Arrow-right Camera
The Spokesman-Review Newspaper
Spokane, Washington  Est. May 19, 1883

Vestal: Spokane sidewalk philanthropist’s tale lesson in reporting

Did some local reporters bite too hard on a heartwarming do-gooder story last week, when telling the tale of an anonymous man handing out cash in Spokane?

Or did they bite too hard after the fact – by revealing the donor’s identity and criminal history?

Last week, KXLY reported the strange tale of Edward Jarzabek, a man who has come to Spokane handing out cash to people he believes are homeless. Jarzabek has made anonymous videos of himself doing this and has made grandiose claims: A goal of giving $60,000 to homeless people in Spokane who, he says, are ill-served by the city’s charities.

Where’d he get the money?

“I don’t think,” Jarzabek’s attorney, Robert Simeone, says, “it’s a legitimate question to ask him.”

Well, some people did ask him that illegitimate question. Here’s what Jarzabek told the Inlander, back when both that paper and KXLY were identifying him only as John Doe: “I’m just a normal person. I had a pretty good upbringing. I had some early successes. I made some money. I have rich friends. I have plenty for myself.”

KXLY aired an “exclusive” about the cash giveaway on Nov. 17. They agreed to Jarzabek’s request for anonymity. A reporter rode around with him while he handed out twenties outside the Carlyle Hotel. The reporter, Aaron Luna, did a legitimate piece, raising questions about the benefits of simply handing out cash versus giving through more traditional charitable routes. This is a vivid issue here in Spokane – the downtown business community has made it a priority to push against panhandling, urging people to give to organized charities instead.

This is what’s best for the panhandlers themselves, the folks behind this campaign insist. Forgive me if I doubt this is the motive. Myself, when business owners unite to tell me not to hand a panhandler a quarter, I usually want to hand them a dollar. I’d want a drink if I was out there, too.

So Luna explored that question, quoting panhandling opponents and allowing John Doe to respond, somewhat inanely, that charities don’t really help people and that he was addressing a problem that no one else in this town was. Luna also made a point of declining to provide contact information for a hidden-cash game that Jarzabek was organizing on Twitter, saying “John, it looks like you’re on your own on this one.”

The station had, to a degree, legitimized the enterprise by covering it. After the story ran, Executive Producer Melissa Luck did a little background work on Jarzabek and discovered a field full of red flags. Convictions in Idaho for fraud and theft – dozens of cases, she reported. Prosecutors in Idaho said he’d written more than $100,000 in bad checks as part of a check-kiting scheme. He had been imprisoned twice, with his most recent release in July. He remains on probation, under supervision in Washington state. He still owes $10,000 to Idaho courts, and has declared bankruptcy.

Would this be of legitimate public interest? Even if every single bit of the latest venture was above board – for which one would have to take Jarzabek’s word – wouldn’t all this be a legitimate part of the story?

Two nights after the first story aired, the station reported his background in another “exclusive” that Luck opened by saying, “If it seems too good to be true, it probably is. It appears that may be the case here.”

The station interviewed Jarzabek, and he acknowledged his criminal record. “I got out 90 days ago,” he said. He said he wanted to do something generous for people in need. “The cash is coming from myself, family, friends – anonymous people,” he said.

Despite her implication that this might be too good to be true, Luck also emphasized that station has no evidence there was anything illegal in the cash handouts. She said, on air, that the station felt the community needed to know his background, especially given that Jarzabek had indicated he might start trying to gather donations.

The station took a drubbing online from people accusing it of Scrooge-ishness. They were demonizing a “good person,” one reader wrote. “Shame on you!” wrote another.

Enter the attorney. Simeone sent the station a letter saying it had broken its “contract” with Jarzabek – the agreement not to identify him. It said the station had decided to “assail” Jarzabek. Simeone said the station had portrayed him as a man “who has stolen and will steal money.” He says that “private donors” donated the money and other goods to hand out, and that the effort will continue.

His letter makes no threat or asks for any specific relief. Simeone said he wanted to express his and Jarzabek’s frustration and disappointment with the story.

“It bothered him and it bothered me,” he said. “I think it was underhanded. It was a slap in the face for a guy” who was simply doing something extraordinarily generous.

Those claims do not line up with my viewing of the stories. Simeone is right that someone might infer the possibility that there’s something hinky going on. But that inference arises from the plain facts that Jarzabek admitted himself. Should the station have kept those a secret? Would that have been a legitimate course?

Of course not. It might have been a mistake to hide the man’s identity in the first place. It would have been a bigger one to leave it at that.

Shawn Vestal can be reached at (509) 459-5431 or shawnv@spokesman.com. Follow him on Twitter at @vestal13.