As expected, The Inlander has a piece today about the RPS review.

I have no particular beef with the piece which is presented as an editorial by Ted McGregor, The Inlander's publisher. I could nit pick a few details, but overall, there is no factual inaccuracy and Ted is certainly entitled to his editorial opinions.

But what continues to puzzle me is the tendency of other journalists in our community to weigh in on our newsroom's journalism without talking to me or other SR journalists. McGregor never called me about the piece in today's paper.

While more than pleased to hold us accountable for every big and little misstep, too many local journalists ignore one of the most basic rules of journalism...check it out, talk to the sources.

Bill Stimson, who has been a harsh critic and who has on several occasions accused me of dragging my feet on the RPS audit, has talked to me only once about RPS, and that was a get-acquainted lunch in my first few months here. He's never called before penning one of his Inlander screeds. And he teaches journalism.

The Camas journalists are notorious for reporting on us without ever speaking to us, although, commendably, Larry Shook, as followers of News is a Conversation know, did interview me for his most recent work. But it was the first conversation I've had with him in four-plus years at The Spokesman.

We're taking some important steps here to work on our credibility. There is no other paper in the United States that has opened its doors (and windows, and phone lines, etc.) to citizens in the way we have in the last two years. I don't expect such transparency from The Inlander or others in the local media community. It takes a lot of work and, frankly, professional and personal fortitude to persist in such openness.

But I do think it's appropriate to expect the practice of basic, ethical and professional journalism when it involves coverage of The Spokesman-Review.

Our critics certainly expect it of us.

Thus endeth the rant.

My op-ed, a slightly different version of the posting that launched this site, runs in the Tuesday paper. I'm expecting it will provoke some reaction from those interested, perhaps even our critics.

I've been told The Inlander plans a story for this week's edition. It will be interesting to see if they bother to talk to me about the review or base their report on second-, third- or fourth-hand accounts.

Meanwhile, I have taken some heat on the choice of the Washington News Council. I received a call last week from an offical representing a regional professional organization upset that our agreement with the council lends it credibility at a time when other news organizations (the Seattle PI at the moment) are essentially boycotting the council's more typical hearings process.

My response, to inside critics and outsiders, is this: There were no perfect alternatives because no one has really done this sort of review before. The council has its issues, to be sure. But the review process is consistent with its purpose and goals and the key players have impeccable credentials. Furthermore, their independence from us and from the council is indisputable.

I have let reviewers know that this forum has been set up and have offered to give them posting ability. But they may choose to pass on the opportunity in the interest of maintaining arm's length as the review unfolds. I can certainly appreciate that possibility. I'll post the response.

steve

With this posting, I’m adding to the Transparent Newsroom a section dealing with the independent review of The Spokesman-Review's River Park Square coverage from 1994 to 2005.

I promised such a review shortly after coming to Spokane in 2002, delaying its launch until the numerous RPS-related court cases were resolved and then delaying it again while the Jim West investigation played itself out.

But late last month, Managing Editor Gary Graham and I signed an agreement with the independent Washington News Council that will have the council oversee the review. The full agreement can be found online here.

The News Council review will not address the propriety of the public/private partnership that built the mall garage, will not address questions of legality, of promises made or broken, of political skirmishes that escalated into all-out legal wars that drained energies and budgets.

The review will look solely at The Spokesman-Review’s news coverage and editorial page handling of the controversy. Were we accurate? Thorough? Aggressive? Fair? Was our coverage consistent with professional ethical standards? And if we failed to do our jobs, how did that happen and how can we prevent such lapses in the future?

It is likely that answers to these questions are of interest now to few people, the journalists in our newsroom, our owners and the long-time critics of our coverage. Perhaps it is true, as I’ve been told often of late, that nobody else cares anymore.

But that is not the point. The Spokesman-Review has been notably aggressive in recent years challenging institutions in our community to confront problems, controversies, cover-ups and failures of the past. How can we not apply that same expectation to ourselves? Are we exempt from the discomfort we often – justifiably, I think – inflict on the local police, on politicians, church, education and business leaders?

The content review will give our journalists an opportunity, for the first time ever, to explain their work to independent analysts, explanations that can clear up confusion, dispel myths and reveal previously undiscovered problems.

Furthermore, the reviewers will produce suggested guidelines for the ethical reporting of future controversies involving our owners, whose diverse business interests inevitably generate news. Those guidelines should shield both parties from future accusations of unethical journalism.

In this section of the Transparent Newsroom, I’ll post periodic updates on the review. While they’re not obligated to do so, I will ask the reviewers to occasionally let our readers know how the review is proceeding. And there will be a place, beginning with this posting, where readers can comment on the review, raise issues they believe the auditors ought to address and, eventually, comment on the outcome.

In addition, readers can e-mail comments to editorforum@spokesmanreview.com.

If you are among those still interested in the issues covered by the review, I hope you’ll take part in the conversation.