "You're" is that you're referring to. I don't work for the Spokesman-Review.
KP "....we reported credible accusations made by others." Again my question is how could the solo West pedophile accuser be considered "credible" enough to quote in light of all the exculpatory reports and absolutely no proof? This is the question Ken.
Oh, and if you really think the SR did not play up Wests sexuality then I've got some swamp land in Florida you've got to see. The picture that accompanies the 1st story was of Wests pedohile accuser (you remember the only person accusing West of being a pedophile out of the entire world). The SR stories were so drenched in homosexaul reporting that people were writing in begging you to stop becasue thier kids were becoming too curious. The SR made Dannyboy 18 when Dannyboy told you he was 20 and showed you proof of his age. Dannyboy said that he and West did not have sex but the SR reported that they had "consensual sex". Had the SR only reported about West offering unpaid, temporary internships to personal friends he'd never would have been recalled. The SR drilled homosexual into every twist and turn and nook and cranny of this story.
Ken, your question about an old man pursuing a son or daughter goes directly to one of the things that makes me most uncomfortable about the West reporting.
Of course I wouldn't want that to happen to a kid of mine. And if a city official were the one doing it I would be grateful to the newspaper that reported it.
However, the only thing close to such a pursuit you established was through your "consultant." Yes, I've read those conversations but I think there's a legitimate argument over who is actually doing the pursuing.
Eventually, West fell for this fake teen. But there are complexities attached to that involving age, legality and intent.
To put your question in proper context, you should ask "Would you want the newspaper to report on a 50-something city official trying to have sex with a middle-aged man posing as an 18-year-old high school student."
Sure, many people would still say yes. But at least they'd be answering the right question.
As far as the headline discussion, I think you just need to take your lumps and let that one go.
Bud,
You missed, then, the article related to the son of the publisher of the alternative newsweekly who was approached "offline" by West, when he was, I believe, 18.
I'm sure it's still in the archives.
As far as the headline discussion, I think you just need to take your lumps and let that one go.
No question about that - but people are asking how on earth it could have happened, and I'm explaining how on earth it happened.
Contrast that with the clip they used of West. Does anyone really believe he would have raised his glass to the fine citizens of Spokane at that moment had there not been a camera present? Speaking of swamp land for sale.
At that moment, we were being honest. West was putting on a performance. Frontline didn't seem willing or able to differentiate the difference. That's my primary issue with their production. I don't mind the newspaper being held under the microscope. We've been through it before. But West was not held to the same scrutiny. The "being closeted in Spokane" storyline needed a victim, and West made a good fit. Those of us here in Spokane who lived through the scandal (and followed the whole thing) know better.
I don't attribute this to any malicious intent by the Frontline producers. It's just that in trying to reconcile the two frames they were working with, they ended up oversimplifying the issue. That's great for people who like things simple and spelled out in black and white, but this is a story that is colored by multiple shades of gray that require more explanation than a 60-minute (closer to 50, actually) TV documentary can fully provide.
Ken: After 25 years in the news business and two in politics, I became a higly paid flack for a while. (Now I write movies about reporters, politicians and flacks.) At first, I couldn't believe clients would pay $500 an hour for my advice regarding the media. Then after working with them a while, I understood. I'm not sure who decided to let these people in your newsroom. It was insane. The number one rule for my clients was: THE MEDIA IS NOT YOUR FRIEND. You guys should have known that. BTW, this story would make a great movie, if "Law an Order" doesn't "rip it from the headlines" first.
Greg: Sorry I mistook you for a defensive journalist. You do, however, sound like one.
I'm a former journalist but not a defensive one. I'm just local to Spokane and know more about the larger picture than someone who's seen the episode of Frontline and read some of the articles in the Spokesman's archives.
Greg: Want to collaberate on a script? Add a couple of car chases, and it would make a great movie.
Yeah, I'm going to need some upfront money.
I only do this for free.
