On a strictly P-R level, I'm not sure that the publisher's statement helps the credibility image of the paper. If there was the possibility of being in his ear, I would have recommended against the statement as written (while acknowleging his right to make it). As written, it certainly supports his being out of touch with the ethical issues at hand.

Though, Steve, I also found it unwise for you to use the term "checkered" in response to the outside reporters who investigated the RPS deal. It seems a bit out of place given the lambasting of the S-R's own reporters/editors/publishers by the WNC. It comes across as sour grapes.

I am not surprised that you use "Man Walks on Moon" size headlines for your 100 plus Jim West articles and you choose to "bury" this story inside, in a microscopic font size, on Bloomsday. You are right; perception is reality in this case.

So the new editor of a newspaper commissions a report to flesh out perceived shortcomings of a former editor? Classy.

To Jeff's point...

I will have been editor here for five years in July. Does that make me "new." Maybe.

Also, I think a carewful reading of the audit will show that there is plenty of criticism to go around and that I take my shots, too.

I'm not happy about that. I wish it were otehrwise. But if we're going to conduct this exercise, we have to deal with the past as well as the present.

For what it's worth.

steve

Good morning, Steve...

Two points briefly, as I have still yet to finish reading the entire report in-depth.

After five years in the hot seat as Editor, it hardly makes you "new". You have taken the SR into new and dynamic directions, and have opened up the news room to the public. New? I hardly think so.

As for dealing with the past, I am hopeful that I will read some attempt to deal with the future, to make certain we NEVER repeat the kinds of mistakes that were made during RPS's beginning. I am both optimistic and hopeful we have already begun that migration.

You're right. There is enough blame to go around. Let us all learn from it and then move on.

This report needs to be viewed against the backdrop of the S-R's own values statement:

"The Spokesman-Review values statement

"The following values form the framework for the myriad news decisions made daily by Spokesman-Review journalists. Our goal is to live up to these value every day and we ask readers to hold us accountable.

"• We reflect the life of our community every day in all of its wholeness and complexity.

"• We tell people what we know when we know it, without fear or favor.

"• We watchdog government and other public life institutions.

"• We are committed to the free marketplace of ideas.

"• We believe the public’s business ought to be conducted in public – always.

"• We give voice to the voiceless and defend the defenseless.

"• We recognize the positive lives led by our community's young people every day.

"• We empower citizens so that they can exercise their citizenship.

"• We will do good … not just good work."

We, the readers, are now holding you accountable. The S-R's coverage of RPS (and, indeed, much of its coverage of the Jim West set-up) runs quite contrary to the values statement above. I am too skeptical of the impartiality and professionalism of the directors of the S-R to expect direct action, but, in a world where accountability truly existed, I would expect to see Mr. Smith fired for the paper's actions. As the person at the helm of this journalistic ship, steering this most public of enterprises, it is he who should bear the brunt of responsibility for this failure of the S-R's self-professed standards.

I was recently teaching my kids about yellow journalism and how rich, powerful media barons propelled the US into the Spanish-American War. Those dark days are apparently not behind us. In the fight between the Cowles family and the City (which spilled over into the personal vendetta against Jim West), the Spokesman-Review proved itself to be a tool of the rich dynasty that founded it. While the ultimate responsibility may lie with the Cowles family, the paper and its leadership allowed themselves to be subverted from truth and objectivity and used as a pawn in this fight; it is therefore only fitting that Mr. Smith be terminated and the board find someone with a better sense of journalistic ethics. Mr. Smith's continued presence only serves to turn that term into an oxymoron.

The publisher's response is hilarious. He is in total denial.

His family extorted $20M from the hard-working taxpayers, and he intimidated his personal newspaper into hiding the deatils of the deal.

And he thinks everything is okay.

People: Stop subscribing to the Spokesman Review. Start using Craigslist. The paper is unreliable and an affront to Spokane.

I'm new at this "Blog" thing but I'll give this another try...
During the RPS project I spent a lot of time, a lot of work and raised and spent a lot of money to try and get the hidden internal workings on this revealed to the public. Though I wasn't that successful personally, one action led to others and the projects true colors eventually came out, or at least most of them. some are still, simply not discussed or pursued. Some people invloved should be in jail.
But that's not the issue here. The issue is the behavior of the Spokesman as a journalistic news provider for the community and it's objectivity and research on this particular subject. On this the Washington News Council was specific and damning in it's report. Unfortunately, it's a report that's too late to have an effect on the project itself or any legal outcomes.
It's real and true value lies in the responses offered up by Editor Steve Smith and Publisher Stacy Cowles. In Steve Smith I see a man who looks to the past and his predecessor for what went wrong and how not to go down that path again. Steve was humble, compassionate and demonstrated a desire to improve the Spokesman in specific ways with a strong emphasize on integrity and service to the community. I respect and appreciate that.
On the other hand Stacy Cowles continues to show himself as a man not to be trusted. His "in your face" denial of any wrongdoing is great for family loyalty (his family) but a notice to all of Spokane that he'd do the same thing over again. Personally, I think he needs to stop living off the family business and go get a real job...but I doubt he'd be able to.
Regarding Chris Peck: this is a man who lives in denial. Chris was a company man from the 'git go" and used all the muscle he could to support his bosses. He's still in denial. He's also a man with no understanding of humility, integrity or honor.
My thanks to Steve Smith for his pursuit of this revealing introspection of the inner workings of the Spokesman-Review during a critical time. I look forward to a local newspaper that fullfills the vision Steve has.
David Bray