ABC news anchor Peter Jennings once said, “The one thing that a good journalist wants is to blend into the background. We should never be the story.”

According to several letters in The Spokesman-Review and one reader who called me, the background is exactly where Editor Steve Smith should have stayed several weeks ago instead of writing a column titled, “Civic response to West a model of timidity.” Smith said that, with a few exceptions, he was taken aback by the lack of outrage from the community’s leaders following the paper’s revelations about Mayor Jim West.

The person with whom I spoke, a thoughtful and articulate individual who’s played a significant leadership role in Spokane, was angry enough at Smith’s column that he thought that the publisher should consider firing the editor. He said Smith had crossed the line between fair journalism and waging a campaign. Smith, in Jennings’ words, was becoming the story. Letters responding to the column took a similar line. One writer asked, “Is Steven Smith a newspaper editor or a lynch mob coordinator?”

First, it’s important to remember the distinction between a paper’s news reporting and its editorial columns. The editorial pages, where Smith’s column appeared, are where writers have their say – in letters to the editor, in columns or in staff-written editorial comment. These are opinion pieces in which writers can say whatever they like. So, regardless of what you thought of Smith’s views on the leadership issue, this was precisely the place to air his opinions. Having his say there is not becoming “part of the story” told in the news reports.

Whatever his views are on Mayor West or the community’s response to the paper’s reporting on the mayor, however, they must not allow the paper’s reporting to be anything less than fair and accurate. Nor should the editorial stands the paper has taken, calling for Mayor West to resign, give the Spokesman’s reporters permission or encouragement to do anything less than the best journalism of which they’re capable. As readers, we should insist on nothing less than thoroughly professional reporting on all stories in the paper. Editorials should take a stand and call for action; news stories should not – and from what I can tell they haven’t.

Newspapers traditionally have a rigid divide between those working in news and those who write opinions. We see this most vividly, for example, when the paper endorses political candidates; not only do the news staff have no part in making these endorsements, but once they’ve been made, reporters are required and expected to report as even-handedly as before on all candidates and campaign issues.

But even if one accepts that this was the right place for the column, and that there’s a long-standing newsroom separation of opinion and news coverage, what of the column itself? The reader who spoke with me said he thought Smith misread where the community’s leadership is on this issue. He said that what Smith saw as a failure to rally around the Spokesman’s calls for West’s resignation is more a desire by community leaders to move ahead carefully and thoughtfully.

Whether Smith has accurately read the reality of the city’s leadership is open for discussion. Those business, civic, educational and other leaders who have a better feel of the city’s pulse than I are more qualified to comment on this point. But as a member of the community and a reader of the paper, I thought the ideas in Smith’s column needed to be aired. Numerous letters have argued that the evidence the paper has presented isn’t enough to convict West of anything; instead, they say, we should wait and see what the courts may find. But that’s not what I see as the basis for the paper’s editorial position that West should quit. Rather, I think the paper’s editorial stand is saying, “Quite apart from what the law may say, the issue is whether this person is fit to continue in this role.”

As the editor of the only daily newspaper in our city, Smith has an important leadership role in the community. It’s therefore fitting for him to voice his opinion on what is one of the most significant issues ever to face Spokane. How well he did so by writing this column, however, is another question. Following as it did the paper’s extensive coverage on the mayor, it was inevitable that this column came across as self-serving. To borrow from Hamlet, it seemed he was saying, “We’ve shown that something’s rotten in the state of Denmark; so why aren’t all you leaders helping to topple the King?”

Even if his message was on track (and some strongly disagree), how much more clout would the message have had if it had come from another community leader? The column would have been more credible if it were written by someone not associated with the paper. Someone else could have said the same things without having Smith’s vested interest in how this issue plays out. At the very least, Smith could have acknowledged that he and the paper had an interest in this discussion, that his remarks may seem self-serving. Simply recognizing these points would have deflected some of the criticism he’s received.

Even though this story is barely two months old, I suspect that many in our community feel we’ve seen and read enough – about the mayor and more recently about Morning Star Boys’ Ranch. Perhaps we’re starting to suffer from “scandal fatigue” and just wish everything would go away. It won’t, though, and strong community leadership will be crucial in moving through potentially difficult days ahead. Smith was right in calling for our leaders to play that role. I think he could have done so more effectively. But he did well to raise the even more important issue: Are our community leaders serving us as effectively as they should during this crisis?