Greg: Nobody does anything in this town for free. Whether it is was accurate or not, that hour of television was incredibly compelling. And it's all in the public domain.
I have no idea what town you're in.
Feel free to click on my name, which will take you to an address where you can send my briefcase full of money.
In the interim, I think I'm going to convert the transcript of the West interview into a macabre reader's theatre.
Bravo, Steve. The Spokesman-Review is a credit to newspapering. This investigation was solid. Jim West deserved to be outed. The people deserved to know.
As for Frontline turning your investigation into a docudrama restrained by predetermined story lines, what else would you expect, from television? Television isn't doing anything for journalism, or America. I turned mine off a long time ago.
Keep up the good work. As part of your Internet audience, I'll look forward to your next investigation.
BRENT
So I have to go back and read all your stories on West before I can have an opinion? Nice try.
The things that you can actually nail West on are as follows:
1. Being a closeted self-hating gay man.
2. Using city-owned computers to access sex-oriented sites. (I'm sure no one in the newsroom has *ever* done that.)
3. Giving someone a non-paying job.
You stay classy, Spokane!
glad to see that many have written thoughtful criticicisms of the conduct of the spokesman review.
yes, west was a hypocrite,
but the crew at spokesman review were scumbags.
are you still scumbags?
All I can say is cheers to the Spokesman-Review for having the courage to do the right thing. The newspaper did its job -- reporting on the actions, not just the words, of the top local politician. It's hard to believe the venom in some of these posts. Perhaps they'd be happier living in a place where the content of the newspaper was controlled by the government. Sure sounds like it. Again, cheers for having the courage of your convictions.
Below, the e-mail I transmitted to Mr. Morlin yesterday.
Mr. Morlin,
I am a progressive liberal Easterner absolutely appalled by the kind of
witch-hunt journalism practiced by you and your editor, Mr. Smith, in
the tragic and tormented story of Republican Mayor Jim West. The
recording of your ruthless Torquemada style interrogation of Mr. West
regarding his personal life featured in the Frontline documentary was
chilling and revolting.
How ironic that in outing Mr. West you set yourselves-up for the outing
you suffer in the Frontline expose; an outright cruel and unprofessional
news organization with an agenda of its own.
Even if Mr Smith tries to justify his zealous campaign against Mr West by pointing out the inaccuracies of the Frontline report, he surely cannot deny that his initial reasoning for starting the witchhunt was tenuous at best: A closeted gay conservative was friendly with a pedophile therefore the closeted gay conservative must be a pedophile!
I wish it were that easy to analyse human nature, Mr Smith.
So I have to go back and read all your stories on West before I can have an opinion?
Oh, you're free to have an opinion about something you've never read. Just don't expect anyone to take it seriously.
There's been a steady stream of people over the last few days swooping onto our blog and preaching to us about how awful we should feel for what happened to Jim West. And they all seem to have three things in common:
1) They don't live in Spokane.
2) They have no idea what a brilliant political tactician Jim West was (something that was also completely lost on the Frontline producers) or what he put this community through.
3) They haven't bothered to actually read the journalism before criticizing it.
So there you go. You're free to use this forum to post live, anonymous comments telling us how terrible we are (I'm sure the Frontline site is just as open - right?). We're all still sleeping just fine out here in backwards ol' Spokane, despite what you may have seen on the tee-vee.
gee ken,
all these outsiders are keeping you busy i guess.......
1. outsiders should mind their own business and turn a blind eye and deaf ear to a shakespearean narrative about bloodthirsty filthmongers?
2.yah, mr west was probably duplicitous and hypocritical, and i'm sure you're still quite annoyed that he was not trapped by your sleazy sting atempt.
3, you know what? with the major points of the story set out, i don't want to read all that hate garbage
ultimately your paper's story angle was super homophobic.
and back to 1-hey guy, your paper is sent out into the world, so the world is gonna write you back if they are disturbed enough by this
"shakespearean tragedy".
seems lots of folk are.
