Duties to reader, subject must be balanced

D ear Mayor West:

During the past month, no reader has been more impacted by this paper than you.

As this paper’s ombudsman, my role is to look out for the readers’ interests and, if necessary, use this space to speak for readers who’ve been wronged in some way.

Any subject of a story is entitled to expect ethical news coverage, you no less than anyone else. That’s especially so in as significant a story as this because it has turned your life upside down. Given those consequences, as well as the reverberation this story is having in our community, you and every reader are entitled to ask, “Did this investigation and series of stories meet the standards of good journalism?” The short answer is an unequivocal “yes.” Here’s why.

Journalists facing decisions with moral implications, like all of us, need to examine competing loyalties. They owe a loyalty to their readers to report truthfully, accurately and as completely as space permits. They owe a loyalty to inform their community as a whole, readers and non-readers alike, of substantive developments. And they owe a loyalty to those – like you – on whom they report, especially when the coverage is as damaging as this was. In balancing these loyalties, the paper could have chosen to spare you and our community humiliation and embarrassment. Trumping that, however, was an overriding loyalty to give this community painful truths.

All of us are entitled firstly to the truth, and to have it presented accurately. You should have received the opportunity to present your side, and you did. And, like any other person written about in the paper, you’re entitled to be treated with dignity and humaneness – even in a story that you must find so devastating.

The paper did what good journalism demands. The coverage of the initial allegations reflected thorough research. As far as I know, nothing has surfaced to challenge the accuracy of any aspect of the initial and subsequent coverage. You have denied the allegations that you’ve molested young boys. The allegations by the two men in the initial story go back so far that it’s impossible for these claims to be proved or dismissed. Readers will simply have to evaluate these allegations in the light of the other, more recent details that point to a pattern of your behavior that you have conceded is accurate.

Even though they were only allegations, the stories of the two men described in the May 5 coverage were integral to the bigger piece, as was the information about the computer expert with whom you chatted on-line. On confirming the picture that this city’s mayor was using his office to connect with an initially 17-year-old man for sex, the paper was obliged to tell our community. No criticism that I’ve heard since overturns this basic fact.

One concern that has surfaced relates to timing. Was the paper holding off until the River Park Square issue was mostly settled? I think S-R editor Steve Smith’s column of May 8 satisfactorily explained how the story ran as soon as it was ready. Whether you accept his explanation, nothing changes the substance of the story.

A second theme concerned the issue of using the computer expert. Much media debate has explored whether this approach was entrapment and journalists nationally disagree on the acceptability of what the paper did. I think this reporting strategy was warranted. The Society of Professional Journalists’ code of ethics says, “Avoid undercover or other surreptitious methods of gathering information except when traditional open methods will not yield information vital to the public.” (See www.spj.org) I agree with the paper’s position that traditional methods were not available to confirm your on-line identity, but I admit that there’s room for discussion on this point. Here too, though, the accuracy of what the computer expert learned has not been challenged.

Some letters to the editor said that the coverage was politically motivated. Again, I’d say that the story speaks for itself. This isn’t something the paper fabricated. On the contrary, this is your story – one you’ve been living out for years. The difference is that the paper has now told it more widely. For those convinced that this story is part of some conspiracy, no matter how loudly this story spoke, skeptics would still be convinced it saw the light of day only because of sinister motives.

Other letters criticized the nature of the coverage, saying the story offered too much detail or was sleazy. If a paper is going to err in covering a story like this, it’s better that it do so on the side of thoroughness rather than superficiality. As for sleazy, many of us must have squirmed on reading some of the graphic details. Distasteful though they are, those details were integral to the story. Perhaps some could have been more muted, but on balance they were not out of place.

I’ve heard no convincing argument that suggests this story should not have run or that it should have been treated significantly differently. This is not a story that should gladden any hearts, however. Smith has rightly referred to this story as a tragedy for this community.

But ultimately this is your story. The accumulation of choices you have made over the years placed it on a trajectory for its eventual, probably inevitable, appearance before the public. Now it is in your power to write the next chapter.

Sincerely,

Gordon Jackson, Ombudsman