S-R changes include RPS coverage review
T hese are busy times at The Spokesman-Review.
And I’m not talking about the relentless run of news that fills our pages daily and that too often shines a spotlight on those aspects of community life most of us wish would go away.
At the same time our reporters and editors are aggressively pursuing the news, we’re pursuing a variety of internal projects that could shape the future of journalism at this newspaper.
Among the initiatives:
“ A serious look at the future of newspapers that could lead to a revolutionary re-imagining of our newsroom and the content we produce. Senior Editor Carla Savalli is conducting the study and is blogging on the subject at www. spokesmanreview. com/blogs/ newsroom.
“Development of a new, independent, student-run, student reported and student edited monthly publication that will be distributed to 25,000 Spokane County high school students beginning in December.
“Development of a new quarterly publication devoted to extreme sports and appearing initially as a supplement to Friday’s 7 entertainment tab.
“Expansion of our neighborhood Voice publications to serve some of the area’s fastest-growing communities.
But the initiative that will generate the most controversy inside and outside the newsroom is actually a look back – an independent review of this newspaper’s performance in covering the River Park Square controversy from 1994 through 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 at www.spokesmanreview. com/blogs/conversation/ rpsagreement.asp.
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 longtime 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.
We’ll be adding a section on the RPS review to our Transparent Newsroom section online at www.spokesmanreview.com. Readers can leave comments, suggestions or criticism there or e-mail them to editorforum@spokesman.com.