Current weather:  35° F   mostly cloudy

sponsored by:

Editor explains report

May 5, 2007

In this collection of links, Spokesman-Review readers will find an independent report on this newspaper's coverage of the River Park Square controversy prepared by the Washington News Council.

It is critical that readers understand the audit's focus and scope.

This is not an investigation into the appropriateness of the River Park Square development or the public-private partnership that was its foundation. It's not about the actions of developers or the motives of politicians. It's not about the checkered record of other journalists who reported on the controversy. It's not about KHQ-TV or the Journal of Business, also owned by the Cowles Co.

The News Council report focuses solely on Spokesman-Review journalism, from 1994 to 2005, and on the decisions made by newsroom editors: Was our coverage fair, accurate, thorough and balanced? Did we exercise the independence expected of community newspaper editors?

I know there are some, even in our newsroom, who believe the RPS controversy is old history now, that the community has moved on and that this report can only open old wounds and produce unnecessary acrimony. Furthermore, it undoubtedly will come under fire from and give ammunition to the newspaper's harshest critics, some of whom already are lining up to cry "whitewash." This audit was not commissioned to satisfy those for whom there never will be satisfaction.

The report certainly has value for the general community, answering some important questions. I also believe it has value to our newsroom, to the many reporters who labored ceaselessly for years with diligence and integrity to cover a difficult story. Maybe most importantly, it has value for the guidance it offers for coverage of future such controversies.

The review's publication fulfills a promise I made to readers when I came to The Spokesman-Review in 2002. I said then that as soon as the court cases were resolved, we would authorize an independent audit to determine the validity of accusations that the newspaper had failed to adequately cover the RPS controversy. I initially approached the News Council in early 2006. It has taken more than a year to move from proposal to completion, much longer than I ever anticipated but maybe not so surprising given the complexity of the RPS story.

More information on the council, details of the agreement between the paper and that organization, a timeline and summary of methodology can be found here and at and the News Council's website.

Once commissioned, the audit was out of this newspaper's hands. We were given the chance to review the document and suggest corrections to factual mistakes. Some minor corrections were made. But the council always retained complete and absolute control over the report. Questions about council methodology, scope of the inquiry, decisions on what to review and what to drop should be directed to that organization.

The council's findings are troubling, and in my view, they illuminate as nothing else has done why some in our community questioned our RPS coverage and why that story so wounded our credibility. In an accompanying column on these pages, Publisher Stacey Cowles says he rejects the report's findings of interference, direct or indirect. I can appreciate his viewpoint, though we come at the situation from different perspectives. Furthermore, I appreciate the freedom he extends me to draw differing conclusions. So,in the newsroom, we accept the findings. And we sincerely apologize for not adequately living up to our journalistic standards.

I want to take a week to review the report's final recommendations with our staff, and especially the team working on an updated newsroom code of ethics. I will respond to each recommendation in an op-ed column in next Sunday's newspaper.

For now, let me make these points:

Our failure to produce complete, accurate and balanced coverage – particularly of the financial structure of the RPS deal and the Coopers & Lybrand Report -- was a disservice to our readers who depend on the newspaper for the information they need to exercise their citizenship.

Furthermore, our failure also was a disservice to our owners, the Cowles family, River Park Square's developers.

Publisher W. Stacey Cowles and Cowles Co. Chairman and lead RPS developer Betsy Cowles would have benefited in innumerable ways from a newsroom that exercised its independence with every RPS story published over an 11-year period.

Our apology to the citizens of Spokane speaks for itself. A community newspaper owes its readers the best journalism it can deliver.

Our apology to the Cowles family requires some elaboration.

In the report, Betsy Cowles notes that in all of her actions throughout the RPS controversy, she was acting as the developer. Of course she was. I would expect nothing less. That is her fiduciary responsibility to the company she leads and to its stockholders (yes, even privately held companies have stockholders).

The report concludes indirect influence from Betsy and Stacey Cowles may have inappropriately affected coverage decisions in the newsroom. I understand the extent of that influence will remain at issue even after the council report. The document cites instances of what auditors consider indirect influence, but there are no smoking guns proving direct intervention in any RPS story by Stacey or Betsy. And they continue to assert they left RPS coverage decisions in the hands of newsroom editors. I believe the report essentially confirms influence, to the extent it existed, was indirect.

But it's important to keep in mind that in the world of journalism ethics, perception is as important as reality. As the report notes, some newsroom practices, such as the discontinued "no surprises" rule, created a perception of interference even where none was intended.

What should not be at issue is this: Whenever there are attempts to influence coverage, direct or indirect, it is up to newsroom editors to make independent decisions. Editors resist pressure from any number of directions every day. We resist pressure from politicians, from business people, from developers. We listen politely to their requests. "Can I read your story before publication?" "Can you hold off on this story until the formal announcement?" "Don't quote me on that."

And, mostly, we say "no" whenever that pressure threatens our independence or integrity.

Editors have the ability, more importantly they have the responsibility to make independent decisions and the exercise of that responsibility is most important when the interests of the newspaper's owners are involved.

At the height of the RPS debate, this paper's editors could have made different decisions. Had we done so, citizens would have been better informed. And the Cowles family might have faced less criticism that they were using their media interests to further their personal agenda.

The issue of newsroom independence begins and ends in the newsroom and with its editors. If there is one take-away from the council report, that is it.

Tell me what you think. You can e-mail me at editorforum@spokesman.com or call me at (509) 459-5423. We also have established an RPS audit blog, which is part of our Transparent Newsroom initiative. I will do my best to respond to everyone.

back to top