Reporter Jim Morlin said that for ethical reasons, he could not attempt to bait West in gay.com chat rooms — so they hired an unnamed “consultant.” The way that Morlin used the “consultant” to wash his hands of the act of gay baiting made me shudder. It’s like someone saying, “It’s immoral to kill someone, so I hired a hit man to pull the trigger.” Of course, that’s not true; it makes the the employer the murderer as well as the hit man.
Gay baiting is ugly, bigoted, insensitive, and stupid; and it’s one thing that the Spokane Spokesman-Review is now known for. Employing a “consultant” was a useless fig leaf to try to cover a reprehensible act.
The newspaper’s gay baiting posture was made all the more obvious by the scene where Editor Steven Smith and his colleagues were deciding what headline to use for announcing the successful recall of West. They knew the camera was running, so they were certainly aware they had to keep straight faces for posterity. But even so, they couldn’t resist letting slip comments about “West Goes Down” and other homophobic joking that referenced West’s sexuality.
You guys are smug, sanctimonious jerks. You're the kind of people who give journalism a bad name.
Ken Paulman, if you say one more time, "the people of Spokane" as if they spoke with one voice, and that one voice in total agreement with the Spokesman-Review's coverage, I'm going to vomit. There were a LOT of people in Spokane who thought your coverage of West was over the top - including my 84 year-old mother, who is one of the finest arbiters of ethical behavior on this planet. (And yes, she read every single word of every single one of the SR articles).
The SR was extremely LUCKY that Frontline did not deeply explore its complex relationship with Jim West. Otherwise, the entire country would also have known that the paper endorsed West even as it already had information about his sexual orientation and at least one report of sex with someone quite young, if not underage. The SR did not ask West a SINGLE question about his orientation during the mayoral campaign, while he was in a position to help the owners of the paper get out of a very sticky legal/financial situation. Also untold was the fact that West's opponent in the race vowed to fight the kind of easy settlement the Cowles ultimately received.
As I wrote in the very midst of your coverage in a letter the SR Review published, "the stench of hypocrisy over the city of Spokane is so intense it could gag a maggot". That hypocrisy included the Christian right, the newspaper, some of the columnists, and of course the mayor himself.
Just how many of the columnists were ordered to write columns about West "jazzing up" the pedophile-preying-on-teenagers angle? I counted Clark, Neely, Nappi, Smith, and three others before I lost count.
No, in spite of the self-righteous "crusaders for the people" defense the SR is trying out here, this story was not its proudest moment. The story, such as it was, had NOTHING whatsover to do with West's supposed preying on the young - because that story remained unproved, and yet was constantly drilled into our heads with daily articles and opinions. The LEGITIMATE story which deserved to be told, was during the mayoral campaign, when West could have been questioned about his sexual orientation and his response could have been compared to his anti-gay record while in the Senate. Everything you published afterward is tainted by your own endorsement, an endorsement which was calculated to improve the bottom line of the owners of the paper.
I too am from this area and read the on-going furor raised by the SR about West. This is why it's more disugsting to learn the depth of deception and out right lies behind those headlines. Few here realize that Frontline answers all of Mr. Smiths counter points on their website (Frontline/PBS). The program was not as Smith described done on a limited docudrama type format. These people have proof for everything they discussed and back up every position they stated. One key example is that the SR does not have any documentation that West ever offered an internship to Motobrock. All the Motobrock dialogues with West were documented except for the 2 minutes when West was supposed to have made that offer. That 2 minutes is missing/lost/erased/gone and that accusation was made on complete hearsay. Smith now says he doesn't know why it's missing and Morlin has an even lamer excuse. But they had the audacity to print those big, bold headlines without a shred of proof.
What's worse is that the SR continues to be pruod of their work and dismisses those whom are not. What that means is that the only lesson they've learned is to not get caught the next time. You'll never see an open door allowed into an SR story again but you can well expect more trashy tales and political manipulation by this newspaper.
