Why should coverage cost activist a job?

I think it’s only right that if Julie Banks lost her job following a story in the Spokesman, today’s column can be used to help her find another. It’s an unhappy story for her, and the closer one looks at her experience, the more troubling it gets.

On July 21 the paper described the “Pants on Fire” mobile, a modified car carrying a 12-foot figure of President Bush. At the push of a button, “smoke” comes from the statue’s pants, proclaiming that the president is a liar and his pants are on fire.

Reporter Jim Camden quoted Banks, noting that she had volunteered to drive the vehicle, the creation of Ben Cohen – the co-founder of Ben & Jerry’s Ice Cream – during its Spokane stay. Camden accurately described Banks as “a coordinator for the Race for Women,” a program of the Inland Women’s Health Network that raises funds in the fight against women’s cancers.

Here’s where Banks’ problem began. The organization started getting angry messages from supporters, furious at the link between Banks’ volunteer political activities and Race for Women. The board asked Banks to resign, and the paper ran a letter from two Race for Women representatives disassociating her from the organization.

Banks says when Camden interviewed her, she mentioned her connection with Race for Women. But, sensitive to potential fallout, she asked Camden if that fact needed to be included. Camden remembers a brief conversation on this point, but doesn’t recall her explicitly asking him not to include that information. However, she clearly recalls saying that did not need to go into the piece. Camden said if he thought this was a major concern to her, he could have found a way to write around it. “I’m not out to get anybody fired,” he says.

But that is in fact what happened. Was Camden in some way at fault? Was Banks unduly naïve? Let’s begin with their initial conversation. Should Camden have been more sensitive to Banks’ desire to leave out information on her work? Or should she have been more explicit, urging him not to mention this fact? In retrospect, I’m sure Camden would have left that out (he agrees it wasn’t a crucial detail), or she would have been more insistent. But was either of them at fault? No. In asking Banks about her work, Camden did what every reporter does: seek some information about a source to help readers relate to that person. That’s why news stories typically mention a person’s age or job, for example. Camden could have said that she worked for a non-profit health organization. (In the interest of full disclosure, I should note that Camden teaches on occasion for my employer, Whitworth College.)

There’s an important difference between inaccurate, misleading, or incomplete reporting that hurts someone, and reporting which doesn’t adequately anticipate what a community’s response might be – in this case, a strongly negative reaction from certain individuals. The story was accurate and timely. When Camden learned of the fallout for Banks, he told her the paper could run a clarification, stating that her political views had nothing to do with her organization. But a clarification became redundant after the Race for Women’s board met and Banks had to quit her job.

In retrospect, it would also have been better if Banks had not mentioned who she worked for or argued more forcefully that her job not be mentioned. But even to suggest that is adding insult to her injury. Why should this even have been an issue? The answer lies outside the normal reach of this column, which deals with the paper and its readers. And that answer is the polarization and increasing irrationality that marks Spokane’s political climate this year. How else do you explain the reactions of people who threaten to stop supporting a worthy non-profit organization because they don’t like the politics of someone associated with it? Or what of the actions of a board that is so skittish about such pressure that they oust one of their staff? Or what of the subsequent vandalizing of the “Pants on Fire” mobile, as Camden reported in a later story? (The car has visited numerous cities around the nation, and the vandalism in Spokane was a first.)

Given the depth of feelings surrounding this presidential race, much more vitriol will flow before election day – in Spokane and throughout the nation. A question for the Spokane community is, how well will we as individuals have shaped that debate? In five years time, will we be able to look back without embarrassment or shame (or in extreme cases, without fear of criminal prosecution) on how we made our partisan points this election season? Right now, at least some people in Spokane are pulling us towards incivility rather than civil disagreement, towards intimidation and silence rather than respectful and open disagreement.

The real issue isn’t whether Julie Banks was wronged or Jim Camden should have done better. It is how much Spokane is being wronged by those who are poisoning the political climate, and how much better as a community we need to do. Maybe someone out there with some hiring authority who is big enough to look beyond partisan politics can help redress that wrong if Julie Banks’ resume appears in his or her in-box.

“ I had planned to follow up today on an issue raised in last month’s column. It concerned editor Steve Smith’s response to a reader who was surprised when her e-mailed comments about 7, the Friday entertainment section, appeared in print. However, today’s topic is particularly timely and I will return to the other subject next month.