Question: A policeman was recently involved in a fatal shooting; names wouldn’t be released for 72 hours. Bystander Pom Collins abruptly snapped a few post-incident pictures which appeared in the Spokesman, with the sergeant’s face easily identifiable.

Whatever the circumstances, there was absolutely nothing to be served by publishing photos of the “unidentified” sergeant with blood dripping down his chin.

Please explain your reasoning in publishing this photo. How much money might Pom Collins have received for photos taken when most human beings would have common sense and decency and quell the ambulance-chasing response? – Debbie Gray

Answer: I understand your dismay over our decision to run the photo. But I hope you’ll understand my reasons for disagreeing with your point of view.

A newspaper is the first draft of a community’s history. A police officer’s use of deadly force – the most extreme sanction our society allows – is certainly part of that history and is, furthermore, a significant breaking news story. By policy, we identify officers involved in such cases as quickly as possible, regardless of department policy on confidentiality.

The photo of Sgt. Torok was made available by a local citizen who happened on the scene. It was provided to us at no cost and our decision to use it was made easily. It depicted Sgt. Torok in the minutes after the shooting. It showed he had been in a fight, lending some immediate credence to the inappropriately vague depiction of events provided by investigators. We believed, and still believe, the photo provided insight into events. Had we had Sgt. Torok’s name at the time, we would have included it in the story and the photo cutline.

We believe strongly that the public has an unquestioned right to know the names of law enforcement officers who exercise this ultimate sanction. Interestingly, almost always, release of an officer’s name generates additional pertinent information from the public or forces authorities to release information citizens will consider significant.

– Steve Smith, editor

Question: The many op-ed columns by Richard Davis, of the Association of Washington Business, have become a conversation piece in my workplace. It smells fishy that he should be accorded such dispensation, when local columnists so often get rejected in these pages. Is his work not a breach of the S-R’s own column guidelines, which declare partiality for “local or regional topics that syndicated writers don’t tackle”?

A decade ago this paper favored civic journalism, enlisting writers from community ranks. What’s changed? And why?

– Paul Lindholdt

Answer: Richard Davis is a self-syndicated columnist who presents a conservative, business-oriented point of view once a week. He focuses mostly on regional issues, meaning Washington state and the Pacific Northwest.

We added his weekly commentary for several reasons: He writes well. He is informed about current issues in Washington state politics. He provides an ideological balance we felt was needed. To repeat, however, Davis is a syndicated columnist, not a guest contributor.

We’re as committed as ever to making space for community voices. We published at least eight guest commentaries on our op-ed page during February (not to mention a volume of letters that continues to exceed industry standards). We are eager to have contributions from our readers, but naturally we expect them to adhere to our guidelines, and we have to make editorial judgments about the best package of commentary to print in limited space. – Doug Floyd, editorial page editor