Greg and Dave - forgive me if it sounded like I was speaking for everyone in the community. It's no secret that there was a lot of debate and disagreement about the story, but those debates also played out over a year ago. Thirty-five percent of voters in Spokane wanted to retain Jim West in office. I never meant to imply that the community is in lockstep, just that the community has a much higher level of familiarity with the intricacies and details of this story.
My frustration is with people who have established an ironclad opinion about our journalism solely from the viewing of a TV documentary. A recent commenter called us "smug and sanctimonious jerks," but didn't even get Bill Morlin's name right. Are we really supposed to take these comments seriously?
Before criticizing the Frontline piece, I actually watched the whole thing. Beginning, middle, and end. Then I read the interviews and other supporting materials on their Web site. I keep asking our newly-minted critics how much of our coverage they've actually read, and many of them insist they don't need to read any of it before forming an opinion. All I'm asking is for people to do is engage in a little bit of research and critical thinking before climbing up onto the soapbox.
And contrary to Dave's posting, Frontline has not addressed all of Steve's concerns. Many of the issues in dispute are matters of interpretation, but two things are clear:
1) There is a legitimate question as to whether we incorrectly reported Dannyboy's age. In the interview posted on Frontline's site, he says he was 20 at the time of his encounter with West, our story says he was 18. Dannyboy says he never contacted the paper to let us know of the discrepancy, so this is the first anyone's hearing of it. Steve Smith has told me that they're checking into it. I assume that a correction/clarification will be published soon if we were wrong.
2) Frontline has acknowledged that the text at the end that stated the FBI cleared West of all charges of abuse of office (something which appears to have sealed the deal for so many people in their condemnation of us) is an oversimplification. In fact, the FBI only cleared West of a specific federal corruption statute and acknowledged in their own statement that other wrongdoing may have occurred (this is clarified on their Website, but not on the broadcast). The city's own report concluded that West violated state and city laws, but the decision to press charges lies solely with the county prosecutor's office.
Aside from this, there isn't much new under the sun. For example, Greg, the endorsement question has been addressed over and over and over again. I'll summarize one more time - at the time of the endorsement, there wasn't enough known about West's "hidden life" to warrant interference with the endorsement process. Yes, there were rumors that he was gay, but that alone doesn't warrant a news story nor does it warrant quashing an endorsement. Steve Smith was the only member of the editorial board aware of the investigation, and he recused himself from the process. Had you been paying as close of attention to the coverage as your 84-year-old mother was, you would have known this.
And here's another thing that bugs me. Do you guys remember how long it took for Jim West to answer questions from the media after the initial article came out?
"Finally, I hope that you and the people will reserve judgment on me until the newspaper is done persecuting me and allow me to have the fair opportunity to respond to each of the allegations in due time," (West) said. (link)
In other words, he was strategizing. Twenty-one days later, he re-emerged. Not in an appearance with the local media, but in a softball interview with Matt Lauer on the "Today" show. Finally, on June 3, almost a month later, he's ready to answer questions. Did anyone from Frontline ask why that took so long?
The classic political playbook in cases such as these calls for three steps: 1) Deny, deny, deny; 2) Find Jesus; and 3) blame the media.
West's strategy was a bit different. He admitted to the things for which there was ironclad, indisputable proof, and denied everything else (this tactic first emerged in a short statement the day after the story ran). Then he found Jesus and blamed the media. I remember commenting to Carla Savalli what a brilliant strategy this was. It gave him credibility, and made him out to be the victim (and in order for there to be a victim, there must be a persecutor, i.e. us).
That was West's playbook, and it's also the version of the story that Frontline ran with. As a longtime fan and devoted viewer of the program that, to me, was the most disappointing thing about all of this.
Dave,
West admitted in the interview with Bill and Karen that he offered Motobrock an internship. I'd call that proof. It's on tape.
