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.