To begin with, I have lived in the Spokane area for over 30 years so I am not an outsider and I read most of the articles as they appeared in the S-R, although after the first 5-6 it all seemed like a regurgitation of the initial information. I will also admit to not being that fond of the S-R to begin with, but it appeared to me that from the beginning, the S-R was slapping itself on the back for a job well done, and I know that many in the community did not feel this way. Jamie Tobias-Neely can have her "mom" test but to me what the paper did never passed the "smell" test. I also wasn't a big fan of Jim West and I cannot defend some of the things he was accused of, but the accusations of abuse 30 years ago is something you will never convince me, one way or the other.
Here's something else to consider: The S-R seems to have a personal vendetta against the police department and continually prints articles concerning the credibility of the SPD. I cannot be the only one in the community that believes the paper has lost credibility. I don't believe a quarter of what I read in the paper. Does this not concern you? Again, I'm a local and the Frontline show didn't really change my perception of the S-R. I am just tickled that it exposed them to more people.
And Ken, one final item. In one of your last posts you state:
I'll summarize one more time - at the time of the endorsement, there wasn't enough known about West's "hidden life" to warrant interference with the endorsement process. Yes, there were rumors that he was gay, but that alone doesn't warrant a news story nor does it warrant quashing an endorsement.
Did y'all forget this when your crack team of Morlin and Dorn-Steele were doing their innuendo-filled expose of Jack Lynch in Highbridge Park? I'll say it again, your credibility is going down the tubes. Or should I say "S-R Goes Down"?
Ken, I'm well aware of what the paper has said about the endorsement process, what was known about Jim West at the time, etc. I'm simply not convinced. A denial by the SR has no more credibility to me than a denial by Jim West, and you act as though it should. Where are your internal memos, etc, proving that everyone involved in the endorsement knew nothing whatsoever about people contacting the newspaper with information about Jim West's sexual orientation and potentially questionable behavior? Without that kind of evidence, it's simply your statement hanging out there in the breeze.
Greg, West acknowledged that he did offer that internship but WHO brought it up in the 1st place? Motobrock also asked West if "he wanted some company" on his golfing trip and the SR reported that West invited him along. West did not initiate the offer to meet but did go along with it which is again contrary to the SR's contention. So did West do the same with the internship? We'll never know and no I'll not accept say so based on the clear fact that the SR has misrepresented so much about this story.
That's fine Dave, but it's hard to debate someone who refuses to acknowledge when they are wrong when confronted with actual evidence.
One key example is that the SR does not have any documentation that West ever offered an internship to Motobrock.
You were wrong, and rather than admit that, you change your outrage to correspond with the new "facts." Why not simply read the transcript of the interview and see whether West argues that he didn't bring up the internship? Because then you'd have to alter your point of contention again?
Greg, Please do excuse my writing. Should have stated originally that the SR has no proof that West originally initiated the offer of an internship to Motobrock. Izzat better 4 U?
Forgive my tardiness, but I TIVO'ed the program and just got around to watching it.
Now, I followed this story closely back in '05 when it first broke. I also corresponded with Steve Smith at the time. And speaking as someone who holds a journalism degree and spent more than a decade as a reporter, nothing in this Frontline program has changed my mind.
I still believe that the S-R's tactics were reprehensible. Responsible journalists do not set up the targets of their investigations, nor do they hire others to do it for them. And when Morlin said he could not ethically pose as someone else, but had no problem hiring someone else to do that, it really convinced me that the S-R had a vendetta against West.
In the end I think the S-R's tactics should be used in journalism classrooms all over the country on what NOT to do if you consider yourself a reputable, fair journalist.
The S-R in general, and Smith in particular, should be ashamed of what they have done.
Rick - How, then, would you recommend that news organizations seek to identify people using pseudonyms online?
« Back to News is a Conversation | Comments on this post are now closed.
Steve Smith has been editor of The Spokesman- Review since July 2002. Before coming to Spokane, he served as editor of The Statesman-Journal in Salem, Ore., and The Gazette in Colorado Springs, Colo. Smith is married to Alexa Conway Smith, an independent computer consultant and has two children by a previous marriage, Sam and Alissa.